I am disturbed by the recent spat of columns written by Mark Rohde challenging and undermining traditionally held Christian beliefs. He seems convinced that he alone is capable of going back into the Scriptures to find their *real* meaning, saying to 2,000 years of Christians looking over his shoulder, “I know better.” Doesn’t he know that’s exactly what all of the heretics think? Arius to Joseph Smith to Jim Jones? While Scripture is infallible, we are not. We are limited and sinful and prone to error. When we’re not sure about some Scripture, we need the wisdom and guidance of Creeds, Councils, Confessions, and Catholicity. And we need the humility to acknowledge we don’t have it all figured out and you don’t have to cut your own trail when there’s a highway right there.

The most disturbing is his absurd use of AI in the writing of his articles. In his article on the sovereignty of God from June 6, out of 867 words, only 214 were actually written by Mr. Rohde. That’s just 25%! The rest were just copied and pasted from AI. Even for an opinion column, shouldn’t there be some standards for how much is actually written by the author?

Even more embarrassing, he seems to treat this as justification for his beliefs. In “Bible truth vs. tradition” from March 21, he concludes, “Copilot and I both agree with Jesus. How about you?” Doesn’t he know that AI just follows his prompt and tells him what he wants to hear? I wasn’t aware that all the robots had converted to Mr. Rohde’s obscure and heterodox form of Christianity.

I wonder if you might give a local pastor a chance to respond? Perhaps institute some editorial standards for how much of an opinion column is written by robots?