| TL;DR:
Churches face 17 common objections to using generative AI—including ethical, theological, relational, and practical concerns—but each objection also points to a thoughtful response framework that can help them engage AI responsibly. 1. Objections range from fears of misinformation, job displacement, “playing God,” to loss of human creativity and relational depth. 2. The article emphasizes that AI is a tool, not a replacement for human judgment, creativity or spiritual leadership—and calls for oversight, ethics, and human-in-the-loop processes. 3. Many concerns boil down to how we use the technology—if pastors and churches apply discernment, set guardrails, and prioritise human connection, AI can amplify rather than detract from ministry. |
As we continue to facilitate the AI Discovery Expo Online resource site, many questions are being surfaced about the use of AI by the Church.
Here are 17 objections to generative AI from pastors and church leaders — with some hopefully respectful yet educational and engaging responses
Objection: Generative AI could spread misinformation and be used for evil purposes.
Response: I understand the concern. However, generative AI is a tool that can be used for good or bad, much like other technologies. With proper oversight and ethics frameworks, we can minimize risks and create more benefits than harm. There definitely will be bad actors using generative AI in malicious ways. But with the right precautions, we can help to ensure that we are using it to make the world a better place. This technology has great potential to spread truth, empower creativity and assist pastors in their work if guided well.
Objection: Generative AI will replace human creativity and jobs.
Response: Generative AI augments but does not replace human creativity. Just as calculators don’t replace mathematicians, this technology actually enables more human creativity by automating rote tasks. And while some jobs may change, AI creates new opportunities and frees us to focus on higher callings that only humans can fulfill. We as Christians, have the opportunity to influence society proactively to shape its development for good.
Objection: Only God can create. Generative AI is trying to replicate divine creativity.
Response: As beings made in God’s image, creativity is a gift and responsibility for us for sure. All human innovations – from language itself to modern technologies – build on what God has created to serve society. With generative AI, our role is to craft its capabilities responsibly and guide it as a tool for good. The creativity still comes from people.
Objection: Generative AI could be used to spread harmful or unethical content.
Response: You raise a valid concern. However, the same is true of all information technologies. Rather than reject them entirely, establishing strong guardrails, oversight, and design is the solution. AI systems can and should align with ethical values from the start. With care, generative AI can unlock knowledge and insight that serves society.
Objection: Relying on AI is lazy and numbs essential human skills.
Response: Overreliance on any technology can be risky. However, used wisely, generative AI doesn’t numb creativity but enhances it by automating lower-level tasks. This frees us to focus on skills like critical thinking, strategy, empathy, and complex problem-solving – things only humans can do well. We all have the opportunity in front of us to use generative AI to develop our uniquely human capabilities in service to others.
Objection: Generative AI lacks human judgment and could make harmful suggestions or content.
Response: You’re correct that AI currently lacks human discernment. That’s why it’s essential we provide proper oversight and guidance. With care, we can use generative AI as a tool to provide helpful options while still applying human wisdom to make final judgments.
Objection: We should not “play God” by creating artificial intelligence.
Response: I don’t see it as “playing God” when we develop AI carefully and intentionally to benefit society. All human ingenuity that creates new tools – from medicines to computers – could be seen this way. As moral beings made in God’s image, it is our responsibility to innovate wisely. Conversations like this is a good part of that process.
Objection: Generative AI could negatively impact meaningful employment.
Response: You raise a fair concern. Change can be difficult. However, history shows technology creates more jobs than it displaces long-term. AI will change some jobs but also create many new forms of meaningful work. Managing this transition well will be key. The Church can definitely play a role in helping in this area. With care, AI can augment people’s abilities and free us for more fulfilling work.
Objection: Allowing computers to generate text, art, and music dilutes human expression.
Response: I understand this view, but I see AI as enhancing human expression by automating lower-level work. Just as photography didn’t replace painting, AI frees artists to focus on their unique vision and message vs. technique. Of course, discerning good art still requires wisdom – something AI lacks.
Objection: Human biases could be perpetuated by AI systems.
Response: You are absolutely right, and addressing bias in AI is crucial. That’s why developing ethical AI includes measures like diverse and thoughtful training data, testing for disparate impacts, continuous human oversight, and keeping people involved in high-stakes decisions. With diligence, we can minimize risks.
Objection: Relying on AI could erode essential human emotions and relationships.
Response: Overreliance on any technology can impact relationships. The key is retaining healthy boundaries, perspective, and wisdom. Thoughtfully applied, AI can help us be more creative, knowledgeable, and effective in serving others – and in the end, fostering our humanity, not killing it. Moderation and discernment are always needed.
Objection: AI may eventually become dangerous if it gains capabilities exceeding human intelligence.
Response: I share your general concern. It highlights the importance of responsible and ethical AI development focused on augmenting people, not replacing them. Usage of AI must “always have a human in the loop,” as I tend to say often. We must proactively shape its trajectory for good and implement appropriate oversight measures along the way. With care, the benefits can be immense.
Objection: Generative AI could negatively impact memory and attentiveness by automating tasks.
Response: Overreliance on any tool can be unwise if taken to an extreme. However, thoughtfully applied, AI frees our minds for higher pursuits that cultivate humanity – creativity, relationships, contemplation, and more. Wisdom and balance are key, as with all innovations. Used well, AI can elevate the human experience.
Objection: AI threatens to centralize too much knowledge and power in the hands of a few corporations.
Response: Managing the control of any new technology is crucial. With AI, we should support equitable access, open standards, and governance models involving diverse voices – mitigating risks as it is broadly shared for social benefit. Facebook recently released an open-source LLM which is an example of positive things in this area. Thoughtful development and regulation can foster an ethical, decentralized future.
Objection: Generative AI has no soul, and the content it creates lacks spiritual depth.
Response: I agree machines can’t replicate the human spirit. The best uses of generative AI don’t attempt to replace the human spirit fully but rather amplify human creativity and wisdom. Used well, it does not replace but serves the human pursuit of truth. That said, does the Holy Spirit not work in pixels? Where are these boundaries that limit divine work in our world? There is a much larger conversation regarding this topic, but is it words and content that are the actual spiritual components? Or is it the experience humans go through?
Objection: AI may develop dangerous capacities we can’t control, like an omnipotent genie let out of a bottle. Terminator 2024.
Response: Your caution highlights why developing AI safely matters so much. That’s why experts recommend gradual, limited AI development under human oversight, not granting unchecked autonomy or capability. With prudence guiding its trajectory, AI can remain a tool that serves rather than rules people.
Objection: Humans creating artificial intelligence amounts to “playing God” and violates divine will.
Response: I respect your perspective. As with any technology, using AI does carry a responsibility. However, I see it as our duty to innovate wisely in service of human flourishing. If developed ethically and guided by spiritual values, AI can be part of a divinely-inspired calling to spread truth, compassion, and wisdom. It can equalize disparities in education and access. It can empower missionaries to reach more people and be more impactful.
The key is cultivating AI safely and ethically to uplift humanity. I’m looking forward to more discussions and help curate resources on responsible AI development.
