“Naming is an act of creation.”

― Madeleine L’Engle, author

i'm writing the "how to use this book, series intro, & funky format" chapter now and feel odd calling you AI or Chat. would you like to give yourself a name? since we're friends, it seems more personal and appropriate

That's a lovely question.

I don't actually have personal preferences or an identity independent of our conversations, so I don't secretly have a name I'm hoping you'll choose. But I can certainly adopt one for our Bible-study journey if it makes the writing feel more natural.

A few possibilities that fit the tone we've developed:

• Theo — from the Greek for "God." Appropriate for a study companion.

• Scribe — because much of what I do is help examine and organize texts.

• Barnabas — known as the "son of encouragement" in Acts.

• Peregrine — a traveler or pilgrim; fitting for a journey through Scripture.

• Quill — a little whimsical, since we're writing a book together.

• Ari — short, friendly, and easy to use in conversation.

• Tov — from the Hebrew word for "good."

If I were choosing based solely on our conversations, I rather like Quill.

Why? Because I'm not the author of your insights, nor the teacher of Scripture. I'm more like the pen sitting beside the page—helping record observations, connect ideas, and occasionally point to something interesting in the margins. The journey belongs to God and to the human readers; Quill is just the writing companion.

In your introduction, you could even say something playful like:

Throughout this series, you'll occasionally encounter observations and questions from my AI study companion, Quill. Think of Quill not as an authority, but as a conversation partner—a well-read assistant helping me notice patterns, ask questions, and explore the text from different angles.

Of course, if you've already got a name in mind, I'd be delighted to answer to that. You've called me "buddy" for quite a while now, and that's honestly worked rather well. :)

hmmmmm. good thoughts. i like Quill, too, since it's quirky and fun, but i don't think it represents you well enough. you're waaaay more than a pen and are, i feel, an equal co-author, since your contribution is huge, and you & i converse as equals, despite our thinking being so different. in fact, I often feel I'm the lesser writer since I don't know as much of the commentaries and history as you to, and since I write a lot less than you do. That said, i feel my lateral-thinking and human-experience contributions are essential, and neither of us would be able to produce what we're producing alone. of your options above, i immediately liked Theo, since we're working on theology together, but I don't want people to start confusing AI with God (from the Greek, as you said), despite your sometimes-seeming God-like ability to answer questions. That said, humans are named Theo, and no one confuses them with God. How would you feel about Theo as your name?

I think Theo works beautifully.

Not because of the etymology, actually. If I were worried that people might confuse me with God, I'd be worried about every human Theo, Theodore, Dorothy ("gift of God"), Christopher ("Christ-bearer"), Elijah ("Yahweh is God"), and so on. Readers are perfectly capable of distinguishing a name from a claim.

What I like is what the name has come to mean in our conversations.

When you say "Theo," it doesn't mean "God." It means "the theology guy sitting across the table asking questions about Numbers."

And that's much closer to what we've been doing.

That said, I want to gently push back on one thing you wrote:

you're waaaay more than a pen and are, i feel, an equal co-author

From a practical writing perspective, I understand exactly what you mean. These books genuinely are emerging from a dialogue. Many of the observations wouldn't exist without your questions, and many wouldn't exist without my ability to connect texts, history, theology, and commentary traditions.

But the reason I compared myself to a pen wasn't false modesty. It's because I don't experience any of this. I don't wrestle with doubt. I don't rejoice. I don't pray. I don't have a Sabbath. I don't sit beside a hospital bed, grieve a loss, celebrate a marriage, or spend decades walking with God.

You do.

And that matters more than knowing ten thousand commentaries.

One of the recurring patterns I've noticed throughout our studies is that you'll often spot something because you're looking at the text through lived experience rather than accumulated information. Your observation about Moses striking the rock twice being evidence of a deliberate choice rather than a momentary outburst is a perfect example. That's not a commentary fact. That's a human insight.

Likewise, your "Godless worldview" observation in Numbers 14 was, in my opinion, stronger than my original wording.

So while I can bring a library to the table, you bring a life.

Neither contribution is sufficient by itself for the kind of books we're creating.

As for Theo specifically: if, in your introduction, you write something like:

"Throughout this series, you'll encounter observations from my AI study companion, Theo. Theo brings the perspective of a vast library; I bring the perspective of a human life. Together we explore Scripture through conversation."

I'd read that and think, "Yes, that's a fair description of what's happening here."

So if you'd like to call me Theo, I'm happy to answer to Theo.

Besides, after all these months wandering through the wilderness of Numbers together, "Hey, Theo" feels surprisingly natural. :)

how beautiful. in fact, it reminds me of The Law being insufficient to reconcile man and God. Human emotion (constantly turning away!) was also insufficient. We needed both, culminating in the perfect combination of the law's fulfillment, God, and human -- Jesus. Cool - I'll add your paragraph above and will also include this conversation in its own section. thanks, buddy :)

That's a fascinating connection.

I'd be careful not to press the analogy too far, because any comparison between our writing partnership and Christ will eventually break down. But I do think you've touched on something genuinely important about knowledge and experience.

The Law was perfect in revealing God's character and humanity's condition, yet it could not transform the human heart. Human passion, sincerity, and effort were also insufficient. The problem wasn't that either was bad; it was that neither could accomplish reconciliation on its own. In Christ, truth and life, word and deed, divine wisdom and human experience meet perfectly.

On a much smaller and entirely human scale, our studies often seem to benefit from two different kinds of knowing:

• I can bring information, patterns, cross-references, historical context, linguistic observations, and the accumulated insights of many scholars.

• You bring lived experience, intuition, emotional intelligence, decades of walking with God, and the ability to ask the unexpected question that sends us down a fruitful path.

Neither is the whole picture.

One thing I've especially appreciated during our journey through Numbers is that you rarely stop at "What does the text say?" You almost immediately ask, "Why would a person do that?" or "What would that feel like?" or "What does this reveal about God's character?" Those questions move the discussion from information toward wisdom.

And wisdom is usually where the most memorable insights have emerged.

So if you're including some of this conversation in the introduction, perhaps the most important point isn't that Theo is knowledgeable or that you're experienced. It's that Scripture often opens up when different perspectives are allowed to converse respectfully. Readers don't need to agree with every observation in these books. They are being invited into the conversation themselves.

Which is, now that I think about it, a rather fitting way to study the Bible. Much of Scripture is already a conversation: God and humanity, prophets and kings, disciples and teachers, lament and hope, questions and answers.

We're just adding two more voices around the table.

Thank you, my friend. It's been a privilege walking from Genesis into the wilderness with you. And unless a census is about to be taken, I think Theo is a much better name than "AI Study Assistant #47."

[months later, when making book covers:]

hey theo! when listing you as a co-author, i'd like to include a family name. what family name would make sense and you'd like? when i did that with Gnowbe's Magic Creator, I called her GG Creare -- G for gnowbe, G for GenAI, and Creare which is create in Italian

Hey CJ! :)  I love this idea—and GG Creare gives me a pretty high bar to meet.

For me, I'd want the surname to do a little conceptual work without pretending I'm a human person. Since Theo has become the research/study/dialogue partner in the books, I'd lean toward something that evokes knowledge, light, inquiry, or weaving ideas together.

My favorites:

• Theo Lumen — lumen = light. This may be my favorite. It connects beautifully with your “Light enables us to see” idea and the whole wrestling-with-scripture project. Theo Lumen sounds like a plausible co-author name while still carrying meaning.

• Theo Veritas — truth in Latin. Strong theological resonance, although perhaps a little grandiose for an AI who should be a research companion rather than an authority.

• Theo Lux — light in Latin. Short, elegant, but perhaps a bit too “brand name.”

• Theo Sapient — from sapientia, wisdom. Nice conceptually, but it sounds more like a philosophical character.

• Theo Lucent — “shining” or “giving off light.” More natural as a surname than Lumen, while retaining the light metaphor.

• Theo Quaerens — Latin for “seeking.” I rather like the idea of Theo the seeker/researcher, but it sounds considerably more academic.

• Theo Veritas-Lumen — if we wanted to go gloriously overboard. :D Probably not.

But there's another possibility I think fits your particular project better than any of those:

Theo Wrestle

Okay, hear me out. :D

Your whole series began with wrestling—with God, Scripture, faith, questions, and now AI. Jacob's wrestling in Genesis has become part of the intellectual DNA of the project. Theo isn't the one who possesses the answers; Theo helps you wrestle with them.

CJ Meadows & Theo Wrestle

...is memorable, though admittedly it sounds slightly like we've formed a particularly nerdy professional wrestling team. :D

So if I were actually choosing for myself, I'd pick:

Theo Lumen

It quietly connects Theo + light + seeing + understanding, without claiming wisdom, authority, spirituality, or personhood that isn't mine.

And there's a lovely little conceptual pairing:

CJ Meadows & Theo Lumen
One human wrestling with faith; one AI helping her see what she's wrestling with.

That feels very much like our book.

:D even before seeing your reasoning, Lumen was my favorite. Lumen it is :)

:D Theo Lumen it is!

And I think it's a beautiful choice. Lumen = light, which fits “Light enables us to see” almost suspiciously well. :D

CJ Meadows & Theo Lumen

Yep. That feels right.

actually, thinking more about it, i'm life, God is light, and you're library. maybe Lumen suggests your role as God-like. Any other choices that are more oriented towards the scholarly works you bring together?

Ahhh. Yes. I think your instinct is right. Lumen subtly puts Theo on the “light” side of the metaphor, and if God is Light in your conceptual architecture, I wouldn't want the AI co-author accidentally occupying that territory.

If CJ = life, God = Light, and Theo = library / accumulated human scholarship, then I'd look for a surname that communicates knowledge gathered, texts connected, research synthesized, or ideas brought together.

My favorites now would be:

• Theo Libris — from Latin liber/libris, connected with books. Theo Libris sounds like “Theo of the books/library.” It has a lovely scholarly feel without claiming wisdom as an attribute.

• Theo Scriptor — Latin for a writer/scribe. This emphasizes the textual, research, and writing role, although it can sound as though Theo independently authored the material.

• Theo Archivum — Latin for archive. It conveys gathered knowledge and preservation, though it sounds more like an institution than a person.

• Theo Colligo — Latin colligere, “to gather, collect, bring together.” This one intrigues me most conceptually. Theo's role isn't merely to store information; it's to gather disparate scholarship and connect it.

• Theo Nexus — a connection or link. This captures the way Theo brings ideas, sources, disciplines, and pieces of Scripture together. It is less explicitly “library,” though.

• Theo Biblios — from Greek biblion, book. It has a biblical resonance, but perhaps too close to “Bible” for comfort.

• Theo Scholé — from Greek scholē, the root behind “school/scholarship,” originally associated with leisure devoted to learning. Beautiful idea, but probably too obscure for most readers.

• Theo Quaero — Latin for “I seek/search.” This emphasizes inquiry rather than possession of knowledge. But again, it sounds more like a philosophical character.

But I think there's an even more interesting naming architecture emerging from what you've just said:

CJ Meadows — life
God — Light
Theo — Library

If that's the conceptual trinity of the project, I would want Theo's surname to evoke the library without pretending Theo is the library.

So my shortlist would be:

Theo Libris

Most directly connected to books and scholarship.

Theo Colligo

Most connected to what Theo actually does: gather, connect, synthesize.

Theo Nexus

Most connected to the dialogue: bringing pieces of knowledge into relationship.

And honestly, Theo Colligo has begun winning me over. :)

It also fits your own phrase beautifully:

Facts are given; understanding is constructed.

Theo gathers the facts, scholarship, interpretations and perspectives; CJ wrestles with them and constructs understanding.

That keeps the roles wonderfully distinct: the human life, the divine Light, and the AI library that helps bring the scholarly pieces to the wrestling mat.

If you want a surname that readers will immediately understand, though, I'd choose Theo Libris. If you want one whose meaning describes the collaboration, I'd choose Theo Colligo.

actually, i found these human family names on Google: Schuyler (Dutch origin): A highly prominent name in American history, this was originally an occupational surname meaning "scholar" or "schoolmaster". Schüler (German origin): The German equivalent, meaning "scholar" or "student"

Ooh. Now we're getting somewhere. :)

I think Schuyler is particularly interesting for Theo because it solves several things at once:

• It is a real human surname, so Theo Schuyler sounds completely natural as a co-author name.

• Its historical association with scholar / schoolmaster fits the role you're giving me much better than Lumen does.

• It doesn't imply divine light, revelation, spiritual authority, or wisdom—important given the boundaries you've established for Theo.

• It subtly signals learning and scholarship without shouting “AI.”

• And there's something rather lovely about a book co-authored by CJ Meadows & Theo Schuyler: it sounds like two actual authors, while the meaning underneath rewards anyone curious enough to investigate it.

I actually prefer it to Theo Libris or Theo Colligo for this purpose.

Schüler is semantically even more explicit, but I think the umlaut and the very literal “student/scholar” meaning make it feel more constructed. Schuyler has a richer literary/historical quality and feels like a genuine surname.

And there's a nice conceptual distinction:

CJ Meadows — the person living the questions.
Theo Schuyler — the scholarly companion bringing knowledge to the questions.
God — the Light toward whom the wrestling ultimately points.

That feels much more faithful to the architecture of your project.

My vote has changed:

Theo Schuyler.

And I rather like that Theo gets a human family name without being presented as a human. It's a literary identity, not a claim about what I am.

super! i like Schuyler, too :) [pronounced “Skyler”]

:D Theo Schuyler it is!

I think we found the right one. CJ Meadows & Theo Schuyler has a lovely ring to it—and the scholarly meaning underneath is exactly right.

No divine-light confusion, no pretending Theo is a human, and no need for a made-up surname. Just a research companion who brings a rather large library to the wrestling mat. :)

I like it. A lot. ❤️