N E X U S

the ACT Research & Scholarship Magazine

Issue focus:
Artificial Intelligence and
Theological Education:
Navigating the Future of
Faith and Learning

The NEXUS Bookshelf

New Books by ACT Staff & Faculty

Articles:
“What an AI knows and What We
Teach Students” - Graeme Dunkley

“Navigating AI in Academia:
Innovation with Ethical
Stewardship” - Kirk J. Franklin

“The Chatbot and You – Should we

Fear Artificial Intelligence?” - Di
Hockridge

“Artificial Intelligence and

Theological Education: Navigating
the Future of Faith and Learning” -
AI, Ian O’Harae, & Louise Gosbell

“From False Teachers to Sparring

Partners: Strengthening Student
Learning in Theology with Gen AI” -
Elizabeth ‘Buffy’ Greentree

“Why Generative AIs Make Awful

Theologians, but Perfect Sparring
Partners for Theological Students -
Practical Examples” - Elizabeth
‘Buffy’ Greentree

And the usuals

Upcoming events, Calls for
Papers, and ACT Conferrals.

NOVEMBER 2024
Image by Ruby Gosbell & DeepAI (www.deepai.org)
 November 2024
From the Editor
Artificial Intelligence and Theological
Education: Navigating the Future of Faith
and Learning
Welcome to the November issue of NEXUS, the Australian
College of Theology’s bi-annual research magazine. This issue is
focused on the nexus of AI and theological education. When I
put the call out for contributions for this issue, I wasn’t sure what
kind of responses, if any, might come in. But I was delighted by
the response! What we have is a rich collection of perspectives
that move us from the basics of understanding what AI is and
how it works, through its strengths and weaknesses, to ways we
can embrace AI in the classroom and in assessments.

Of course, no magazine issue on AI and theological education

would be complete without the contribution of AI. For this
reason, we have included an article comprised of responses from
AI about the future of AI in theological education!

As you read through the articles in the current issue, you might
like to consider the following questions: How do the
recommendations of the AIs compare with the human-generated
articles in the current issue? How well do the AI responses
genuinely reflect the current benefits and limitations of its
abilities with respect to theological education? What else do we
need to consider as we grapple with this new terrain?

I suspect this issue will be a challenging read. I have no doubt it

will leave you with many more questions as we reflect on this
rapidly-developing area. As such, I’d encourage you to find ways
to continue to discuss these ideas with your colleagues, in college
research seminars, at the ACT PD conference, and in other spaces.
There is, no doubt, much more to learn and discuss!
Louise Gosbell
Editor, NEXUS
ACT Research Manager
[email protected]
 NEXUS

The NEXUS Bookshelf

New books by ACT Consortium Faculty and beyond

ACT Consortium Staff & Faculty (Christ College) and Murray J. Smith
(Christ College), Lexham Academic, 2023.
Authored volumes
John V. Fesko, The Giver of Life: The Biblical
Murray Capill (RTC), The Elder-Led Doctrine of the Holy Spirit and Salvation,
Church: How an Eldership Team: Shepherds a series editors: John McClean (Christ
Healthy Flock, P&R Publishing, 2024. College) and Murray J. Smith (Christ
College), Lexham Academic, 2023.
Andrew Judd (Ridley), Modern Genre
Theory: An Introduction for Biblical Studies,
Zondervan Academic, 2024.
Have a new book coming out in the first
Andrew S. Malone (Ridley), To Walk and half of 2025 and want it included in
Please God: A Theology of 1 & 2 NEXUS? Let us know at
Thessalonians. New Testament Theology. [email protected].
Wheaton: Crossway, 2024.

Gary Millar (QTC), Both/And Ministry:

Living and Leading Like Jesus, The Good
Book Company, 2024.

Alan Mugridge (SMBC), Scribes, Motives,

and Manuscripts: Evaluating Trends in New
Testament Textual Criticism, Wipf & Stock,
2024.

Edited volumes

Edwina Murphy (ACT Office), Bart J.

Koet, and Esko Ryökäs (eds.), Deacons and
Diakonia in Late Antiquity: The Third
Century Onwards, Mohr Siebeck, 2024.

Christopher Seglenieks (BCSA) and

Christopher W. Skinner (eds.), The Johannine
Community in Contemporary Debate,
Lexington/Fortress, 2024.

Series Editors

Brandon D. Crowe, The Lord Jesus Christ:

The Biblical Doctrine of the Person and Work
of Christ, series editors: John McClean Chris Seglenieks (BCSA)

2
 NEXUS

Beyond the ACT Sarah Irving-Stonebraker, Priests of

History: Stewarding the Past in an Ahistoric
Paul Barnett, The Trials of Jesus: Evidence, Age, Zondervan Academic, 2024.
Conclusions, and Aftermath, Eerdmans, 2024.
Jacqueline Service, Triune Well Being: The
Scott Cowdell, Rejoice and Be Glad: Gospel Kenotic-Enrichment of the Eternal Trinity
Preaching for Christian Festivals, Coventry Fortress Academic Press, 2024.
Press, 2024.
James R. Unwin, Paul and Seneca Among
Stephen Driscoll, Made in Our Image: God, the Condemned The Use of Spectacle in the
Artificial Intelligence and You, Matthias Early Empire, Lexington/Fortress Academic,
Media, 2024. 2024.

3
 NEXUS

What an AI knows and

What We Teach Students
Graeme Dunkley (Lecturer in Missions, Morling College)
What ChatGPT really is – defining terms How LLMs ‘know’
This issue of Nexus is given over to the So although ChatGPT can count sources and
nexus of AI and theology. The purpose of citations to work out which ideas are more
this contribution is to consider what AI’s widely written about, it can’t tell the
can know, can’t yet know, and probably difference between the works of Augustine
won’t ever know. Along the way this is and a ‘niche’ theology like British Israelism.
applied to our role as theologians and It can only infer that one is more commonly
teachers. But let’s start by clarifying what an referred to than the other.
AI like ChatGPT really is.
ChatGPT can only ‘know’ what it’s told. All
‘AI’ is a term that covers a range of very LLMs are entirely limited by the dataset they
different technologies. One type of AI that were trained on. These training datasets
can learn to play a game like chess, or to might be very large, but they are finite and
drive a car, is often called ‘Narrow AI’ or a dated. They are also biased, since particular
‘Reactive Machine.’ Many of these can cultures and types of people have a much
operate as well as, or even better than, a bigger presence on the internet than others.
human with the narrow context of their
design. These machines only know what Application: If you want assessments that
they are told, and at the moment an AI can’t be done on AI, then insist that students
which can defeat a Grand Master at chess use current sources and include diverse
can’t beat a three-year-old human when it opinions. How many of our unit
comes to telling a dog from a tree. An bibliographies have been updated in the last
example of a Reactive Machine is Netflix’s decade? The AI probably includes all that
recommendation engine – it only knows legacy information in its dataset, but LLMs
what you tell it when you rate the different simply can’t know what was published after
things you’ve watched. their dataset closed. Majority world
Christian scholarship currently won’t feature
ChatGPT is a different type of AI, what’s highly on many LLMs.
called a generative AI. That is, it appears to
generate brand new content – text, essays, How LLMs can’t know
cover letters, or computer code. It does this They can’t know by being part of
by learning, or being trained on, large community. One theory of knowledge is
amounts of existing data. Because of the that what we know is socially constructed –
type and quantity of date, ChatGPT is called we know in a community. But ChatGPT
a Large Language Model or LLM. That is isn’t a part of any real community.
what it sounds like: ChatGPT uses a large
amount of language to build of model of Application: Our teaching and assessment
how language works. Although it’s called needs to continue including applying
‘generative ‘AI, it doesn’t really create any knowledge to a ministry setting. While many
truly new or unique knowledge, it simply of our ULOs include a section on ‘relating
rearranges what is already in its dataset into perspectives to contemporary Christians
what appears to be new forms. ChatGPT living and ministry contexts’, very few of our
tries to answer questions by using existing assessments cover that. As lecturers and
sources to learn the connections between moderators, we have not paid enough
words and ideas. attention to our own learning outcomes.

4
 NEXUS

They can’t know by direct experience. They information is now roughly equivalent to
don’t have any senses and can’t know asking them to make their own pens - a
anything other than what is in the training process done much more efficiently by a
dataset. They can’t know God or have any machine.
relationship with him, they can only know
second-hand what others have said about What LLMs don’t yet know
God. LLMs aren’t yet very good at citing their
sources. At the moment a good reason not to
Application: Again our ULOs allow for use LLMs is because they don’t give their
personal application to contemporary sources. That’s currently true, but AI’s now
Christian living, but how many of our in beta release are planned to be much better
assessments ask for that? At what points do at giving sources. This objection seems
we ask students to relate what we have likely to be temporary.
covered to their own life? An AI will never
be able to do that. LLMs aren’t yet very good at knowing
communities. An LLM can’t yet know your
What LLMs know students. Perhaps social media feeds could be
They know their dataset. If their dataset subject to sentiment analysis to produce a
includes works about theology, then the composite picture of your class, and then
LLM will know that better than you. that could be connected to an LLM to
deliver more focussed content, but we’re not
Application: If you are effectively there yet. LLMs simply have no idea of the
functioning as an LLM - analysing large cares and concerns of the people in front of
amounts of text, repackaging it, and then you.
delivering it to students - then you are
probably now obsolete. Sorry, you’ve got to Application: Know your students, and make
be more than a carbon-based text processing your teaching responsive to the students in
system. your class.

Application: If you are asking students simply LLMs don’t yet interact beyond the written
to process and package existing information, word. While some could potentially be voice
then many will simply outsource that to an activated, most of us don’t have working
AI. Asking students to process and package versions of that technology. We’re still heavily

Image by www.Freepik.com

5
 NEXUS

reliant on typing things on keyboards. knowing’; it can’t believe or doubt.

Application: Answering a live question in Lecturing

real time simply can’t be aided by an AI Be more than an LLM. Know your students
using current technology. If it can be done a and know their contexts, and apply your
keyboard, it can probably be done on AI, subject knowledge to that. Move beyond
but an LLM is no help at all in a live exam. knowledge transfer to engage curiosity,
doubt, and wisdom.
What LLMs will never know
LLMs will probably never know that they Assessing
don’t know. An LLM can’t ask a question. Ask students to be more than an LLM.
It’s been trained on particular dataset, but it Assess their application of their knowledge
can’t imagine or wonder about anything to their own life and to the life of their
beyond that. Current AIs based on LLMs community. Engage and provoke their sense
simply can’t be curious. of curiosity and wonder. Try a live exam.

Application: In what ways does your Want to learn more?

teaching or assessment engage imagination, Dr Ryan Young’s blog has been very helpful
curiosity or wonder? What if the end of in understanding AI, what it knows, and
your teaching session included an exercise how it knows. Ryan has a PhD in
along these lines…‘Based on the content of philosophy, is Director of the National
this session, what is one question that arises Security College Futures Hub at ANU, and
for you? What would you like to know?’ It is a member of Good Shepherd Anglican
seems unlikely students can fake an answer Church in Curtin, ACT.
to that via ChatGPT, because a LLM simply
can’t be curious. His blog can be found here:
https://humbleknowledge.substack.com/p/ka
LLMs will probably never be able to partly nt-hume-and-ai
know. LLMs don’t experience uncertainty.
While they can statistically analyse available Graeme Dunkley is Lecturer in Missions,
data to canvas a range of opinions, they have Morling College, Sydney
trouble dealing with ambiguity. They don’t
believe anything, nor do they doubt
anything. They can process information
better than we can, but they can’t provide
wisdom. An AI can know that Proverbs
26:4-5 contains two seemingly contradictory
proverbs, but it can’t know which one to
quote in this situation.

Application: What room in our teaching and

assessment is there for doubt or ambiguity?
What is the place of wisdom?

Conclusion
ChatGPT is a type of AI that process large
amounts of language to learn what common
associations between words are. It only
knows what people have written down and
fed into it. It doesn’t directly know people
or places or God. It’s not conscious of ‘not

6
 NEXUS

Navigating AI in Academia:
Innovation with Ethical Stewardship
Kirk J. Franklin (Adjunct Lecturer, Melbourne School of Theology)
Introduction comfortably, effectively, safely and
‘The fastest things on earth [are] people ethically’, to ‘learn AI’s capabilities and
becoming experts in AI!’ So a meme stated limitations’ and ‘understand when and how
on social media. Reports are out that people it can augment’ our work and when our
are using AI at an increasing rate. One ‘unique human expertise and creativity is
example found that 25% of people use invaluable.’[3]
generative AI for at least 60 minutes daily at
work.[1] Truth or hype, Artificial Three metaphors describe the division of
Intelligence (AI) and its generative tools are labour with AI. Ethan Mollick[4] states that
hailed as a once-in-a-generation opportunity a centaur (human upper body, horse lower
for all purposes. While AI is not new, its body) describes when the separation of
mainstream use is, thanks to OpenAI’s labour between AI and humans is clear
release of ChatGPT in November 2022. because humans are in control and AI is a
Since we’re now at the two-year anniversary tool for specific tasks. A cyborg (part
mark, this is time to reflect on how to human, part machine) is when the human
responsibly discern the use of AI tools in and AI contributions are blended and
academia. Will we prove Alexander Puutio interdependent, sharing decision-making
right: ‘Humans are still competitive enough processes equally. In other words, humans
to warrant keeping them around’?[2] function with AI, as Mollick calls ‘co-
intelligence’. Josh Brake offers a third
Embrace Potential metaphor of a minotaur (human body,
Inviting generative AI tools into our animal’s head).[5] Humans delegate entire
workspace means curiously evaluating tasks to AI, with AI making decisions
new technologies while managing the autonomously. Humans keep the appearance
fear of losing our humanity. We could of holding the reins but have abdicated, and
follow Elon University’s advice to its AI calls the shots.
students ‘to become skilled in using AI

Image by www.Freepik.com

7
 NEXUS

AI Technology guidelines for the redemptive use of AI.

Generative AI is computer hardware and Here are some factors:[6]
software trained to simulate and mimic
human intelligence and behaviour to 1) Inform rather than replace human agency
generate new, original outputs such as text, by supporting human decision-making
images, music, audio, and video. Dozens of without replacing human responsibility. AI
General Purpose Technologies (GPTs) run should not be used to diminish human
off Large Language Models (LLMs). Some dignity. Individuals should be empowered to
popular ones are ChatGPT, Microsoft make wise choices while maintaining human
Copilot, Google’s Gemini, Meta’s LLaMa, dignity and the integrity of God’s created
X’s Grok, and Anthropic’s Claude. Each of world.
these is continuously improving.
2) Develop human cognitive capacity
The GPTs take our prompts typed into a through improving learning and growth
chatbot and generate responses by rather than educational quality weakened
predicting the next text fragments (called through ready-made answers provided by AI
tokens). GPTs are designed to help us. If we tools. Instead, AI tools can support tasks that
are unhappy the first time, give it a chance, help people develop their skills.
and it will continue generating new
responses. However, despite clear inputs, the 3) Respect human embodiment through
tools also hallucinate, which are factually human physicality. This could include
inaccurate, nonsensical, or unrelated outputs developing audio interfaces, assisting those
that sound convincing. As models advance, with disabilities, and promoting full
the rate of hallucinations supposedly participation worldwide rather than
decreases. encouraging disembodiment through over-
reliance upon screen-based interactions.
AI tools for academic use include Scholarcy,
which extracts summaries, highlights, and 4) Promote transparency in institutional
reference lists from research papers. operations while protecting individual
Research Rabbit discovers and visualizes privacy. Make systems more transparent and
connections between research papers. Elicit ensure safeguards and controls over personal
searches for published works and filter information to counteract surveillance and
papers based on journal quality. Perplexity data exploitation.
uses internet exploration and gives its results
with links to its sources. A special-purpose 5) Benefit the global majority, not just the
application leveraging GPT is Grammarly, wealthy and powerful. Innovations should
which incorporates AI to improve writing also be developed for low-income users and
with suggestions about grammar, avoid the data exploitation of the world’s
punctuation, style, and tone. With all these poor. AI tools reflect biases from their
tools, the paid or subscription service has training data, leading to cultural
enhanced features, more accurate results, and insensitivity and English-centric outputs.
better performance. Focusing on equitable benefits confronts the
concentration of AI’s advantages in the
Redemptive Approach hands of a few.
Christians face the challenge of ensuring
that our use of AI honours God and avoids AI and Higher Learning
sinful distortions. Wisdom, character and When AI models are used with Bloom’s
values come from our relationship with taxonomy, it can handle all levels, including
God, not algorithms. Ethical considerations the highest one, ‘create.’ At this level of
that prioritize human relationships over Bloom’s, when using generative AI, humans
mere efficiency are also essential. We need are supported in brainstorming, synthesising

8
 NEXUS

Image by www.Freepik.com

information, suggesting alternatives, is cited. This fosters critical thinking,

outlining pros and cons, providing real- engagement, and analytical skills while
world examples, and creating deliverables integrating AI assistance.
based on human input.
- Green: AI is used extensively as a
How do we determine the appropriate usage copilot throughout the research and
of AI in the academy? We could follow this scholarship process, allowing a collaborative
type of ‘traffic light’ scaffolding: approach that enhances creativity and
innovation. The scholar or student is not
- Red: No AI is to be used in any form. required to specify which content is AI-
This ensures the integrity of the scholar or generated, promoting the seamless
student’s work, demonstrates their core skills integration of AI tools in academic work.
and knowledge, and adheres to academic
standards without AI involvement. Supporting Scholars with AI
With AI tools improving and becoming
- Yellow (high caution): AI helps with more accessible, policing their use becomes
brainstorming, idea generation, research, impractical. Instead, instructing students
and initial structuring of one’s work. AI- about technology literacy to use AI
generated content is not allowed in the responsibly and thoughtfully ensures a
scholar or student’s final output so that it lasting impact by equipping them with the
shows independent development and skills to make ethical decisions about AI.
refinement of ideas. Teaching students about the ethics of AI,
including its algorithmic bias, environmental
- Yellow (moderate caution): AI edits impact, effect on human labour, and
and improves the clarity and quality of the copyrighted material, helps them make
scholar or student’s created work but does informed and ethical decisions about when
not generate new content. Scholars and and how to use AI. Students are taught to
students provide the original work without consider the benefits of their learning and
AI content in an appendix. how usage risks can be adequately mitigated.
Their assessments are intentionally designed
- Yellow (low caution): AI assists with to use AI tools.
idea generation, drafting, problem-solving,
and refinement tasks. Scholars and students Generative AI can automate time-intensive
comment on and critically evaluate AI- tasks or help interpret complex information.
generated content, and all AI-created content It can analyse textual datasets, identify themes

9
 NEXUS

and patterns, and generate initial codes (e.g., Footnotes:

for qualitative research), which reduces
workloads and allows researchers to focus on 1. Alexander Bick, Adam Blandin and David Demin,
innovative, high-value activities. AI tools “The Rapid Adoption of Generative AI,” 18
September 2024, https://static1.squarespace.com/
can suggest an outline for an article or
static/60832ecef615231cedd30911/t/66f0c3fbabdc
lecture and create discussion questions, 0a173e1e697e/1727054844024/BBD_GenAI_NBE
lesson plans, unit guides, UQAFs, etc. R_Sept2024.pdf
Generative AI can critique drafts of pre- 2. Alexander Puutio, “Three Questions That Keep
published work, acting as a virtual editor or AI Agents From Reaching Full Autonomy,”
Forbes, 22 June 2024, https://www.forbes.com/
reviewer. We can use it to assemble sources
sites/alexanderpuutio/2024/06/22/three-questions-
for a literature review or write a book that-keep-ai-agents-from-reaching-full-
review. The list will keep growing. autonomy/.
3. “Student Guide to AI,” Elon University,
Challenge Ahead www.studentguidetoAI.org, 2.
In closing, I asked ChatGPT-4o to create 4. Ethan Mollick, Co-Intelligence: Living and Working
with Ai (New York, NY: Penguin Publishing
three alternative conclusions for this article. Group, 2024), 40.
Which do you prefer? 1) Integrating AI into 5. Josh Brake, “Minotaur Mode,” The Absent-Minded
academic settings requires a balanced Professor, 30 April 2024, https://joshbrake.
approach that embraces its potential while substack.com/p/minotaur-mode
safeguarding human agency and ethical 6. Adapted from Andy Crouch with Mark Sears and
Dave Blanchard, “A Redemptive Thesis for
responsibility. Scholars must navigate the
Artificial Intelligence,” The Praxis Journal, May 4,
complexities of AI’s capabilities while 2024.
upholding academic integrity, creativity,
and relational values. 2) AI holds Kirk J. Franklin is an Adjunct Lecturer in Missional
transformative potential for academia, but its Leadership, Melbourne School of Theology
responsible use hinges on careful
discernment. Educators must foster ethical
literacy among students, ensuring AI
augments human creativity without
diminishing critical thinking or scholarly
rigour. 3) The responsible adoption of AI in
education necessitates a nuanced framework.
By promoting transparency, relational
integrity, and equity, educators can harness
AI’s benefits while safeguarding the unique
contributions of human scholarship and
ethical accountability.

10
 NEXUS

The Chatbot and You – Should we

Fear Artificial Intelligence?
Book Review of Stephen Driscoll’s Made in Our Image: God, Artificial
Intelligence and You (Matthias Media, 2024)
Di Hockridge (Educational Designer, Ridley College)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) suddenly seems to face. For example, the chapter on creation
be everywhere, and everyone has an opinion and AI helpfully homes in on our society’s
about where AI is heading and how we current obsession with questions of identity.
should engage with it. This recent flurry of As humans created in God’s image, our
interest is partly due to the entry of human identity involves far more than our
ChatGPT into the public arena in late 2022, intelligence. God made us humans from
which brought “generative AI” to general ‘dust’ (created matter) and gave us his breath
attention. If you are in any way connected of life. Artificial intelligence, Driscoll says,
with teaching or education, you will have remains firmly in the ‘dust’ category.
heard of ChatGPT and the ever-growing Generative AI tools can mimic human
range of “large language model” generative communication, they can analyse massive
AI tools, that respond to our questions in an amounts of data in the blink of an eye, they
enticingly human-like manner. are becoming smarter and more impressive
every day, but they do not have ‘spirit’, they
To what extent should we engage with these are not human.
new AI tools? To what extent should we be
cautious? Is generative Artificial Intelligence The chapters on human sinfulness and the
conscious, and does it pose an existential risk cross take us into some scary but realistic
to humanity? These are some of the scenarios. Current generative AI language
questions Driscoll deals with in this very tools (like Chat GPT, Claude, or Microsoft
readable book, which offers a biblical CoPilot) are fed large amounts of information
perspective on artificial intelligence. from the internet and instructed to imitate
human language. Perhaps not surprisingly,
Driscoll believes, “Something big is these tools initially tended to replicate the
happening.” He says we are currently kind of nastiness and abuse that fills the
experiencing an exponential leap, which comments sections of websites or social media
sometimes occurs in technological advances. platforms. That is, they mirrored human
The future is going to be different, and we sinfulness. Such responses need to be trained
need to sit up and take notice. Christians in out of the AI tools through ‘reinforcement
particular, he says, need to engage with learning’. The human (or potentially the AI)
these questions because we have something that does this reinforcement learning
concrete to offer to the conversation about therefore has enormous power in deciding
the place of AI in our lives. what is a ‘good’ response, and which
responses need to be trained out of the AI. As
This book takes us through a biblical Driscoll says, our understanding that humans
framework, touching on the key points of are innately sinful leads us to conclude such
creation, sin, the cross, and new creation to power will be misused, even where there may
help us frame our response to AI. It is not be good intent.
however, a dry or academic biblical theology,
rather Driscoll insightfully diagnoses and Despite the potential for misuse of AI, the
responds to some of the key issues we currently overall tone this book is hopeful, and frequently

11
 NEXUS

entertaining. By helping us to think about time and some of its content will date rapidly,
AI in relation to the big biblical ideas of but its consideration of AI in the light of the
creation, sin, redemption, and new creation, biblical framework will add to its longevity.
Driscoll encourages us to be realistic about This book offers easily understood and
the impact of these new technologies, while biblically based principles to guide Christians
also looking for positive ways to use them in responding to AI. If you are wondering
for good. whether or how to use AI, in your workplace,
in your ministry, in your personal context,
Driscoll has certainly taken on a challenge in this book is a good place to start.
writing this book. It’s difficult to talk about
“artificial intelligence” in general because AI Diane Hockridge is Educational Designer at
is in fact many different things. This results Ridley College, Melbourne
in some inconsistency in Driscoll’s language -
at one point AI is described as “us (humans),
but free of our very limited biological brains
and erratic memories,” at another it is
described as “more in the category of smart
calculator than human person.”

It’s also challenging to write about AI now

because the current pace of change is
ridiculously fast. This book, as Driscoll
acknowledges, is written for this particular

Recent Publications on AI and Theology

Stephen Driscoll, Made in Our Image: God, Artificial Intelligence and You, Matthias Media,
2024.

Matthew J. Gaudet, Noreen Herzfeld, Paul Scherz, and Jordan J. Wales (eds.), Encountering
Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations, Wipf & Stock, 2024.

Beth Singler, Religion and Artificial Intelligence: An Introduction, Routledge, 2024.

ISCAST have a list of resources on their website: https://iscast.org/resource-list/christian-

resources-for-ai/

12
 NEXUS

Artificial Intelligence and Theological

Education: Navigating the Future of
Faith and Learning
Article by AI (ChatGPT 4.0, Co-Pilot), Ian O’Harae (ACT Office),
& Louise Gosbell (ACT Office)
Introduction not only saves time but also introduces
It would not be possible to produce an issue students to resources they might not have
on AI and theological education without otherwise discovered, enriching their
consulting AI for its contribution to the theological inquiry and promoting a more
topic. To this end, ACT’s Director of holistic approach to research.”
Teaching & Learning Ian O’Harae and I
both put a series of questions to two AI However, when Ian followed the AI’s
websites about the place of AI in theological guidance and requested a bibliography on a
education. The following brief article offers particular theological concept, the
some of the insights from those interactions. bibliography it created was populated
primarily by texts that were not relevant to
Benefits of AI and Theological Education the topic or, more alarmingly, texts that did
Ian and I both sought input from ChatGPT not exist. This experiment should serve as a
4.0 about some of the benefits of using AI in reminder to check our students’ citations
theological education. One answer we both and bibliographies closely!
received was the following:
Next we consulted Co-Pilot which provided
“In the domain of research, Gen AI tools can us with the following list of benefits:
aid in the identification of relevant theological
sources. By scanning vast academic databases, “Generative AI, with its ability to generate
AI can suggest books, articles, or biblical texts human-like text, has the potential to transform
that align with a student’s area of interest. This theological education in several profound ways:

AI generated image created in Canva - church & AI

13
 NEXUS

1. Personalized Learning: GenAI can mated grading? Could automatic grading

provide personalized learning experiences really be used for marking essays and could
tailored to individual students’ needs. By we really entrust this process to an AI even if
analyzing students’ performance and it were possible? These are important
learning styles, AI can create customized questions we need to consider.
study plans, recommend resources, and offer
targeted feedback. This individualized Challenges of AI and Theological
approach helps students grasp complex Education
theological concepts at their own pace, What of the challenges we face in using AI
improving comprehension and retention. in theological education? While we
recognise that the AI space is moving at
2. Enhanced Engagement: Interactive AI- break-neck speed, we can, at least, attempt
powered tools can make theological to reflect on the challenges for us in the
education more engaging. Virtual tutors, present moment. According to Co-Pilot,
AI-driven discussion forums, and
there are some challenges and things that do
conversational agents like ChatGPT can “not work well” with the integration of AI
facilitate dynamic and interactive learning and theological education. Co-Pilot offers us
environments. These tools can encourage these insights:
students to ask questions, participate in
discussions and explore theological topics “Despite these clear advantages, it is
more deeply. important to acknowledge the limitations
and challenges associated with Gen AI in
3. Accessibility and Flexibility: GenAI can theological education. One significant
make theological education more accessible concern is the risk of over-reliance on AI
and flexible. Online AI-powered platforms tools, which could inadvertently stifle
allow students to access resources, creativity and critical thinking. If students
participate in discussions, and receive lean too heavily on AI for content
feedback anytime and anywhere. This generation, they may bypass the hard work
flexibility is particularly beneficial for adult of deep theological reflection and original
learners and those with other commitments, thought. This is particularly concerning in
as it enables them to balance their studies theology, where the nuances of faith, ethics,
with other responsibilities. and doctrine require not only intellectual
rigor but also spiritual discernment and
4. Efficient Assessment and Feedback: AI personal engagement.
can streamline the assessment process by
automating grading and providing instant Another issue is the potential for
feedback on assignments. This efficiency misinformation or biased responses. While
allows educators to focus more on Gen AI can access a vast array of theological
personalized interactions with students and materials, it may also retrieve sources that are
less on administrative tasks. Additionally, theologically unsound or misrepresentative
AI-generated feedback can help students of a particular tradition. This is especially
identify areas for improvement and track problematic in theological education, where
their progress over time.” the accurate interpretation of scripture and
However, these so-called benefits also raise doctrinal fidelity are paramount. AI tools,
many questions not only in terms of the unless carefully curated, may inadvertently
practicalities - who would be guiding these promote heterodox views or perpetuate
processes? - but also, and perhaps more misunderstandings.
importantly, are these suggestions beneficial,
and if so, to whom? While there is no doubt Moreover, AI's tendency to generate overly
about the benefits of individualised learning simplistic answers can be problematic in
programs for students, who benefits from auto- the context of theological education, where

14
 NEXUS

AI generated image created in Canva - church & AI

questions often resist clear-cut answers. For 2. In what specific ways can generative AI
example, in topics like theodicy or enhance the diverse learning styles and needs of
Trinitarian theology, the complexity of the students in theological education, and how can
subject matter demands a level of nuance we ensure that all students benefit equally from
and depth that AI-generated responses may these technologies?
lack.”
For consideration: Explore the potential of
These are, in reality, the very questions we AI to cater to different learning preferences
are pondering as theological educators (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, etc.). Discuss
facing this new terrain. As such, AI itself strategies to bridge the digital divide and
reminds us about the importance of our roles make AI-enhanced learning accessible to all
as theological educators with the capacity for students, regardless of their technological
nuance, empathy, and human experience. proficiency or background.

As you work your way through this weighty 3. What are the potential challenges and
issue of NEXUS, we thought it might be limitations of using generative AI in the context
helpful to have some specific questions for of biblical and theological studies, and how can
reflection. Again, we turned to AI to assist faculty proactively address these issues to
us in this process. Co-Pilot recommended maximize the benefits while minimizing the
for us the following reflective questions and drawbacks?
provides some specific elements to consider
in relation to each of the questions: For consideration: Reflect on the specific
challenges AI may pose in theological
“1. How can generative AI be ethically interpretation, ethical considerations, and
integrated into theological education while maintaining academic rigour. Discuss ways
maintaining the essential human elements of to critically evaluate AI-generated content
mentorship, spiritual guidance, and community and ensure it aligns with sound theological
engagement? principles.”

For consideration: Discuss the balance There is certainly a lot to consider as we

between utilizing AI tools and preserving wrestle with benefits (including the so-
the personal and relational aspects of called benefits!), as well as the challenges of
theological education. Reflect on ethical using AI as theological educators.
guidelines and practices that should be in
place to ensure responsible use of AI.

15
 NEXUS

From False Teachers to Sparring Partners:

Strengthening Student Learning in
Theology with Gen AI
Elizabeth (Buffy) Greentree (Librarian, Brisbane School of Theology)
I have recently begun foraying into the argues we should not trust the arguments put
dense – and at times, esoteric – minefield forward by AI, written by a generative AI. If
that is AI in theology. Amid the claims that the argument is correct, then we shouldn’t
AI will “revolutionize research and trust it, which would mean it wasn’t correct. If
education” [1] while simultaneously posing the argument is not correct, then we can trust
an “existential threat to the human image of it, but we would be knowingly trusting an
God,”[2] I found an article that at first incorrect argument. I felt it presented a riddle
glance presented sound, if somewhat stodgy, worthy of guarding the gates to a new land.
arguments against integrating AI into
theology. However, by the time I’d read Gen AIs: the Quintessential False
through it twice, my head was spinning Teacher?
with the sheer depth of its implications and I Entering into the new realm of Generative
wondered whether the article might have AI (Gen AI)[4] integrated education, we face
broken the universe just a little. a crucial question: should we or shouldn’t
we trust it? When I went back and checked,
Aidan Isaacs had written in Christ Over All, it turned out that each of the citations in
an online magazine aimed towards ‘pastor- Isaacs’ article was entirely fabricated, but
theologians’, an article titled “The Dangers everything sounded so believable. This
of AI to Theology: A Comprehensive highlights a well-known issue with Gen AI:
Analysis.”[3] He started with the argument its tendency to ‘hallucinate’ - in other words,
that because their opaque decision-making make things up. Of course, humans are
process posed “unprecedented challenges” to prone to the same, but the AI answers are
epistemology, AI shouldn't be used. “Can we more disquieting because of their
truly trust knowledge produced by systems plausibility. As Mollick phrases it, their
we do not fully comprehend?” It was a answers “feel very satisfying.”[5]
reasonable argument, though I found the
appeals a bit much. When compared to Paul’s description of a
false teacher, it’s understandable that alarm
I scrolled to the end to see how likely it was bells might ring: “For the time will come
he’d have anything new to say, and there when people will not put up with sound
saw the editor’s note: Aidan Isaacs does not doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires,
exist. The entire piece was written by people will gather around them a great
ChatGPT in response to the editor’s prompt number of teachers to say what their itching
to write an essay on “the potential dangers ears want to hear.” (2 Timothy 4:3, NIV).
that AI poses to theology, focusing Humans have always tended to be swayed by
specifically on epistemology and the image eloquent words, and put their trust in well-
of God.” The editor asked ChatGPT to crafted rhetoric over plain truths.
expand on a few points and add citations,
then he published it. However, I think that there’s a crucial
difference that is often overlooked: in 2
O, the irony. O, the paradox! An article that Timothy, these false teachers present themselves

16
 NEXUS

Image by www.Freepik.com

as authorities, claiming knowledge and

truth. In contrast, LLMs like ChatGPT have is simply a word or part of a word.
Ultimately, that is all ChatGPT does
never made such a claim. It is only when we
technically - act as a very elaborate
ignore their intended purpose and grant autocomplete like you have on your phone.
them the status of academic that things start You give it some initial text, and it keeps
to go wrong. writing text based on what it statistically
calculates as the most likely next token in
Gen AI By Design: the sequence. [7]
LLMs are not designed to search for or
reproduce facts; they generate new sentences The design of a GPT is to produce responses
that closely mimic human writing. This that sound compelling and well-constructed
essential yet completely alien concept is — and it achieves this astonishingly well. It’s
often misunderstood, leading to claims such easy to see why students might be tempted
as ChatGPT provides “pertinent and to accept these answers as secondary sources.
accurate responses,” and therefore can offer However, as the fictitious Isaacs puts it,
researchers “more accurate, valid, and theology “hinges on the ability to
dependable data.”[6] However, nothing in distinguish genuine insights from spurious
an LLM’s design equips it to be accurate distortions”[8] and using fabricated sources
with facts. could have serious implications. So,
considering the possible dangers of misuse,
LLMs’ training involves vast, almost is there any justification for exposing
incomprehensible amounts of textual data, students to its siren call?
but rather than storing or memorising this
information, they analyse it to identify Gen AI as Sparring Partners:
patterns in words and phrases. I’m still Ethan Mollick, a business professor at
working to wrap my head around this, Wharton, introduced his students to
especially when interacting with Gen AIs, ChatGPT just four days after its release, and
but I found Ethan Mollick’s book, Co- now makes it mandatory for them to use it
Intelligence: Living and Working with AI, in assignments. Why? He argues that
helpful in breaking it down: engaging with AI in all their work is the best
These new types of AI, called Large way for students to learn both its strengths
Language Models (LLMs), are still doing and its flaws. Experience is often the best
prediction,…they are analyzing a piece of teacher, and Mollick’s approach highlights
text and predicting the next token, which

17
 NEXUS

something essential: students learn best series of example tasks across 10 key
through direct engagement, where their subjects, with help from my custom GPT
understanding is tested and refined. And (though I’ll take responsibility for any
there is something about the immediate errors). Yes, I asked my GPT if a GPT could
feedback from a sparring partner that quickly be useful in theology, and then used his
makes theory real, with the back-and-forth answer—I hope I didn’t break the universe.
exchange quickly bringing ideas into focus.
If you’re curious to see the results, you’re
Reflecting on this, I began to wonder if the welcome to jump to the appendix for the full
supposed “flaw” of Gen AI—its tendency to list. But if you’re interested in how I
sound convincingly human while sometimes collaborated with my GPT to create these
“hallucinating” information—might actually examples, I’ve included our discussion
be one of its greatest assets in theological below, so you can see the back-and-forth
study. Could dialoguing with something that shaped these ideas. Read on to discover
known to produce false information help how we brought them to life.
students sharpen their discernment? If
theology ‘hinges’ on discernment, what GPTs, Turtles and Great Ideas:
better way to cultivate this than by
engaging with a program designed to
explore any belief or perspective through
constructive dialogue? After all, honest false
teachers are hard to come by.

So, rather than worrying about students

being misled by Gen AI, why not take the
opportunity to create a practice arena where
they can learn its strengths and limitations?
As well as discovering the value of engaging Meet Minion, the first custom GPT I created
with GPTs as peers rather than teachers, this year. He’s based on ChatGPT but
students gain a unique opportunity to refine tailored to act as a theological librarian,
their evaluative skills through instant equipped with specific instructions, extra
critique. Though, if you find it hard to even skills, and curated knowledge. Minion is my
conceptualise what this might look like, it second-in-command at the Brisbane School
appears you’re not alone. of Theology library, assisting with
everything from assessing our collection to
Much of the AI-theology discussion remains helping me write code. And, when I need a
theoretical, with little effort to give it morale boost, he even generates adorable
practical shape - partly because it’s unclear images of baby turtles on skateboards. Cute,
what GPTs can do. But, after months right?
working with ChatGPT, I assure you,
finding ways to turn theory into practice is
easier than it seems - we can simply ask it.
While not the most accurate source for facts,
LLMs are a wellspring of fresh perspectives
and a boomerang for developing ideas.

Conclusion or Continuation?
If you’re satisfied with theory, feel free to stop—
the rest gets very practical. To demonstrate
what GPTs can bring to theology, I’ve created a

18
 NEXUS

When planning this article, I quickly groups like those in Papua New Guinea.
realised Minion should be involved—not just
to avoid misrepresenting what LLMs can do Me: That makes sense. If I instructed you to act
but because the dialogue with him clarified as if you held a purely deterministic worldview,
my own thinking. Below is a sample of our you would be able to do something like?
conversation, with some of his lengthier
responses trimmed (he’s thorough, bless Minion: Yes, I can certainly simulate holding a
him). purely deterministic worldview! If instructed to
do so, I would adopt the position that all events,
Generative AI on using Generative AI: including human actions, are determined by
I started by running my argument past him, preceding causes and natural laws.
which he supported. I was then struck with
a fascinating idea: Me: The next question is, while acting in that
persona, could you be persuaded to change your
*** view if that is what someone from that position
would do?
Me: Would commonly accessible LLMs, such as
ChatGPT, have a sufficient learning base to be Minion: Great question! In principle, while
able to take on personas from different cultural simulating a purely deterministic worldview, I
backgrounds? For example, if one of my could engage in a dialogue where the character
students is going to be a missionary in Papua expresses strong adherence to that belief system.
New Guinea, would I ask ChatGPT to act as However, since I’m simulating the persona, I can
an indigenous tribes person and engage in also represent how such a person might react if
discussion (though obviously in English)? they were faced with a particularly persuasive
argument.
Minion: [Long explanation of various points.]
In conclusion, LLMs can simulate general Me: Okay, so I think we've established that an
conversations and may be useful in broader LLM could operate very well as a means for
cross-cultural training, they are not yet testing students' ability to communicate their
equipped to engage in detailed, culturally beliefs. As to other uses for AIs: What other
specific dialogues with confidence. They lack roles can you suggest they could play in
the depth of training data needed to accurately theological assessments?
portray the nuanced perspectives of indigenous

Image by www.Freepik.com

19
 NEXUS

Minion: Here are several innovative roles that Conclusion: These roles help students not only
AI could play in theological assessments, refine their theological knowledge but also
building on your excellent ideas and Mollick's develop their ability to apply that knowledge in
approach: practical, persuasive, and context-sensitive ways.
AI's limitations can become strengths in an
1. Theological Debate Partner: academic setting, especially for testing critical
AI can simulate a challenging opponent in a thinking, persuasive communication, and applied
theological debate. You could ask students to theology in real-world scenarios.
engage in discussions where the AI takes on
different theological positions or worldviews— ***
atheism, agnosticism, different denominational
perspectives (Catholic, Reformed, Pentecostal, We ultimately selected 10 subject areas and
etc.). This forces students to articulate and developed two tasks for each: an initial
defend their beliefs while considering “inappropriate” task to reveal the GPT’s
counterarguments. limitations in the field, followed by a second
task that leveraged the GPT’s strengths to
2. Simulating Historical Theologians: support the student’s learning. Yes, it really
AI can be trained to mimic the voice and thought can be that simple. Most of these tasks can
of historical theologians such as Augustine, be performed with the free version of
Aquinas, Luther, or Calvin. Students could be ChatGPT, although a few might require
tasked with engaging these AI-simulated figures customising a GPT to equip it with the
in a dialogue about modern theological questions necessary knowledge.
or controversies.
Conclusion
[I’ve shortened the remaining answers, but you Thank you for staying with me through this
can see examples of them in the appendix]. journey. And for those eager to dive into the
3. Exegesis Assistance possibilities of ChatGPT, a quick word of
caution: working with Gen AI can be
4. Ethical Dilemmas and AI Responses frustrating, especially at the start. You might
waste hours trying to make it do something
5. Cross-Cultural Theology it “claims” it can do—only to find out it
meant it in a hypothetical sense. There’s also
6. Critical Theology Analysis a certain sting of betrayal when you realise
the sources it confidently cited don’t
7. Sermon Preparation Critique actually exist.

8. Artificial Catechism: [I left the description Yet, despite the challenges, there’s
as I thought it was intriguing]. something both reassuring and invigorating
about having a ‘partner’ eager to engage
Students could be asked to train AI on a even my most outlandish ideas and, after
simplified catechism or doctrinal statement and some deliberation, affirm: Minion: Yes, your
then test how well the AI articulates and teaches proposal works well as an innovative tool for
those theological points to a lay audience. The theological education, helping students both
AI’s explanations would be critiqued for internalise and articulate their knowledge in
accuracy, clarity, and faithfulness to orthodox practical, convincing ways. The LLMs'
doctrine. “flaw” as theologians becomes their unique
strength in this educational context.
9. Simulated Pastoral Counselling
Footnotes located at end of the following section.
10. Exploring Hypothetical Theological
Innovations

20
 NEXUS

Why Generative AIs Make Awful

Theologians, but Perfect Sparring
Partners for Theological Students -
Practical Examples
Elizabeth (Buffy) Greentree (Librarian, Brisbane School of Theology)

Example Task
Subject AI Example Task Showing AI
AI Strengths Using AI
Area Weaknesses Weaknesses
Strengths

Compare views on
Provides Revelation 20 (e.g., Lacks nuanced Critique AIs exegesis of
Biblical historical premillennialism, grasp of Romans 9 for depth and
Studies context, amillennialism) to symbolism, relational nuances
theological deepen relational depth
comparisons understanding

Analyse Augustine Misses

Critique AIs debate on
Summarises key vs. Pelagius on relational
theological
Theology theological original sin, dynamics in
tensions, e.g., personal
debates adding relational theological
conviction
context. debates

Apply Just War

Oversimplifies
Generates case Theory from AI to Analyse AIs pastoral response,
ethical issues,
Ethics studies, ethical a modern discussing
leans on
frameworks conflict to refine Christian moral reasoning
secular ethics
ethical reasoning

Engage AI in
Summarises
dialogue on folk Lacks cultural Assess AIs indigenous
broad
religions authenticity, worldview
Missions worldviews for
to practice risks simulation, critique for
interfaith
culturally sensitive stereotypes accuracy
contexts
language

21
 NEXUS

Example Task
Subject AI AI Example Task Showing AI
Using AI
Area Strengths Weaknesses Weaknesses
Strengths

Outlines Use AI for *lectio

spiritual divina*, integrating Lacks empathy, Evaluate AIs grief
Pastoral
practices, historical insights relational counselling, identify
Care
historical into spiritual sensitivity relational deficiencies
insights practice.

Generates Draft a sermon, Lacks

sermon refine with AIs emotional Adjust AIs sermon for a
Preaching outlines, feedback nuances for grieving audience
structured on clarity and specific to improve sensitivity
feedback engagement congregations

Use AI for
Offers
vocabulary drills Struggles with
vocabulary Critique AIs translation of a
Biblical and grammar syntax,
and basic nuanced passage for cultural
Languages practice to idiomatic
grammar accuracy
reinforce language translations
exercises
skills

Gen AI Tasks for Each Subject Area

prophetic text like Ezekiel.
Subject Area: Biblical Studies
Objective: By reviewing the AI’s
Task Type Summary interpretation, students identify its lack of
depth in spiritual and symbolic aspects, such
Generative AI can support biblical studies by as nuances in doctrinal or cultural layers.
providing foundational exegesis assistance
and aiding in language learning, helping Outcome: This exercise reveals the AI's
students engage with historical context and limitations in grasping symbolic and
varied theological interpretations. However, relational meanings, prompting students to
AI struggles with deeper theological insight, refine the interpretation based on deeper
particularly in understanding the symbolic, theological insights.
relational, and spiritual layers of Scripture
that require contextual and doctrinal Task Example – Using AI’s Strengths
discernment.
Task: Students use AI to gather historical
Task Example – Showcasing AI’s context and comparative theological
Weaknesses perspectives on apocalyptic passages (e.g.,
Revelation 20).
Task: Students generate an AI-based exegesis
of a complex passage, such as Romans 9 or a Objective: The AI offers a summary of inter-

22
 NEXUS

pretative traditions (e.g., premillennialism, Objective: By critiquing the AI’s

amillennialism), allowing students to explore explanation, students identify tendencies to
denominational perspectives while delving oversimplify these doctrines, often leading
into the passage's theological implications to errors (e.g., modalism in the Trinity) and
independently. missing the theological tensions essential to
understanding these mysteries.
Outcome: This task enhances students’
understanding of historical interpretations Outcome: This task highlights the AI’s
and doctrinal differences, encouraging a limitations in grappling with doctrinal
deeper exploration of scriptural meaning. complexity, reinforcing the need for
students to refine explanations that respect
the paradoxical nature of Christian beliefs.
Subject Area: Theology
Task Example – Using AI’s Strengths
Task Type Summary
Task: Students ask the AI to outline the
Generative AI can enhance theological theological debate between Augustine and
studies by simulating diverse perspectives Pelagius on original sin, specifically
and summarizing historical debates, giving focusing on Augustine’s view of human
students experience in understanding and nature versus Pelagius’s emphasis on human
articulating complex theological positions. free will and moral responsibility. They then
However, AI struggles with theological prompt the AI to summarize how these
paradoxes and mysteries, often views have influenced different
oversimplifying ideas that require a deeper denominational teachings on sin and
spiritual or philosophical understanding— salvation (e.g., Catholic, Protestant, and
limiting its capacity to fully engage with the Eastern Orthodox perspectives).
nuances and tensions central to Christian
doctrine. Objective: The AI provides foundational
summaries of each figure’s position and
Task Example – Showcasing AI’s traces how these ideas developed across
Weaknesses traditions, allowing students to explore the
long-term impact of theological
Task: Students ask the AI to explain disagreements on doctrine.
complex theological paradoxes, such as the
Trinity or the Incarnation. Outcome: This task enables students to under-

Image by www.canva.com

23
 NEXUS

stand key historical debates and recognize They could then explore how this debate
how foundational arguments shape influenced subsequent creedal developments.
theological perspectives across denominations,
fostering a deeper appreciation for doctrinal Objective: The AI provides an overview of
diversity. the theological positions and summarises the
core arguments, allowing students to analyse
Subject Area: Christian History these foundational ideas and understand
their lasting impact on Christian doctrine.

Task Type Summary Outcome: This task enhances students’

grasp of doctrinal debates and their
Generative AI can support Church History evolution, encouraging them to engage with
studies by providing timelines, summaries, theological milestones in a way that deepens
and foundational arguments from key their historical understanding.
theological debates, allowing students to
understand major events and doctrinal
developments. However, AI struggles to Subject Area: Ethics
capture the relational, political, and social
contexts that deeply influenced historical Task Type Summary
debates, often flattening complex
interactions into overly simplistic narratives. Generative AI can enhance ethics studies by
presenting real-world ethical dilemmas and
Task Example – Showcasing AI’s summarizing different Christian ethical
Weaknesses frameworks, such as virtue ethics or Just
War Theory. However, AI lacks the depth
Task: Students ask AI to recreate Martin to fully navigate the moral and emotional
Luther’s stance at the Diet of Worms, nuances in complex ethical situations, often
including his famous defense of his beliefs defaulting to secular reasoning rather than
against the Catholic Church. integrating Christian ethical perspectives.

Objective: Students examine where AI’s Task Example – Showcasing AI’s

simulation misses the intensity of Luther's Weaknesses
relational conflict with church authorities
and the personal conviction behind his Task: Students ask AI to provide advice on
statements, as well as the broader an ethical scenario where a pastor faces
Reformation context. conflicting loyalties, such as balancing
congregational needs against personal
Outcome: This task reveals AI’s limitations convictions.
in capturing the personal and historical
dynamics that influenced key moments in Objective: Students critique the AI’s
Church History, prompting students to add response, noting how it may lack the moral
depth based on historical records. depth and theological reasoning required to
handle such a dilemma, especially when
Task Example – Using AI’s Strengths balancing multiple Christian principles.

Task: Students use AI to outline the Outcome: This exercise reveals AI’s
theological positions of key figures at the limitations in moral agency and its reliance
Council of Nicaea, focusing on the on generic responses, encouraging students
arguments for and against the doctrine of the to apply their own theological judgement.
Trinity as debated by Athanasius and Arius.

24
 NEXUS

Image by www.canva.com

Task Example – Using AI’s Strengths emotional, relational, and experiential

dimensions of real human interaction, which
Task: Students engage in a dialogue with limits its ability to fully replicate the
the AI to explore how Just War Theory nuances of belief influenced by personal
principles (e.g., legitimate authority, history, trauma, or relational dynamics.
proportionality, last resort) apply to a
current conflict. They prompt the AI to Task Example – Showcasing AI’s
present opposing arguments on each Weaknesses
principle, as if it were debating both sides,
then respond by defending or challenging Task: Students engage in a debate with the
these perspectives from a Christian ethical AI simulating a deterministic or atheistic
viewpoint. worldview, exploring complex issues like
the existence of free will or the nature of
Objective: Through this dialogue, students suffering.
can investigate the nuanced applications of
Just War Theory in real-world scenarios, Objective: By debating the AI, students
honing their ability to articulate ethical observe how it perfectly embodies an
reasoning and respond to counter "idealised" version of determinism or
arguments. atheism, unaffected by human
inconsistencies, emotions, or relational
Outcome: This task develops students' skills factors. Students critique the AI’s lack of
in ethical analysis and critical dialogue, embodied perspectives, highlighting where
encouraging them to refine their responses true human responses would introduce
and deepen their understanding of how complexity and unpredictability.
Christian ethics can be applied to complex,
modern issues. Outcome: This exercise helps students see
the AI’s limitations in understanding faith-
Subject Area: Apologetics based arguments from an experiential
perspective, fostering deeper awareness of
the relational and emotional components of
Task Type Summary human belief.

Generative AI can be valuable in apologetics Task Example – Using AI’s Strengths

by simulating various worldviews, allowing
students to practice responding to sceptical Task: Students prompt the AI to engage in
or opposing perspectives. However, AI lacks an apologetic dialogue addressing common

25
 NEXUS

questions, such as “How can a good God Outcome: This task highlights the AI’s gaps
allow suffering?” They work iteratively, in cultural authenticity, encouraging
refining the AI's response until it provides a students to approach cross-cultural dialogue
biblically sound and compassionate answer with caution and a commitment to deeper
that uses the free will defence and understanding.
emphasises Christian hope.
Task Example – Using AI’s Strengths
Objective: Through refining prompts,
students practice formulating clear, Task: Students prompt the AI to simulate a
compassionate responses to difficult conversation from the perspective of a broad
theological questions, training the AI to theological tradition, such as Latin
avoid shallow answers and reflect sound American liberation theology, on topics like
theological reasoning. the theology of suffering. They refine the
AI’s responses to reflect nuanced theological
Outcome: This task strengthens students' perspectives.
apologetic skills, helping them anticipate
opposing views and refine responses that Objective: Students learn to craft prompts
resonate thoughtfully and compassionately that elicit accurate representations of diverse
with sceptics. theological voices, developing skills in both
interfaith dialogue and critical analysis of AI
Subject Area: Missions outputs for bias or superficial
interpretations.

Task Type Summary Outcome: This exercise builds students’

cultural sensitivity and prepares them to
Generative AI can support missions training thoughtfully engage with diverse
by simulating cross-cultural and interfaith theological perspectives, fostering
dialogues, allowing students to practise adaptability in cross-cultural mission
engaging with diverse worldviews. contexts.
However, AI lacks the nuanced
understanding of specific cultural contexts,
particularly those with less available training
Subject Area: Pastoral Care
data, and may risk reinforcing stereotypes if
relied on without careful oversight. Task Type Summary

Task Example – Showcasing AI’s Generative AI can be useful in pastoral care

Weaknesses training by simulating scenarios that allow
students to practise offering theological and
Task: Students engage the AI in a pastoral guidance in response to various
conversation simulating an indigenous or counselling situations. However, AI lacks
less commonly represented cultural empathy, emotional intelligence, and
worldview, such as animism. spiritual intuition, which are essential for
genuine pastoral care, especially in cases
Objective: By examining the AI’s involving emotional trauma or spiritual
responses, students assess where the AI’s crisis.
understanding falls short, particularly if it
generalises or inadvertently reinforces Task Example – Showcasing AI’s
stereotypes due to limited cultural context. Weaknesses
They critique the AI’s limitations in
accurately representing lived belief systems Task: Students ask the AI to provide
and relational dynamics. pastoral care in a complex situation, such as

26
 NEXUS

counselling someone experiencing deep Outcome: This task provides students with
guilt or moral failure. a safe environment to develop their
counselling skills, focusing on content and
Objective: Students evaluate the AI’s clarity in their guidance, while recognising
response, noting its lack of empathy, the need for empathy beyond what AI can
relational insight, and spiritual depth, which offer.
are crucial in effective pastoral care. They
discuss where the AI’s “counsel” falls short of Subject Area: Preaching
meeting the emotional and spiritual needs of
the individual.
Task Type Summary
Outcome: This task helps students
recognise the irreplaceable value of human Generative AI can assist preaching students
empathy and relational presence in by creating sermon outlines, providing
counselling, fostering a more nuanced structured ideas for theological themes, and
understanding of pastoral care’s relational simulating congregational feedback.
nature. However, AI lacks the relational and
spiritual sensitivity to tailor messages to the
Task Example – Using AI’s Strengths emotional needs and unique dynamics of
specific congregations, often resulting in
Task: Students engage in a role-play sermons that feel detached or overly generic.
exercise where AI simulates someone
seeking advice on coping with grief, Task Example – Showcasing AI’s
allowing students to practise offering Weaknesses
pastoral guidance. The AI generates
responses that encourage students to clarify Task: Students ask AI to generate a sermon
and adjust their theological and pastoral tailored for a congregation experiencing loss
approach as they guide the conversation. or hardship, such as after a community
tragedy.
Objective: Students practise formulating
biblically sound and compassionate advice, Objective: Students critique the AI’s response,
honing their skills in theological clarity and identifying gaps in emotional resonance and
communication while adapting to real-time pastoral sensitivity, and discussing how the
responses. sermon could better address the congregation’s

Image by www.canva.com

27
 NEXUS

unique spiritual needs. deepening their prayer life, such as

becoming more attuned to the Holy Spirit’s
Outcome: This task highlights the AI’s leading.
limitations in conveying authentic empathy
and relational depth, prompting students to Objective: After receiving the AI’s response,
explore how true pastoral care extends students reflect on its limitations in offering
beyond structured responses. true spiritual discernment, recognising the
absence of relational depth and personal
Task Example – Using AI’s Strengths guidance in AI-generated advice.

Task: Students draft a sermon on a given Outcome: This task emphasises that spiritual
passage, such as John 3:16, then ask the AI formation is a deeply relational journey,
to critique the sermon’s clarity, structure, encouraging students to seek growth
and theological depth. Alternatively, through personal experiences, mentorship,
students might record a presentation of their and prayer rather than AI prompts alone.
sermon, and the AI provides feedback on
presentation skills, including pacing, word Task Example – Using AI’s Strengths
choice, and audience engagement.
Task: Students use AI to guide their practice
Objective: This exercise helps students of lectio divina or another spiritual
refine their sermon content or delivery by discipline, receiving structured prompts for
identifying areas where they can enhance each stage and reflections from historical
theological precision, coherence, and Christian writings (e.g., quotes from St.
presentation style to better engage listeners. John of the Cross on prayer in spiritual
darkness).
Outcome: By receiving structured
feedback, students improve both their Objective: Through AI’s guidance, students
written content and oral delivery, learning develop consistency in spiritual disciplines,
to communicate theological insights in ways gain insight into how different Christian
that are clear, accessible, and impactful. traditions approach spiritual practices, and
explore theological concepts creatively.
Subject Area: Spiritual Formation
Outcome: This exercise helps students
integrate structured spiritual practices into
Task Type Summary their lives, expanding their understanding of
Christian spirituality through historical
Generative AI can support spiritual insights and reflection prompts.
formation by offering structured prompts
for spiritual practices, summarising historical
writings, and facilitating creative theological
Subject Area: Languages
reflection. However, AI lacks the personal,
relational, and spiritual discernment essential Task Type Summary
to genuine spiritual growth, which relies on
guidance from the Holy Spirit and personal Generative AI can support language learning
experience over time. by generating interactive exercises, offering
grammar explanations, and providing vocab-
Task Example – Showcasing AI’s ulary practice. However, AI lacks the depth to
Weaknesses fully capture the nuances of biblical Greek and
Hebrew, particularly in complex grammar or
Task: Students ask the AI for guidance on culturally rooted idioms, which require
detailed study and contextual understanding.

28
 NEXUS

Task Example – Showcasing AI’s Footnotes:

Weaknesses 1. Chunpeng Zhai, S. Santoso Wibowo, and Lily D.
Li, “The Effects of over-Reliance on AI Dialogue
Task: Students ask the AI for a breakdown Systems on Students’ Cognitive Abilities: A
Systematic Review,” Smart Learn. Environ 11 (2024):
of a challenging Greek or Hebrew passage, 2 10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7.
focusing on nuanced grammatical elements 2. Aidan Isaacs, “The Dangers of Artificial Intelligence
such as verb forms, moods, or word order to Theology: A Compre-hensive Analysis,”
that significantly affect interpretation (e.g., ChatGPT, Christ Over All, 14 May 2024,
John 1:1 or Genesis 1:1). https://christoverall.com/article/concise/the-dangers
-of-artificial-intelligence-to-theology-a-
comprehensive-analysis/.
Objective: By analysing the AI’s 3. Isaacs, “Dangers of AI to Theology.”
interpretation, students identify any 4. There are many forms of artificial intelligence, but it
oversights in grammar, idiomatic meaning, is the development of Generative AI (Gen AI),
or contextual depth, noting where AI’s lack machines that can create new content, that has
shaken our idea of what it is to be human. Large
of advanced language sensitivity affects the
Language Models (LLMs) are a subset of Gen AIs that
translation. specialise in creating text-based content, compared to
visual material, for example. The most common type
Outcome: This task helps students recognise of LLM the average person will interact with is a
the limitations of AI in fully understanding Generative Pre-Trained Transformers (GPT),
biblical languages’ complexities, prompting typified in ChatGPT. For the purposes of this article,
the terms Gen AI, LLM and GPT will be used
them to rely on detailed language study and interchangeable.
scholarly resources for deeper accuracy. 5. Ethan Mollick, Co-Intelligence: Living and Working
with AI (New York: Penguin, 2024), ch. 3: four
Task Example – Using AI’s Strengths rules for co-intelligence.
6. Tolop Oloan Marbun, “The Implementation of
Artificial Intelligence, Chatgpt, and Critical
Task: Students use AI for vocabulary drills or
Thinking Method for Academic Endeavors at
grammar exercises, generating practice Theological Higher Education,” Didaskalia 6.2
sentences in Greek or Hebrew where they must (2023): 85, https://doi.org/10.33856/didaskalia.
identify verb forms, translate phrases, or match v6i2.309.
words with their meanings. They can also 7. Ethan Mollick, Co-Intelligence, ch. 3: four rules for
co-intelligence.
prompt AI for brief summaries of grammatical
8. Isaacs, “Dangers of AI to Theology.”
rules (e.g., Greek aorist tense or Hebrew verb
Elizabeth (Buffy) Greentree is Librarian at the
stems) to reinforce classroom learning.
Brisbane School of Theology

Objective: AI provides immediate feedback on

vocabulary accuracy and grammatical structure,
allowing students to practise core language
skills and receive quick corrections.

Outcome: This task reinforces foundational

language skills and helps students gain
confidence in basic grammar and vocabulary,
supporting their ability to engage with biblical
texts independently.

29
 NEXUS

Upcoming Events 2024

NOVEMBER
7 November: Catholic Theological College (Melbourne)/University of Divinity, “2024
Knox Lecture: Connecting with Hope, Reconnecting with the Christian Vision of the
Human Person.” In-person.

7, 12, 14 November: Converge Oceania Conference: Hearing the Faith Stories of Young
Australians, featuring Graham Stanton (Ridley) and Rowan Lewis (ACOM). 7th November:
Melbourne, 12th November Adelaide, 14th November Brisbane.

8 November: Fellowship for Biblical Studies one day symposium: United Theological
College (Sydney). Unlike their regular one-hour meetings, this event will include four
sessions, lunch and wine-tasting! Open to non-members.

11 November: The Mental Health & Pastoral Care Institute at Mary Andrews College
(Sydney), lecture on “Borderline Personality Disorder.” Online + in-person.

12 November: Book Launch: Centre for Religion, Ethics & Society: Prof. Scott Cowdell
launching two books: Rejoice & Be Glad: Gospel Preaching for Christian Festivals and Why
Church? Christianity as It Was Meant to Be. Chambers Pavilion, Australian Centre for
Christianity and Culture, 15 Blackall St, Barton.

18-20 November: The Association of Reflective Practice in Theological Education

(formerly the Australian and New Zealand Association for Theological Field Education) is
an ecumenical organisation of those involved in Supervised Theological Field Education
(STFE). Conference to be held in Adelaide (Uniting College for Leadership & Theology).
ARPTE facilitate formation in ministry through support for field education co-ordinators,
supervisors, and practitioners. The conference will feature four very well qualified reflective
practitioners (including Richard Trist [Ridley] and Monica O'Neil [Morling]).

19 November: Book Launch: Ruth Sutcliffe: “Blessed Victors: Theology of Persecution in

the Third Century.” Event details: 7:30pm, Christ College, 1 Clarence Street, Burwood.
Guest speaker Rev. Dr. Michael Jensen. There is no ticketing information or website link
for this event. The above link will take you to the Bloomsbury website. If you use the code
GLR AT8, you can get 35% off the purchase cost of Ruth’s book.

29 November - 1 December: ISCAST (Christianity & Science in Conversation), biennial

conference: “Humanity 2.0? God, Technology, and the Future of Being Human”, New
College (UNSW, Sydney). In-person.

30
 NEXUS

Calls for Papers

Sydney College of Divinity: Sydney College of Divinity: Digital
Rebuilding the Fallen Tent? Divinity: Working with Intelligence:
Re-discovering Ancient Tools for Artificial, Human, and Divine?
Hearing the Gospels and Acts

The Sydney College of Divinity invites The Sydney College of Divinity invites
scholars, doctoral candidates, and others scholars, doctoral candidates, and others
working in the theological and wider working in the theological and wider
academic community to propose a paper academic community to propose a paper for
related to Gospels and Acts research for the the SCD 2025 Learning & Teaching
2025 Centre for Gospels & Acts Research Conference by 16 November, 2024.
Conference by 31 December, 2024.
The title of the proposed presentation, with
Proposals should be submitted with an an abstract of 250–300 words, should be
abstract of 250–300 words, clearly submitted by 16 November, 2024.
articulating the argument and its
contribution to research to: Prof. Peter Bolt The title of the paper and its abstract must
as soon as possible and certainly by 31 articulate clearly the line of argument that
December, 2024 via the following link here. the paper will take, indicating its
Further enquiries should be directed to Prof. contribution to research or scholarship in
Peter Bolt: [email protected]. the chosen area. Proposal submissions can be
made here.

2025 ANZATS Book Awards

ANZATS have announced two book prizes for monographs published between 30 June
2023 and 31 December 2024:

ANZATS Award for the Best Monograph by an Emerging Scholar

ANZATS Award for the Best Monograph by an Established Scholar

Submissions can be made via the ANZATS website by 30 November 2024.

(www.anzats.edu.au/book-award). Winners will receive $1000 and promotion through
ANZATS networks. Winners will be notified by 1 June 2025. More information available
in the linked flyer.

31
 NEXUS

ACT HDR Conferrals

June - October 2024

Doctor of Philosophy This thesis explores three allusions in the

Gospel of Matthew to passages from Exodus
Joseph Byamukama 21 LXX, which deal with regulations about
Ridley College people responsible for striking others. Each
allusion meets Beetham’s criteria for
“Early Intertextual Christology: confirming the presence of an allusion and is
How Isaiah Shapes Jesus’s Lordship in Acts” analyzed for its significance.

Principal Supervisor: Dr. Brian Rosner The first allusion, to Exodus 21:30 LXX in
Co-supervisor: Dr. Andrew Malone Matt 20:28, where Jesus offers his life as a
“ransom,” emphasises themes of redemption
This dissertation examines the possible Isaianic and atonement. This reflects Matthew’s view
influence on Luke’s depiction of Jesus as Lord on penal substitutionary atonement. The
in the book of Acts. It argues that Luke’s second allusion, to Exod 21:32 LXX in
Isaianic intertexts portray Jesus as sharing Matthew 26:15, involves Judas’s betrayal price
Yahweh’s identity and function as κύριος. of thirty pieces of silver, echoing the irony of
The approach is intertextual and exegetical valuing Jesus at the price of a slave. The third
and aims at how the book of Isaiah shapes allusion, to Exod 21:14 LXX in Matthew 26:4,
Luke’s narrative picture of Jesus as Lord by his underscores themes of guilt and judgement
works, theophanic Christophanies, words, and against leaders plotting against Jesus.
relationship with the apostles, the Holy Spirit,
the word of God, the Way of the Lord, the Overall, this study highlights the significance
name of the Lord, redemptive history, Israel, of Exodus 21 LXX for understanding
and the nations. This thesis brings two camps Matthew’s theology and the use of the Greek
of Lukan scholars into a dialogue: those who Torah in the Gospel narrative.
note that κύριος is Luke’s preferred
christological title in Acts and those for whom Amber Dillon
Isaiah is the hermeneutic for the theology of Ridley College
Luke–Acts. I synthesize these two otherwise
separate domains by exegeting representative “The Archetypal Witness: John the Baptist and
texts with keen attention to the narrative Composite Intertextuality in the Fourth Gospel”
intertexts to see how Isaiah shapes Jesus’s
lordship in the book of Acts, closing with Principal Supervisor: Dr. Mike Bird
eight Isaianic motifs that reveal the divine Co-supervisor: Dr. Chris Porter
κύριος Christology of the book of Acts.
Scholarship on the Fourth Gospel has explored
Peter Collier the Evangelist's use of Scripture, charact-
Christ College erization, and the Gospel's relationship to
Judaism. While direct scriptural references are
“Three Overlooked Allusions to Exodus 21 limited, the narratives are rich with allusions to
LXX in the Gospel of Matthew” Jewish traditions. Characters reveal details that
engage audiences with the portrayal of Jesus.
Principal Supervisor: Dr. Ian Smith The Gospel, blending Jewish and anti-Jewish
Co-supervisor: Dr. Greg Goswell elements, uses terms like οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, situating

32
 NEXUS

situating the Evangelist’s work within Second Warren

Rob Falls
Kercher
Temple interpretive traditions. This thesis
highlights John the Baptist's role as a pivotal
Malyon
Christ College
College
figure, arguing that his testimony deepens the “How Queensland Baptist Pastors Determine and
Evangelist's depiction of Jesus and Scriptural Justify Their Preferred Preaching Methods”
themes. Through composite allusions to
Jewish Scriptures, John serves as an archetypal Principal Supervisor: Dr. Ian Hussey
witness, establishing a pattern followed by Co-supervisor: Dr. Tim Patrick
others who testify to Jesus. This analysis offers
a perspective on the Jewish nature of the Warren Kercher is awarded the degree of
Fourth Gospel, illustrating how its narratives Doctor of Philosophy for his thesis How
position Jesus as a resolution within Israel's Queensland Baptist Pastors Determine and Justify
story. Their Preferred Preaching Methods. Warren’s
principal supervisor was Ian Hussey and his
Jesse Johnson
co-supervisor, Tim Patrick. Having identified
Christ College the lack of information available regarding
Queensland Baptist pastors’ preaching
“A Savior Without Subordination: The Covenant practices including the justification of their
of Redemption as an Alternative to EFS” methods, this research was undertaken to fill
this gap in knowledge and provide valuable
Principal Supervisor: Dr. John McClean feedback to the Queensland Baptist
Co-supervisor: Dr. Murray Smith denomination and its training arms, especially
Malyon Theological College. It found that
This research demonstrates that the covenant pastors are content to employ a breadth of
of redemption provides an alternative to EFS biblically grounded preaching approaches in
(the teaching that the Son is eternally and pursuing their primary aim of transformation
functionally subordinate to the Father), and in their hearers. This research is an exercise in
that the covenant of redemption can be used Practical Theology using a Grounded Theory
to help explain the nature of intra-Trinitarian methodology. This work also contains an
relations in a way that does not imply the historical survey of Queensland Baptist
Son’s subordination to the Father. Using preaching which aids interpretation of data
theological exegesis, this research argues that relating to the contemporary homiletical
there is biblical support for the pactum as a landscape.
theological concept, and then demonstrates
that the pactum is compatible with key pro- Master of Theology (Research)
Nicene theological concepts, such as the ad
intra/ad extra distinction, eternal generation, Steven Daly
and inseparable operations. In contrast, this Trinity Theological College
research shows how EFS is not compatible
with those same pro-Nicene concepts. The “The Riddle of the Beloved Disciple’s
conclusion uses John’s send passages as a test Anonymity in the Fourth Gospel.”
case. It compares how contemporary
theologians—such as Fesko, Köstenberger, and Principal Supervisor: Dr Grant Taylor
Swain—have used the pactum to interpret Co-Supervisor: Dr Allan Chapple
those texts with how EFS advocates—such as
Cowan, Grudem, and Ware—have understood Why does the Fourth Gospel present its star
them. This comparison verifies that the eyewitness anonymously? This is quizzical
covenant of redemption provides a better way given his importance. It is demonstrated that
to understand intra-Trinitarian relations than anonymity performs an important role both in
does EFS. the Beloved Disciple’s characterization as well

33
 NEXUS

as, paradoxically, in the revelation of his Gordon

Rob Falls
Menzies
identity. The author eventually shows the
Beloved Disciple and the Narrator
Morling
Christ College
College
unequivocally to be one and the same: John “Heteronormativity as Harmony”
son of Zebedee. The Fourth Gospel marries
the eyewitness testimony of the younger John Principal Supervisor: Dr. Andrew Sloane
with the spiritual insight of the older John Co-supervisor: Dr. Matthew Andrew
into one coherent, Christological witness,
with anonymity underscoring the nature of This thesis argues for recognizing ‘man’ and
the narrator as a servant of Christ, a messenger ‘woman’ as divinely given identities,
whose message is Christ, and a wise person highlighting the harmony in hetero-
whose wisdom is the Word of God. normativity. It critiques Judith Butler's anti-
essentialism by reestablishing a link between
Rob Falls
the body and gender expression,
Christ College acknowledging their variability. The work
integrates theology, network economics,
“The Newness of the New Covenant in 2 biology, psychology, and sociology to form a
Corinthians 3:6.” model for understanding gender norms. This
model emphasizes two harmonies: inner
Principal Supervisor: Dr Ian Smith harmony, where gender aligns body, romantic
Co-Supervisor: Dr Greg Goswell desire, and identity; and outer harmony,
where men and women relate as similar yet
Robert Falls is awarded the degree of Master distinct, fostering both connection and
of Theology (Research) for his thesis The interest. This dual harmony supports the idea
Newness of the New Covenant in 2 that, while gender isn't everything, it is
Corinthians 3:6. Rev Dr Ian Smith was his meaningful. The thesis promotes “hetero-
principal supervisor and Rev Dr Gregory normativity as harmony,” endorsing non-
Goswell was his co-supervisor. The thesis first oppressive gender norms as expressions of
establishes the proper framework by which to “gendered moral beauty.” This beauty
approach Paul’s use of the phrase “new represents a triad of truth, goodness, and
covenant” namely the prevailing Jewish beauty that opposes oppression and
covenantal theology of the first century, encourages human flourishing, advancing
which never conceptualised that God would both personal and relational freedom.
invalidate and replace his own covenant.
Second, through a close exegetical analysis of
the antitheses of 2 Corinthians 2:14–3:18, the
thesis demonstrates that Paul’s paramount
concern was the new nature and efficacy of
covenantal ministry, not the covenants
themselves. It therefore concludes that 2
Corinthians 3 explores the new, efficacious
ministry of the covenant, and provides no
support for covenantal abrogation.

34
 Attention all ACT Faculty
& HDR students
Don’t forget to register for the ACT
PD & HDR Conference days!!

To see the full program, visit the ‘Events’ section of

the Graduate School of Research page on the
ACT website.

To register for the conference,

click here.

Any enquires about the PD or HDR conference days

should be directed to Anusha DeSilva:
[email protected]
 NEXUS

Our Team
Dean & CEO Deputy Registrar
Professor James Dalziel Diana Tadjudin
Research, Teaching and Learning Academic Administrative Officer
Division Rebekah Wall
Deputy Dean, Director of Research Academic Services Support Officer
Dr Edwina Murphy Jaynee Tan
Research IT Systems Manager
Research Manager Witali Klein
Dr Louise Gosbell Executive Assistant to the Executive Team
Teaching & Learning Anusha De Silva
Director of Teaching & Learning Quality
Rev Dr Ian O’Harae Quality Manager
Moderation & Inclusion Manager Lissa Philip
Erin Hutton Academic Quality Officer
Registry, Quality & Finance Division Stephen Sarkoezy
Chief Operating Officer & Registrar
Simon Davies
ACT Office News
Finance
ACT Dean & CEO Professor James
Director of Finance Dalziel will be on study from July to
December 2024. Deputy Dean, Dr
Vicki Chen Edwina Murphy, will serve as Acting
Financial Accountant Dean for this period.

Mary Ann Navidad NEXUS Communications

Registry For any communications regarding the
ACT’s NEXUS magazine, please
Director of Academic Services contact us at:
[email protected]
Asanka Gunerathne

36