The Robot’s Take
Click here for ChatGPT’s neutral assessment of Passion City DC leadership’s actions in response to the concerned member. ChatGPT was given access to both sides’ views to the fullest extent possible, had no prior knowledge of the issues, and was instructed to respond neutrally from the perspective of a Christian who views the Bible as authoritative. A few key conclusions:
“While the characterization ‘gaslighting’ and ‘spiritual abuse’ carries heavy moral weight, [that] description is well-supported by the available evidence. Stuart’s response is problematic and harmful according to widely accepted biblical and pastoral ethics.”
“There is indisputable evidence that the Passion DC staff repeatedly failed in their responsibility to care for and respond to church members, causing emotional and spiritual harm.”
“The documents suggest a leadership prioritization of institutional reputation over caring for individual members’ spiritual and emotional needs.”
“Passion possesses full access to its own communications (texts, emails, message logs). Therefore, leadership could objectively determine exactly how extensive the communication failures were by reviewing records internally.”
“Leadership’s unwillingness to offer sincere apologies or seek comprehensive solutions falls short of biblical standards of accountability and repentance.”
ChatGPT synthesizes vast amounts of human knowledge, including scholarly literature on biblical ethics, spiritual abuse, and organizational behavior. Its neutral assessment therefore reflects expert human perspectives. But as with any writing, ChatGPT’s assertions should be evaluated on their merits.