（期中周刚过，几个人顶着黑眼圈进来，桌上是打包回来的外卖盒）
一、我每天到底在忙什么？
Peter：（一边刷手机一边叹气）我室友昨天转发了一篇文章给我，说AI已经能写出比大部分Junior Dev更干净的代码了。我学CS的，本来觉得这专业挺稳，现在越看越慌——我拼命刷题、赶project、卷GPA，可能四年之后，我学的这些东西根本用不上，会不会毕业就等于失业？
Jack：（苦笑）你还算好的，至少CS还算「跟得上时代」。我是Business，我们班上一半人都在讨论要不要转专业，说以后连做PPT、写商业分析报告这种事AI都能干，招聘的岗位只会越来越少。
Tom：温哥华生活成本又这么贵，工签、PR一年比一年难，我们这一代留学生，感觉是在为一个越来越不确定的未来拼命，说白了就是不知道图什么。
Jenny：（小声）我倒不是特别焦虑「有没有工作」，我更常问自己——我每天刷题、写Paper、卷履历，这些事本身，除了「换一份工作」，到底还有什么意义？会不会我这几年做的，全部都只是为了一张能兑换成薪水的入场券，跟「我是谁」「我为什么活着」这些问题一点关系都没有？
John：（放下咖啡）你们提的这些，其实是两层不太一样的焦虑。我插一句题外话——我读书的时候还没有AI这个说法，我们那时候担心的是外包，「你学的东西会不会被印度的团队用三分之一的工资做掉」，跟你们现在的焦虑，本质上是同一种恐慌换了个马甲。Peter和Jack说的，更接近「我的专业会不会被淘汰」；Jenny问的更深一层——「就算专业没被淘汰，这一切忙碌本身有没有意义」。我们先说第一层。
Peter：好，那第一层，你怎么看AI这个事？你会不会觉得我在杞人忧天？
John：我不会说你在杞人忧天，这是个真实的处境，我没办法向你保证「你的专业绝对不会被冲击」，那样说不负责任。但我想先请你们看一件更根本的事——从工业革命开始，每一次重大的技术变革，都会有人问「我学的东西还有用吗」，纺织工人这样问过，会计师、翻译，这些年也这样问过。历史告诉我们的，不是「某个具体技能永远安全」，是人需要不断适应、学习，这本身从来不是新鲜事。AI这次可能来得更快、更猛，但焦虑的性质，其实不是全新的。
Jack：（挑刺）可这次不一样吧，以前是「某个行业」被冲击，这次听起来是「几乎所有脑力劳动」都可能被冲击，包括我们现在拼命学的这些「软技能」。
John：这个担心有道理，我不想轻描淡写。但我想先请你们退一步想一个问题——你们刚才描述自己每天的状态，「拼命刷题」「卷GPA」「卷履历」，这些词本身，透露出一种什么样的心态？
Tom：……就是怕落后吧，怕比不上别人。
John：对，那个「怕」字，才是我更想跟你们一起看清楚的东西。如果我每天学习、工作的意义，最终建立在「我能不能比别人更有竞争力、能不能保住一份好工作」上，那不管AI来不来，这个地基本身就是会晃的——因为总有比你更厉害、更年轻、更便宜的人，AI只是把这个真相，提前、更猛烈地摆在你面前而已。
Jenny：那意思是，AI这件事，其实是在逼我们面对一个本来就存在、只是被暂时掩盖住的问题？
John：我觉得是这样。圣经对「工作」这件事的理解，跟这套「工作=证明我的价值、换取安全感」的逻辑，从根上就不一样。创世记一开始，神造人，就吩咐人要耕种看守伊甸园——工作不是罪进入世界之后才有的惩罚，是神从起初就赐给人的、有尊严的呼召，是人被造去反映神、去有创造力地治理这个世界的一部分。
Jack：那工作到底是什么，如果不是「赚钱吃饭的工具」？
John：不只是工具，但也不用把它讲得太玄——工作首先是神给你的一个具体的场域，让你活出「你是照神的形象被造的」这件事：用你的头脑、双手、恩赐，去创造有价值的东西、服事别人、供应家庭。你今天写代码、做报表，如果那个工作本身是诚实的、对别人有益的，这本身就是有意义的，不需要靠「这份工作永远不会被取代」才有价值。约翰·傅瑞姆写基督徒生活的伦理学时，反复强调一个观点，大意是——基督的主权不是只管你礼拜天在教会里做什么，是管你整个礼拜、每一个领域，写代码、做报表，跟主日敬拜，不是分成「属灵」和「世俗」两块，而是同一位主在不同的场域里，都要求你忠心、都能被你用来敬拜祂。工作不是信仰之外的另一件事，是信仰活出来的地方之一。
Jenny：那是不是意味着，工作干得好不好、有没有果效，跟我信仰好不好也挂钩？
John：不完全是「挂钩」，是「同一件事的不同侧面」。你诚实地把一份工作做好，本身就是在活出信仰，不需要额外加一层「宗教意义」才算数。
Peter：可这样说还是没解决我最实际的焦虑——如果AI真的取代了我学的这些技能，我该怎么办，是不是就白学了？
John：我想诚实地说——某些具体的技能，确实有可能被取代，这是真实的风险，我不会假装它不存在。但我想邀请你们，把「我学的东西有没有用」这个问题，从「能不能换到工作」，往下挖一层——你在学习这些东西的过程里，锻炼出来的思考方式、解决问题的能力、跟人合作的能力，这些不是那么容易被一夜之间「淘汰」的，而且更重要的是，就算某一份具体的工作没了，神对你的呼召——用你的恩赐服事人、诚实地劳动、在群体中承担责任——这个更根本的呼召，不会因为某个岗位消失就跟着消失。
Jenny：（这时插话，语气认真起来）我想接着往下问。我这几年的困惑，其实不是「AI会不会取代我」，是更根本的——我爸妈一直想让我读一个好找工作、好移民的专业，比如Accounting或者Data Science，可我自己真正想走的方向是别的，是我觉得神好像在这方面给了我一些负担、一些热情的地方，但那个方向「钱景」不明朗。我夹在这两种「成功」的定义中间，快被撕裂了。
Tom：这个我懂，我爸也是天天念叨「学这个以后能找到工作吗」。
John：Jenny这个撕裂，我觉得特别值得停下来看。你爸妈那套「成功」的定义——稳定、高薪、能移民——不是完全没有道理，这些是真实的、需要认真考虑的现实因素，圣经也从来没说「不要考虑现实、只管凭感觉走」，那是不负责任的。但如果「成功」的定义，只剩下这一套外在的、可以量化的标准，那这套定义本身，其实跟AI焦虑背后那套逻辑是同一个根——都是把一个人的价值，绑在「外在的、可以被别人比较、可以被淘汰」的东西上。
Jenny：那我该怎么在这两者之间找平衡？总不能完全不管现实，任性地说「神呼召我」就不管钱的事了吧。
John：完全同意，不能不负责任。但我想给你一个具体的问题去想，而不是一个「随便选一个」的空泛答案——你觉得那个让你有负担、有热情的方向，是不是也能诚实地服事人、供应你自己和将来的家庭，只是可能不像另一条路那么「稳」？如果是，那这不是「任性 vs 负责任」的选择，是两种都需要智慧和信心去走的路，只是风险和确定性不一样，值得你认真祷告、也跟信任的人商量，而不是简单套一个「听神的就一定选冷门」或者「现实的就一定不属灵」的公式。
Amy：（这时开口，带着好奇）我想插一句题外话。我上学期修了一门Sociology of Work，教授讲，「工作有神圣意义」这种说法，本质上是资本主义为了让人心甘情愿被剥削、心甘情愿加班，硬塞给劳动者的一套意识形态，好让人不去质疑不公平的用工结构。听完之后我再看你们刚才说的「工作是神给的呼召」，会不会也是同一种套路——用宗教语言，让人更心甘情愿地接受一份可能本来就不公平的工作？
（一时安静，几个人对视了一下）
John：（认真地）Amy这个问题问得很尖锐，我要老实说，这个批判，某种程度上是有道理的——历史上确实有教会、有雇主，滥用「工作是神圣的」这句话，去让工人接受不公平的待遇，甚至压制工人争取正当权益，这是真实发生过的罪，教会该为此认罪，不该被美化或者洗白。
Amy：（意外）我以为你会直接反驳我。
John：不会，因为你说的那部分，我没办法否认，那是真的滥用。但我想指出，你教授那套理论本身，也有一个没有被摆到台面上的前提——它默认「意义」这个词本身，只是一种被权力结构制造出来、用来操控人的工具，没有什么「意义」是真实存在、不是被建构出来服务某种利益的。如果这个前提是对的，那你教授讲的这套「揭穿意识形态」的理论，会不会也只是另一种意识形态，服务着学术圈自己的某种利益结构？
Jack：（若有所思）就是说，用来「戳破」别人是骗局的那把刀，也可以反过来戳自己？
John：对，这正是这类批判理论一个常见的自我瓦解——它可以拆穿任何一种「意义」，说那只是权力的伪装，唯独不去拆穿自己「一切意义都是权力伪装」这句话本身，是不是也可能只是它自己那套框架的产物。我不是说这类理论完全没有洞见——它提醒我们，确实要警惕权力、警惕剥削，这是对的、也是圣经本身一直在讲的，先知书里神一次次斥责那些欺压穷人、亏待雇工的人。但它跟圣经不一样的地方是，圣经在揭露不公义的同时，仍然肯定「工作本身有真实的、不是被谁编出来的尊严和意义」，这两件事——反对剥削，跟肯定工作的意义——圣经是同时讲的，不是非此即彼。
Amy：（想了想）……好吧，这个我需要再想想，但至少你没有直接否认我说的那部分是真的。
John：我不想否认，因为教会确实欠了不少人一句「对不起」，在这件事上。
讨论：
这一场聊到了AI带来的职业焦虑、「工作=证明自己价值」这套逻辑本来就摇摇欲坠、Jenny夹在两种「成功」定义中间的撕裂，还有Amy提出的「工作神圣意义」会不会只是意识形态操控的质疑。请讨论：你现在每天读书、赶due、找实习，如果把「怕落后、怕被淘汰」这份焦虑先放到一边，你觉得这些努力，还剩下什么让你愿意继续做下去的理由？
二、到底谁在定义什么是「真」？
Tom：（有点不好意思）我想说件挺现实的事。我室友这学期GPA一直比我高，前几天他拿到一个大厂的Return Offer，我表面上恭喜他，心里却很不是滋味，忍不住会想——是不是我不够被神喜悦，才这么不顺，他比我「值」？我知道不该这么想，但心里就是会冒出这个念头。
Grace：我也有过，看到同龄人事业顺、工资高，会不自觉地觉得「神好像更祝福他」，虽然我脑子里知道这个逻辑不对。
John：（点头）这个念头，其实是一个很古老的谎言换了个现代包装——「外在的成功，等于神的悦纳」，约伯的三个朋友，整本约伯记里一直在跟约伯讲这套逻辑：你受苦，一定是你哪里得罪了神；你顺利，就是神喜悦你。神在约伯记最后，明确地斥责了这三个朋友的说法。
Tom：那神喜不喜悦我，到底跟我GPA、工资有没有关系？
John：没有直接关系。神对你的悦纳，如果你在基督里，是完全建立在基督已经替你成就的事上，不是你的GPA、你的Offer、你的银行余额。你室友拿到Return Offer，不代表他「更蒙福」；你暂时不顺，也不代表你「不够格」。这两件事，是完全不同层面的事，硬把它们绑在一起，是我们的心自己在编故事，不是圣经教的。
Peter：（换个话题，认真地）我想问一个更学术一点的问题，可能会讲得有点长，你们忍一下。我这学期修了Intro Psychology，教授花了整整一节课讲进化心理学，说人的道德感、利他行为、甚至「爱」，说到底都是基因为了让个体更好地生存、繁衍，演化出来的策略——比如父母爱孩子，是因为这样基因才能传下去；人会有「公平感」，是因为群居动物这样才能长期合作、不至于互相残杀。整套体系讲得挺自洽的，从头到尾都不需要提到「罪」「救赎」这些词，逻辑上也说得通，考试还要求我们用这套框架去分析案例。我听完之后有点恍惚——我的信仰和我学的这套心理学，到底谁在定义「真相」？我该怎么学，才不会觉得自己精神分裂，上课信一套，主日信另一套？
John：这个「精神分裂感」，我完全理解，很多念心理学、社会学、生物学的基督徒同学都经历过，我自己以前也有过类似的挣扎。我先说一句——你教授讲的那套理论，「逻辑自洽」这件事本身，不代表它就是完整的真相，只代表它在自己设定的框架内，能自圆其说。
Peter：这什么意思？
John：任何一套解释体系，只要它够精密，几乎都能在自己的框架内讲得通，问题是——这套框架的起点，也就是它最开始默认接受、却从来不去证明的那几个前提，对不对。你教授那套进化心理学，一开始就默认「人只是进化出来的生物机器，没有一位造物主，没有超越物质世界的东西存在」，在这个前提下，道德感、意义感，当然都只能被解释成「有利于生存繁衍的适应性特征」。这个前提没有被证明过，是被当成研究的默认起点。
Jack：那我们信的这套，不也是一个「起点」吗？凭什么我们的起点更「真」？
John：这正是关键的地方——每一个人，不管信不信神，都是从某个没办法先证明、只能先相信的起点出发去理解世界的，没有人是从一个完全「中立、没有任何预设」的地方开始思考的，包括最坚定的无神论科学家。真正该问的问题，不是「谁的起点听起来更学术、更客观」，是「哪一个起点，能真正撑得住我们生活里明明白白经历到的东西」——比如，你教授那套理论，能不能真正解释清楚，为什么「屠杀无辜」是真实地错的，不只是「不利于生存繁衍」这么简单？能不能解释，为什么我们会经历到爱、经历到良心的谴责、经历到对公义近乎本能的渴望，这些东西如果只是进化的副产品，它们凭什么真的「重要」？
Peter：（想了想）……好像还真没法完全解释，最多说「这是有利于群体生存的机制」，但那感觉不太够。而且我还想到一个更让我不安的地方——如果爱、道德感都只是基因策略，那我爱我爸妈、爱我女朋友，是不是说到底也只是基因在操控我，根本没有什么「真的爱」，只是一堆化学反应在演戏？
John：这正是这套理论最难自圆其说的地方——它一旦用来解释「别人」的道德感、爱，听起来还挺有说服力；可一旦你把它用回自己身上，用来看你此刻对你爸妈、对你女朋友的爱，你会发现，你没办法真的这样活——你不会在拥抱你妈妈的时候，心里想「这只是基因让我这样做」，你经历到的，是真实的爱，不是一个化学反应的旁观报告。这说明，就算是最相信进化心理学的人，实际生活里，也没办法真的按照这套理论去活，他们照样会真诚地爱人、真诚地为不公义愤怒，好像这些真的有超越基因的分量一样。这个「说一套、活一套」的裂缝，恰恰说明这套理论没有讲出全部的真相。
Jack：（这时插话，带着自己的经历）我想到我一个非基督徒的朋友，他学的是Anthropology，人类学。他上学期给我看了一篇论文，讲不同文化对「乱伦禁忌」「一夫一妻制」的态度差异特别大，有些部落文化甚至完全没有我们认为「天经地义」的那些性道德规范。他说这就证明了「道德根本没有客观标准，全是文化建构出来的产物，你们基督徒说的那套『性道德』，只是你们那个文化偶然形成的规矩而已，不比别的文化的规矩更『对』」。我当时没接上话，挺尴尬的。
John：这个论证的模式，我们上次聊「意义由读者建构」的时候其实碰过类似的——从「不同文化有不同做法」，直接跳到「所以没有客观对错，都只是相对的」，中间其实跳过了很关键的一步。
Tom：跳过了什么？
John：「不同文化做法不一样」，这个观察是真的，人类学家做的这些田野调查很有价值，我不否认。但「做法不一样」，跟「所以没有哪个做法更对」，这两件事之间，需要一个额外的假设才能连起来，那个假设就是——「道德真理，如果存在，应该在所有文化里长得一模一样，没有例外」。可这个假设从哪来的？没有人证明过它。而且反过来想——不同文化对「二加二等于几」也可能有不同的记数系统、不同的表达方式，但这不代表「二加二」本身没有客观答案，只是表达、理解的方式不一样。
Jack：那你朋友那句「你们那套只是文化建构」，怎么回？
John：可以反问他——他说「道德是文化建构出来的，没有客观对错」，那「奴隶制是错的」「种族灭绝是错的」，这些他自己大概也深信不疑的判断，是不是也「只是某种文化建构、没有客观对错」？如果他愿意为了保持逻辑一致，承认「连奴隶制、种族灭绝对不对，也只是相对的、看哪个文化」，那大部分人，包括他自己，其实没办法真的接受这个结论，会本能地反对。可如果他不愿意承认这一点，那他就已经在用行动证明——他心里其实相信，有些道德真理，是跨文化、不因文化不同而改变的，只是他还没想清楚，凭什么「屠杀无辜是错的」能有客观标准，别的道德问题却不能。
Amy：（这时又提出一个更具体的例子）我想说我室友的一件事，可能更贴近生活。她这学期修了Gender Studies，整个学期学下来，她说她现在觉得，「男女有本质差异」这种说法，本身就是社会建构出来、用来维持某种权力结构的东西，性别更多是一个光谱、一种流动的、每个人自己定义的东西。她跟我说这些的时候，态度挺笃定的，我听着觉得也有一定道理——毕竟每个人经历自己的性别认同确实不完全一样。但我也隐约觉得，这套说法好像走得有点远，具体哪里不对，我说不清楚。
John：这是个很实际、也很敏感的问题，我想认真地、也温和地回应，而不是简单地说「这是错的」就带过去。我先说一点——每个人对自己性别的经历、感受，确实是真实的、复杂的，这些感受背后往往也有真实的挣扎、真实的痛苦，这些不该被轻视或者嘲笑，这也是为什么面对这个议题，态度上要格外温柔。
Amy：那你们不同意她那套理论？
John：我想指出的是，跟刚才「乱伦禁忌」那个例子类似的一个逻辑跳跃——「性别的社会期待、角色分工，在不同文化里有很大差异」，这个观察是真的，比如「男生该做什么工作、女生该穿什么颜色」，这些确实很大程度上是文化习俗；但从这一步，直接跳到「所以男女之间根本没有神所设计的、真实的、有意义的差异，一切都只是流动的、自己定义的」，这中间又需要一个没被证明的假设——「凡是带着文化差异的东西，底层就没有任何客观、被造的实质」。圣经从创世记开始就讲，神造男造女，两者都完全平等地带着神的形象，同样宝贵，同时又是真实地、有意义地不同，这个「既平等又不同」的图景，本身就没有落入「男女完全一样」或者「性别完全是自己定义」这两个极端。
Amy：那对我室友那种真实的挣扎，你们会怎么回应，而不只是讲道理？
John：如果是我，我不会一见面就先辩论理论，会先想认识她这个人、听她的故事——她的挣扎从哪里来的，是不是曾经因为「不符合期待」被伤害过、被嘲笑过。很多时候，人接受一套理论，不是先被逻辑说服的，是先被那套理论「接住」了自己真实的痛，如果基督徒只顾着辩论对错，却没有先看见、没有先陪伴那份真实的痛，讲再多道理也没用，甚至会把人推得更远。
Jenny：（这时想起自己的一件事）说到「厉害」这件事，我想说说我的一个纠结，跟前面聊的这些都有点关系。我其实希望，将来别人提起我的时候，第一反应是「这人很厉害」——学历好、事业好、生活体面。可我也隐约知道，如果「厉害」这件事就是我全部想要的目标，好像哪里不太对，但我又说不清楚哪里不对，毕竟想被人认可、想活得体面，这不是很正常的愿望吗？
John：这个愿望本身不是罪，神造我们，本来就有这种渴望被肯定、渴望活出美好人生的心，这不需要压抑。问题不在于「想要被人认为厉害」，是在于——如果这件事变成了你全部的、最终极的追求，它撑不住那个位置，因为「别人怎么看你」这件事，太不稳定了，随时会变；而且就算全世界都觉得你很厉害，那份认同也没办法真正填满你心里更深的那个渴望——被真正、无条件地认识和爱。
Jenny：那要怎么把这两种想法理清楚？
John：不是叫你从此不在乎事业、不追求做得好，那也不现实、也不圣经。是把次序摆对——你可以真心地、努力地追求把工作做好、活出有见证的生活，这本身是荣耀神的；但你不需要靠「别人觉得我厉害」，来确认自己「够格、有价值」，因为那份「够格」，在基督里，从一开始就已经是确定的，不需要靠外在的成就再去挣一次。你追求卓越，是因为你已经被爱了，不是为了换来被爱。
Amy：（若有所思，总结似地）我发现你们说来说去，好像很多问题最后都绕回同一个点——不管是心理学的进化解释、人类学的文化相对论、还是性别理论，你们说的意思，都是「这些理论一旦走到底，都会自己推翻自己，或者没办法解释我们真实活出来的东西」。会不会有点……什么都往这上面套？
John：（笑，认真地）这个观察很敏锐，我也想诚实地承认——这确实是我们，包括我自己，一直在讲的同一个核心，不是因为词穷、找不到别的话讲，是因为我越观察这些不同领域的理论，越发现，它们大多都是从同一个起点出发的——先假定除了物质世界，什么都不存在，然后再用这个假定去解释爱、道德、意义、性别这些东西，解释到最后，往往没办法真正安放我们活生生经历到的那些最深的东西，甚至连它们自己讲的人，都没办法真的照着那套理论去生活。不是我们「什么都往这上面套」，是这些理论，走到底，真的常常会露出同一个破绽。
Tom：（沉默一会儿，若有所思）……行吧，我这次是真没法反驳了，虽然感觉心里还是有点不服气。
John：（笑）不服气没关系，这些不是靠一次谈话就能完全说服你的东西，你可以带着这份不服气，回去继续想、继续问，我完全欢迎你下次带着更难的问题回来。
讨论：
这一场聊到了「别人顺利就是神更喜悦他」这个古老的谎言、进化心理学对爱与道德的解释、人类学的文化相对论、性别理论背后的假设，以及Jenny希望被人觉得「厉害」的挣扎。John反复指出，很多这类理论，一旦走到底，要嘛没办法解释我们真实经历到的爱与道德，要嘛连提出理论的人自己都没办法照着它去生活。请讨论：
1) 在你自己修的课里，有没有哪一门课、哪一个理论，让你听完之后跟信仰产生过类似的「精神分裂感」？
2) 听完今天的讨论，你会怎么重新面对那门课、那个理论？
Lesson 9: AI Is Here—Is What I’m Studying Still Useful? — Calling and the Future
(Midterm week has just ended. A few people walk in with dark circles under their eyes, with takeout containers scattered across the table.)
1. What Am I Actually So Busy Doing Every Day?
Peter: (scrolling through his phone and sighing) My roommate sent me an article yesterday saying that AI can already write cleaner code than most junior developers. I’m in CS, and I used to think this was a pretty safe major. But the more I look at what’s happening, the more nervous I get—I’m grinding through coding problems, rushing through projects, obsessing over my GPA, and maybe four years from now, none of what I’ve learned will even be useful. What if graduating basically means being unemployed?
Jack: (smiling bitterly) At least you’re in CS, which is still considered somewhat “up to date.” I’m in Business. Half the people in my class are talking about whether they should switch majors, because AI can already do things like make PowerPoints and write business analysis reports. The number of jobs companies hire for is only going to shrink.
Tom: And living costs in Vancouver are so high. Work permits and PR seem to get harder every year. For international students like us, it feels like our generation is working ourselves to death for a future that’s becoming more and more uncertain. Honestly, we don’t even know what we’re working toward.
Jenny: (quietly) I’m actually not that anxious about whether I’ll have a job. What I ask myself more often is—besides “getting another job,” what meaning do all these things have in themselves? I spend my days doing practice problems, writing papers, building my résumé. What if everything I’ve done these past few years is just an entrance ticket that can eventually be exchanged for a salary, and has nothing to do with questions like “Who am I?” or “Why am I alive?”
John: (putting down his coffee) What you guys are bringing up is actually two somewhat different layers of anxiety. Let me make a quick side comment—I was in school before people even talked about AI like this. Back then, we were worried about outsourcing: “What if the things I’m learning get done by a team in India for one-third of the cost?” The basic fear is actually the same as yours today, just wearing a different outfit. What Peter and Jack are talking about is closer to “Will my major become obsolete?” Jenny is asking the deeper question: “Even if my major doesn’t become obsolete, does all this busyness itself have any meaning?” Let’s start with the first layer.
Peter: Okay, so what do you think about AI? Do you think I’m worrying about nothing?
John: I wouldn’t say you’re worrying about nothing. This is a real situation, and I can’t honestly promise you, “Your major will definitely never be affected.” That would be irresponsible. But I want you to step back and look at something more fundamental. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, every major technological change has made people ask, “Will what I’ve learned still be useful?” Textile workers have asked that. Accountants and translators have asked it in recent years too. What history tells us isn’t that “one particular skill will always be safe.” It tells us that people constantly need to adapt and learn. That part is nothing new. AI may be arriving faster and hitting harder this time, but the nature of the anxiety isn’t completely new.
Jack: (pushing back) But isn’t this time different? Before, it was “a particular industry” being disrupted. This time it sounds like “almost all kinds of knowledge work” could be disrupted, including the so-called “soft skills” we’re working so hard to develop.
John: That concern is reasonable, and I don’t want to brush it aside. But I want you to step back and ask a different question—when you describe your everyday life as “grinding through problems,” “chasing a high GPA,” and “building your résumé,” what kind of mindset do those words reveal?
Tom: …I guess it’s being afraid of falling behind. Being afraid I won’t be as good as everyone else.
John: Exactly. That word “afraid” is what I really want us to look at. If the meaning of my studying and working every day is ultimately built on “Can I be more competitive than other people? Can I keep a good job?” then the foundation is going to shake whether AI comes or not—because there will always be someone smarter, younger, or cheaper than you. AI is just putting that reality in front of you earlier and more forcefully.
Jenny: So you mean AI is actually forcing us to face a problem that was already there, but had just been hidden for a while?
John: I think so. The Bible’s understanding of “work” is fundamentally different from the logic of “work = proving my worth and earning security.” Right at the beginning of Genesis, when God created human beings, He commanded them to cultivate and care for the Garden of Eden. Work wasn’t a punishment that appeared only after sin entered the world. From the very beginning, it was a dignified calling God gave human beings. It was part of what we were created to do—to reflect God and creatively care for and develop His world.
Jack: Then what exactly is work, if it isn’t just “a tool for making money and putting food on the table”?
John: It’s not just a tool, but we don’t have to make it overly complicated either. First of all, work is a specific place God has given you to live out the fact that “you were created in God’s image.” You use your mind, your hands, and your gifts to create things of value, serve other people, and provide for your family. If you write code or prepare reports today, and the work itself is honest and beneficial to others, that work already has meaning. It doesn’t need to be a job that will never be replaced in order to have value. When John Frame wrote about Christian ethics, he repeatedly emphasized a basic idea: Christ’s lordship isn’t limited to what you do at church on Sunday. It covers your entire week and every area of your life. Writing code and preparing reports, just like Sunday worship, aren’t divided into two separate categories called “spiritual” and “secular.” They are all different places where the same Lord calls you to be faithful and where you can worship Him. Work isn’t something separate from faith. It is one of the places where faith is lived out.
Jenny: So does that mean how well I do at work, and whether my work is successful, are connected to how well I’m doing spiritually?
John: Not exactly “connected” in that sense. They’re different sides of the same thing. When you honestly do a job well, that itself is part of living out your faith. You don’t need to add an extra layer of “religious meaning” to make it count.
Peter: But that still doesn’t solve my most practical anxiety. If AI really does replace the skills I’m learning, what am I supposed to do? Does that mean all the time I spent learning them was wasted?
John: I want to be honest—some specific skills really may be replaced. That is a real risk, and I’m not going to pretend it isn’t. But I want to invite you to dig one level deeper into the question “Is what I’m learning useful?” instead of stopping at “Can it get me a job?” Through learning these things, you develop ways of thinking, problem-solving skills, and the ability to work with other people. Those things aren’t so easily “made obsolete” overnight. More importantly, even if a particular job disappears, God’s more fundamental calling for you—to use your gifts to serve others, to work honestly, and to take responsibility within a community—doesn’t disappear just because a particular position does.
Jenny: (interrupting, her tone becoming more serious) I want to take this one step further. My struggle these past few years actually isn’t “Will AI replace me?” It’s something more fundamental. My parents have always wanted me to choose a major that leads to a good job and makes immigration easier, like Accounting or Data Science. But the direction I genuinely want to pursue is something else. I feel like God has given me a certain burden and passion for that area, but the career prospects aren’t very clear. I feel like I’m being torn between two different definitions of “success.”
Tom: I get that. My dad is always asking me, “Will you actually be able to find a job with that major?”
John: I think Jenny’s sense of being torn is especially worth stopping to look at. Your parents’ definition of success—stability, a high salary, being able to immigrate—isn’t completely unreasonable. Those are real factors that need to be taken seriously. The Bible never says, “Ignore reality and just follow your feelings.” That would be irresponsible. But if our definition of “success” is reduced to those external, measurable standards, then underneath it, it’s actually driven by the same logic behind our anxiety about AI: both tie a person’s value to things that are external, that can be compared with other people, and that can be replaced.
Jenny: Then how do I find a balance between the two? I can’t just completely ignore reality and say, “God is calling me to this,” and then stop caring about money, right?
John: Absolutely. You can’t be irresponsible. But instead of giving you a vague answer like “Just pick something,” I want to give you a specific question to think about: Can the direction you feel burdened and passionate about also allow you to honestly serve people and provide for yourself and your future family, even if it isn’t as “secure” as the other path? If so, then this isn’t a choice between “being irresponsible” and “being responsible.” These are two paths that both require wisdom and faith. They simply have different levels of risk and certainty. You need to pray seriously about it and talk it through with people you trust, rather than applying some simple formula like “If you listen to God, you must choose the less practical option,” or “If you choose the practical option, you must be less spiritual.”
Amy: (speaking up, curious) Can I make a side comment? Last semester I took a Sociology of Work course. The professor said that the idea that “work has sacred meaning” is basically an ideology created by capitalism to make people willingly accept exploitation and willingly work overtime, so that they won’t question unfair employment structures. After hearing that, when I hear you say “work is a calling from God,” I wonder if it’s actually the same kind of thing—using religious language to make people more willing to accept a job that may already be unfair?
(There is a brief silence. A few of them look at each other.)
John: (seriously) Amy, that’s a very sharp question. And honestly, that criticism has some basis. Throughout history, churches and employers really have misused the phrase “work is sacred” to get workers to accept unfair treatment, and sometimes even to suppress workers from standing up for legitimate rights. That really has happened. It is sin, and the church should confess that rather than trying to glorify it or cover it up.
Amy: (surprised) I thought you were going to argue with me right away.
John: No, because I can’t deny the part you’re talking about. That kind of thing really has been an abuse. But I do want to point out that your professor’s theory also has an unstated assumption behind it. It assumes that “meaning” itself is simply something created by power structures to control people—that no meaning is actually real or exists independently of being constructed to serve some interest. If that assumption is true, then couldn’t your professor’s theory about “exposing ideology” just be another ideology, serving some kind of interest structure within academia?
Jack: (thinking) So the knife we use to “expose” someone else’s deception can also be turned around and used on ourselves?
John: Exactly. That is a common problem with this kind of critical theory. It can expose almost any kind of “meaning” and say that it is merely a disguise for power, while never turning the same criticism back on its own claim that “all meaning is a disguise for power” and asking whether that claim might itself simply be a product of its own framework. I’m not saying these theories have no insight at all. They remind us that we really do need to be alert to power and exploitation, and that is true. The Bible itself has been saying this all along. Again and again, the prophets condemned those who oppressed the poor and mistreated workers. But this is where the Bible is different: while exposing injustice, it still affirms that work itself has a real dignity and meaning that isn’t simply invented by someone. These two things—opposing exploitation and affirming the meaning of work—are both taught in the Bible. It isn’t an either-or choice.
Amy: (thinking) …Okay. I need to think about this more. But at least you didn’t just deny that the part I was talking about is real.
John: I don’t want to deny it, because the church really does owe quite a few people an apology for what has happened in this area.
Discussion:
This conversation touched on career anxiety caused by AI, the fact that the logic of “work = proving my worth” is already unstable, Jenny’s struggle between two different definitions of “success,” and Amy’s challenge that the “sacred meaning of work” might simply be a form of ideological control. Discuss: If you put aside your fear of falling behind and your fear of being replaced, what reasons do you think would still make you want to keep studying, meeting deadlines, and looking for internships every day?
2. Who Gets to Define What Is “True”?
Tom: (a little embarrassed) I want to talk about something pretty real. My roommate’s GPA has been higher than mine all semester, and a few days ago he got a return offer from a major company. I congratulated him on the outside, but honestly, I felt terrible inside. I couldn’t stop thinking, “Maybe things are going so badly for me because God isn’t as pleased with me. Does that mean he’s more ‘valuable’ than I am?” I know I shouldn’t think that way, but the thought just comes up.
Grace: I’ve had that too. When I see people my age doing really well in their careers and making a lot of money, I automatically start thinking, “Maybe God has blessed them more,” even though I know intellectually that the logic isn’t right.
John: (nodding) That thought is actually a very old lie wearing modern clothes: “External success equals God’s approval.” Job’s three friends kept telling Job exactly this throughout the Book of Job: If you’re suffering, you must have done something to offend God. If things are going well for you, then God must be pleased with you. At the end of the Book of Job, God explicitly rebukes these three friends for what they said.
Tom: Then does whether God is pleased with me have anything to do with my GPA or my salary?
John: Not directly. If you are in Christ, God’s acceptance of you is completely based on what Christ has already accomplished for you, not on your GPA, your offer, or the balance in your bank account. Your roommate getting a return offer doesn’t mean he is “more blessed.” And things not going well for you right now don’t mean you are “not good enough.” These are completely different levels of reality. Forcing them together is a story our own hearts are making up. It isn’t what the Bible teaches.
Peter: (changing the subject, seriously) I want to ask something a little more academic. This might take a while, so bear with me. This semester I’m taking Intro Psychology, and the professor spent an entire class talking about evolutionary psychology. He said that our sense of morality, altruistic behavior, and even “love” are ultimately strategies that evolved because they help individuals survive and reproduce more successfully. For example, parents love their children because that’s how their genes get passed on. Humans have a sense of fairness because social animals need that in order to cooperate over the long term instead of killing each other. The whole framework was pretty coherent. It didn’t need words like “sin” or “redemption” at all, and logically, it seemed to make sense. We’re even expected to use this framework to analyze cases on the exam. After hearing all that, I felt kind of disoriented. When it comes to “truth,” who gets to define it—my faith or the psychology I’m learning? How am I supposed to study without feeling like I’m living in two different worlds, believing one thing in class and another thing on Sunday?
John: I completely understand that feeling of being split in two. A lot of Christian students studying psychology, sociology, biology, and similar subjects have experienced it. I’ve struggled with something similar myself. Let me say one thing first: the fact that your professor’s theory is “logically coherent” doesn’t by itself mean it is the complete truth. It only means that within the framework it has set up, the theory is able to explain things consistently.
Peter: What do you mean?
John: Almost any explanatory system, if it is precise enough, can make sense within its own framework. The question is what the framework starts with—the assumptions it accepts at the beginning but never actually proves. Take the evolutionary psychology framework your professor is using. It starts by assuming that human beings are simply biological machines produced by evolution, with no Creator and nothing beyond the material world. Given that starting point, our sense of morality and meaning naturally has to be explained as adaptive traits that help us survive and reproduce. But that starting assumption itself hasn’t been proven. It has simply been taken as the default starting point for the research.
Jack: But isn’t what we believe also a “starting point”? Why should our starting point be more “true”?
John: That is exactly the key issue. Every person, whether they believe in God or not, starts from some point that cannot be proven first and has to be accepted as a starting assumption in order to understand the world. No one begins thinking from a completely “neutral” position with zero assumptions—not even the most committed atheist scientist. The real question isn’t “Whose starting point sounds more academic or objective?” It’s “Which starting point can actually support the things we clearly experience in real life?” For example, can your professor’s framework really explain why “massacring innocent people is wrong” is objectively wrong, rather than simply saying it is “bad for survival and reproduction”? Can it explain why we experience love, why we experience the condemnation of conscience, and why we have an almost instinctive desire for justice? If these things are merely by-products of evolution, why should they actually matter?
Peter: (thinking) …I guess it can’t completely explain them. At most, it can say, “This is a mechanism that helps groups survive,” but somehow that doesn’t seem like enough. And there’s something else that makes me even more uncomfortable. If love and morality are just genetic strategies, then when I love my parents or my girlfriend, does that mean, at the end of the day, my genes are just manipulating me? That there’s no such thing as “real love,” just a bunch of chemical reactions pretending to be love?
John: That is one of the hardest problems for this theory to fully explain. When it uses the theory to explain other people’s morality and love, it can sound pretty convincing. But once you apply the same explanation to yourself—to the love you’re actually experiencing for your parents or your girlfriend—you realize you can’t really live that way. You don’t hug your mom while thinking, “This is just my genes making me do this.” What you experience is real love, not merely an observer’s report about a chemical reaction. This shows that even people who strongly believe in evolutionary psychology don’t actually live according to the theory all the way down. They still genuinely love people and genuinely become angry at injustice, as if these things really have a significance that goes beyond genetics. That gap between “what the theory says” and “how people actually live” is precisely one sign that the theory doesn’t tell the whole story.
Jack: (jumping in with something from his own experience) This reminds me of a non-Christian friend of mine who studies Anthropology. Last semester he showed me a paper about how different cultures have very different attitudes toward things like incest taboos and monogamy. Some tribal cultures don’t even have many of the sexual moral norms that we assume are completely obvious and universal. He said this proves that “morality has no objective standard. It’s all culturally constructed. The sexual morality you Christians talk about is just a set of rules that happened to develop in your culture. It isn’t any more ‘correct’ than the rules of another culture.” I didn’t know how to respond at the time. It was pretty awkward.
John: We actually ran into a similar pattern of reasoning when we talked about “meaning being constructed by the reader.” It goes directly from “different cultures do things differently” to “therefore there is no objective right or wrong; everything is relative.” But there’s actually a very important step missing in between.
Tom: What step?
John: The observation that “different cultures do things differently” is true. The fieldwork anthropologists do is valuable, and I’m not denying that. But going from “people do things differently” to “therefore none of the ways is more correct” requires an additional assumption. That assumption is: “If moral truth exists, it should look exactly the same in every culture, without exception.” But where does that assumption come from? No one has proved it. And think about it the other way around. Different cultures may use different counting systems or different ways of expressing “two plus two,” but that doesn’t mean there is no objective answer to what two plus two is. It just means the way people express or understand it is different.
Jack: Then how would you respond to my friend saying, “Your morality is just culturally constructed”?
John: You could ask him this: If he says “morality is culturally constructed and there is no objective right or wrong,” then what about judgments he himself probably believes very strongly, such as “slavery is wrong” or “genocide is wrong”? Are those also “just cultural constructions with no objective right or wrong”? If he is willing to remain logically consistent and admit that even whether slavery and genocide are right or wrong is relative to whatever culture you happen to be in, most people—including him—would actually struggle to accept that conclusion. They would instinctively reject it. But if he refuses to accept that, then he is already showing through his own actions that he believes some moral truths are cross-cultural and don’t change simply because cultures are different. He just hasn’t yet worked out why “massacring innocent people is wrong” can have an objective standard while other moral questions supposedly cannot.
Amy: (bringing up another, more specific example) I want to talk about something my roommate said, because it might be closer to everyday life. She took Gender Studies this semester, and after the whole course, she said she now thinks that the idea that “men and women have essential differences” is itself socially constructed to maintain a certain power structure. Gender, she says, is more of a spectrum, something fluid that each person defines for themselves. She was pretty confident when she told me this, and I felt like there was some truth in what she was saying. After all, everyone’s experience of their own gender really is not exactly the same. But I also had a vague feeling that maybe this view was taking things a little too far. I just couldn’t explain exactly where the problem was.
John: This is a very practical and sensitive question, and I want to respond seriously and gently rather than simply saying, “That’s wrong,” and moving on. Let me say one thing first: each person’s experience and feelings about their own gender are real and complex. There can also be real struggles and real pain behind those experiences, and those things shouldn’t be dismissed or mocked. That’s one reason we need to approach this issue with particular gentleness.
Amy: So you don’t agree with her theory?
John: What I want to point out is a logical jump similar to the one we just talked about with incest taboos. The observation that “social expectations and gender roles differ greatly across cultures” is true. For example, ideas like “what jobs men should do” or “what colors girls should wear” really are heavily shaped by cultural customs. But going from that to “therefore there are no real, meaningful differences between men and women designed by God, and everything is simply fluid and self-defined” requires another assumption that hasn’t been proven: “Anything that differs across cultures has no objective or created substance underneath it.” From the beginning of Genesis, the Bible says that God created male and female, that both equally bear the image of God and are equally valuable, while also being genuinely and meaningfully different. That picture of being “equal yet different” doesn’t fall into either extreme of “men and women are exactly the same” or “gender is entirely self-defined.”
Amy: Then how would you respond to the real struggles my roommate is experiencing, instead of just arguing about the theory?
John: If it were me, I wouldn’t start by debating the theory the moment I met her. I’d first want to get to know her as a person and hear her story—where her struggles came from, and whether she has ever been hurt or mocked because she didn’t fit other people’s expectations. A lot of the time, people don’t accept a theory because they were first convinced by its logic. They accept it because that theory first “gave them a place to land” for some real pain they were experiencing. If Christians only care about debating what is right or wrong, without first seeing and accompanying that real pain, no amount of arguing will help. It may even push the person further away.
Jenny: (remembering something from her own life) Speaking of being “successful,” I want to talk about something I’ve been struggling with, and it connects with what we’ve been discussing. Honestly, I want people’s first reaction when they hear my name in the future to be, “She’s really impressive”—good education, a good career, a respectable life. But I also vaguely know that if being “impressive” becomes the only thing I ultimately want, something about that doesn’t seem right. I just can’t explain what. After all, isn’t wanting to be recognized by others and wanting to live a respectable life a pretty normal desire?
John: The desire itself isn’t a sin. God created us with a desire to be affirmed and to live a good and meaningful life. You don’t need to suppress that. The problem isn’t “wanting other people to think you’re impressive.” The problem is when that becomes your entire and ultimate pursuit. It can’t carry that weight, because what other people think of you is incredibly unstable and can change at any moment. And even if the whole world thinks you’re impressive, that recognition still can’t truly fill the deeper desire in your heart—to be truly and unconditionally known and loved.
Jenny: Then how do I sort these two things out?
John: I’m not telling you to stop caring about your career or stop trying to do things well. That wouldn’t be realistic, and it wouldn’t be biblical either. It’s about getting the order right. You can sincerely and wholeheartedly pursue excellence at work and live a life that reflects your faith, and that itself can glorify God. But you don’t need to rely on “other people thinking I’m impressive” to prove that you are “good enough” or valuable. In Christ, that “good enough” status has already been settled from the beginning. You don’t need to earn it again through external achievements. You pursue excellence because you are already loved, not in order to earn love.
Amy: (thoughtfully, almost summarizing) I’m noticing that no matter how many different issues you talk about, they seem to keep circling back to the same point. Whether it’s evolutionary explanations in psychology, cultural relativism in anthropology, or theories about gender, what you’re saying is that once these theories are taken all the way to their logical conclusion, they either end up undermining themselves or they can’t explain the things we actually experience and live out. Could that be a little too convenient? Like… are you just fitting everything into the same framework?
John: (smiling, but serious) That’s a very perceptive observation. And I want to honestly admit that this really is the same core point we—including me—keep coming back to. It isn’t because we’ve run out of words or don’t have anything else to say. It’s because the more I look at theories from different fields, the more I notice that many of them start from the same basic assumption: first assume that nothing exists beyond the material world, and then use that assumption to explain love, morality, meaning, gender, and everything else. By the time they reach the end of the explanation, they often can’t really account for the deepest things we experience as living human beings. Sometimes even the people who propose those theories can’t actually live according to them. It isn’t that we’re “forcing everything into the same framework.” It’s that when these theories are followed all the way through, they often really do reveal the same kind of weakness.
Tom: (silent for a moment, thinking) …Okay. This time I really don’t know how to argue back, even though I still feel a little unconvinced inside.
John: (laughing) That’s okay. These aren’t things you can completely convince yourself of after one conversation. You can take that feeling of being unconvinced with you and keep thinking and asking questions. I’d be completely happy for you to come back next time with even harder questions.
Discussion:
This conversation touched on the old lie that “if someone else is doing well, it means God is more pleased with them,” evolutionary psychology’s explanations of love and morality, cultural relativism in anthropology, the assumptions behind theories of gender, and Jenny’s struggle with wanting other people to think she is “impressive.” Discuss:
1) In one of the courses you are taking, has there ever been a class or theory that gave you a similar feeling of being “split in two” between what you were learning and your faith?
2) After today’s discussion, how would you approach that course or theory differently?
