Principles that guide the decisions.

What the critical review changes

The framework is strongest when it protects agency, names the purpose of the tool and questions growth at people’s expense. Its strongest rhetorical contrasts need care in implementation: engagement can reflect a chosen practice; game elements can provide optional support; digital community can be meaningful; and careful measurement can reveal both benefit and harm.

The three horizons are a useful normative lens, not an empirical classification of the software industry. The claim that most consumer software is exploitative needs defined criteria and evidence. Ethical conduct should be a continuing obligation across every principle, rather than a lower stage that a “redemptive” aspiration can bypass.

The Christian framing should remain explicit. Hospitality does not conceal the product’s tradition, and disagreement among traditions needs attribution. For pastoral and AI experiences, a spiritual aspiration cannot authorise coercion, unsafe advice or invented divine authority.

Reverence

Begin with the dignity, agency and actual circumstances of the person.

Useful contribution

A strong starting point for intimate interfaces: understand context before asking for disclosure or shaping behaviour.

Qualification to carry into product work

Theological language about sacred encounters needs an explicit human-rights and accessibility expression in the interface. Permission count alone cannot determine dignity: a justified, well-timed consent step can protect a person.

Concrete decision

Ask for the least information needed at the moment it becomes useful. Keep private reflection, AI memory and external sharing separate.

Tension to evaluate. A shorter onboarding flow can reduce friction while hiding important data choices. Prefer understandable timing over simply fewer steps.

Hospitality

Offer appropriate ways into practice for different people and circumstances.

Useful contribution

It broadens the default beyond text reading and treats audio, questions, silence and guided practice as meaningful modes.

Qualification to carry into product work

Welcoming different people does not mean every product must serve everyone or offer every mode. Name the intended audience and tradition, and test with people who face language, disability, literacy or access barriers. Do not infer a person’s needs from a demographic label.

Concrete decision

Choose modes and layout from the task, capabilities and access needs. Offer understandable alternatives when timing, connectivity or source data is missing.

Tension to evaluate. More choices can increase cognitive load. A clear default with discoverable alternatives can welcome people better than a large opening menu.

Rootedness

Keep innovation accountable to sources, tradition and the meaning of the practice.

Useful contribution

It asks whether a contemporary form preserves what makes the source or practice meaningful rather than merely copying its appearance.

Qualification to carry into product work

Christian traditions differ about practices, authority and sacramental participation. Name the tradition and attribution instead of presenting one lineage as universal. Historical longevity is not proof of safety or effectiveness, and an AI recreation does not inherit human or ecclesial authority.

Concrete decision

Preserve passage context, editorial layers and source distinctions. For generated practice, explain the adaptation and its limits.

Tension to evaluate. Depth can make a small-screen experience heavier. Progressive disclosure should preserve access to context rather than quietly remove it.

Bridge

Help people carry practice into relationships and life beyond the product.

Useful contribution

It challenges dependency and makes a useful ending, a voluntary human connection and ordinary life application part of the design.

Qualification to carry into product work

Leaving the app or joining a local congregation is not a universal success measure. Disability, isolation and abuse can make online participation important or local referral unsafe. A bridge must lead to a suitable, chosen destination; referral is not always available or appropriate.

Concrete decision

Offer a meaningful stopping point and optional next action. Explain whether a human route is information, contact or a real staffed transfer.

Tension to evaluate. An invitation can become pressure. People must be able to finish without disclosing identity, sharing a reflection or accepting a community referral.

Grace

Support a chosen rhythm without shame, coercion or moral debt.

Useful contribution

It directly challenges spiritualised loss aversion, guilt notifications and activity presented as moral standing.

Qualification to carry into product work

Streaks and reinforcement are not inherently coercive, and meaningful content alone does not remove practical barriers. Distinguish optional task feedback and chosen commitments from platform pressure. Discomfort in learning is not automatically harm; freedom and proportionality still matter.

Concrete decision

Provide opt-out, flexible cadence and a manageable return. Evaluate how people experience a mechanism, including those who decline or stop.

Tension to evaluate. Structure can help a chosen practice while becoming punitive. Make the structure negotiable and keep a complete alternative without game mechanics.

Honesty

Make role, source, uncertainty, capability and evidence understandable.

Useful contribution

It prevents product claims from outrunning what the tool knows or what its evaluation supports.

Qualification to carry into product work

The original emphasis on audience and measurement should extend to AI identity, theological position, generated content, data use and service availability. Humility is not a reason to avoid measurable usability, safety or learning outcomes.

Concrete decision

Distinguish Scripture, interpretation and generation; expose claim-level sources and real system states. State evaluation scope and limitations.

Tension to evaluate. Too many warnings obscure the useful information. Put the relevant explanation where it changes a decision and keep deeper detail available.

Costliness

Accept responsible organisational costs rather than shifting avoidable burdens onto people.

Useful contribution

It connects values to budgets: accessibility, source accuracy, consent, safety review and human support need real capacity.

Qualification to carry into product work

Cost is not itself evidence of faithfulness or quality. A sustainable service must also protect staff, volunteers and funding continuity. Unmeasurable fruit must not excuse weak evaluation or invisible burdens borne elsewhere.

Concrete decision

Fund the capabilities behind the interface. When timing, review, staffing or reliable data is absent, show a narrower honest service rather than simulate availability.

Tension to evaluate. Ambitious support can outrun operational capacity. Narrow scope, transparent limits and a sustainable funding model can serve people better than an unfunded promise.

Fruit

Ask whether the product supports the intended practice and lived good beyond usage.

Useful contribution

It keeps activity metrics subordinate to the purpose of the tool and invites attention to consequences outside the screen.

Qualification to carry into product work

Formation is not wholly measurable, but neither is it beyond inquiry. Define the theological aim separately from observable task outcomes and voluntary participant accounts. Avoid causal claims without suitable evidence, and never infer spiritual maturity from app telemetry.

Concrete decision

Evaluate usability, understanding, agency and burden separately from formation. Include non-use, interruptions and experiences that challenge the hoped-for benefit.

Tension to evaluate. Rich evaluation can collect intimate data or burden participants. Use proportionate methods, voluntary participation and minimal collection; avoid individual faith scores.

Combine principles without hiding tensions

These principles overlap by design. Use a small set relevant to the decision rather than assigning a score to every value. Immediate safety, applicable law and truthful representation constrain the options; a theological aspiration does not cancel those constraints.

Use the principles in a product review

1. Start with a scenario. Name the person’s task, context and intended outcome.
2. Select relevant principles. Explain why they matter here; do not claim every principle has equal weight.
3. Compare pattern alternatives. Record the benefit, burden, missing capability and possible failure of each.
4. Check evidence and boundaries. Distinguish theological judgment, design hypothesis, observed behaviour, research and law.
5. Record the decision and disagreement. Name the chosen option, affected people, unresolved tension and accountable owner.
6. Evaluate and revisit. Use observable outcomes proportionate to the claim, include those who decline, and change the design when evidence challenges it.

The original framework’s six diagnostic questions remain a useful starting point. In product work, extend them with: whose needs are excluded, what data or authority is being assumed, what harm could follow, and what evidence would change the decision?

Start with a scenario · Behavioural design decisions · Evaluation methods · Regional legal boundaries