I recently attended a thoughtful Sunday School gathering where the topic of AI was up for discussion. I heard some interesting thoughts, some of which I agreed with and some of which I disagreed with strongly.

One observation I had: Many people who had opinions about AI admitted that they never use it. I guess that’s to be expected. With the overabundance of information out there, it’s easy to form an opinion about something without direct experience of it.

But this feels… important. This feels like the kind of thing that will require direct acquaintance. It’s too big. Too important. That doesn’t mean I think someone who uses it will form the same opinion as me. Far from it, I hope. The only way we make thoughtful decisions as a society — and especially as Christians — is to have a shared framework.

A case in point: AI and the Holy Spirit

During this discussion, there was much talk about AI and the Holy Spirit. The basic argument was that if AI is not capable of having the Holy Spirit inside, it was not a reliable source for answers.

Now, as a user of AI, I thought this was strange. Of course, AI is not made in the Image of God and obviously is not capable of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. It’s a computer. It is driven by raw information, nothing more, nothing less. There is no emotion. And while I can understand that the type of AI that was up for discussion — namely chatbots — is, in a sense, designed to mimic human output, I am not confused about that mimicry, nor are those who design these systems in the first place.

AI will never be human. Even if so-called “AGI” is achieved one day (doubtful because it currently lacks sufficient definition), it would still not be human, made in God’s image, or capable of a relationship with God.

So I wondered: “Why don’t the people in this room see it as a tool, like I do?”

My response

I spoke up and explained that due to the nature of my work, I use AI every day, sometimes for multiple hours per day. I explained that I use it often for research, some minor content production, and even occasionally have Bible/theology discussions with it.

The first analogy that came to mind was from the movie Hidden Figures. It explains the impact and controversies surrounding the women responsible for manually calculating trajectories in early spaceflight operations. In one scene, the camera is focused on a door that says “computers.” The movie’s directors are counting on its modern viewers to import a heap of assumptions when they see this word, setting up the big reveal.

When the door is opened, there are no “computers.” There is a room full of women with pen, paper, slide rules, and adding machines. They were the computers! Imagine not using a computer today! Or even a calculator!

Now, please — I understand the difference between punching in numbers on a calculator and having a conversation with a chatbot about the Bible. But these are simply degrees of difference (exponential though they may be) along the same measuring line. You had to learn how to use a calculator, a computer, a web browser, a search engine, a smartphone, and now AI. There is not an arbitrary line at which we should stop, here.

A second case study: AI tries to answer a theology question

The teacher of the Sunday School class is a bright guy with a great job, and is tech-savvy. He even admitted he uses AI from time to time, but mostly for playful purposes like image editing and generation.

He began to share an experiment framed as a cautionary tale, about a question he asked the AI. It was a theological question about which view of “eternal security” is correct. This particular church believes in the traditional Reformed view (although they would probably not use the word “Reformed”) of “once [genuinely] saved, always saved.”

And while this is my view as well, I have done much reading on the topic and understand the biblical arguments for the variety of positions on the topic. I would LOVE for the Bible to be so clear on this that every Christian believed it, but the reality is far more complicated.

So the teacher began to explain that he asked AI which view of eternal security was correct, and he explained to the class that he was very disturbed by AI’s answer. Why? Because it did not give the simple answer that he was hoping it would give. It did not simply say, “Eternal security is the correct view and here’s why.” Instead, it surveyed the available options and made clear that there was much disagreement on this topic within Christian circles and that it would be best to discuss with your pastor which view is held by your church and why.

Once again — I was confused. “Why,” I wondered, “Is it a bad thing to understand the reasons for and against a view you hold? How would you ever know the truth if you didn’t study and explore for yourself?”

So I tried the experiment as well, but since I know a bit about AI prompting, I modified the question a bit: “Which view would you take on eternal security if forced to choose and why?” By asking the question this way, I am signaling to the AI that I don’t necessarily want a layout of all the positions, but I want to know which view it would take and why it would take it.

The answer it gave? The answer the teacher wanted! It gave the traditional eternal security view, with some important qualifications (it has to be genuine salvation, not just a prayer followed by a life of disregard for Jesus, etc.). These are the same qualifications this teacher would likely make as well.

So the issue was not a bias against giving a clear answer or even a relativistic “feel-good” reply, but a lack of knowledge of how to prompt the AI. Now — it is possible the AI could have come down hard on a different answer. And had that happened, rather than cause disgust or angst, I would hope it would have caused a fair-minded person to pause and wonder why it thought another view than theirs was so clearly right.

We can learn with these tools, or we can close ourselves off. It will be dangerous for us if we choose the latter.

Why, then, do I use AI as a Christian?

My answer may be unexpected: I don’t use AI “as a Christian.” I use AI as a person in a world where AI is here.

In my time as a Christian (basically my entire life), I’ve observed two very interesting patterns/paths:

1. Avoidance to Ignorance
2. Avoidance to Incorporation

In the first path, a hard-nosed avoidance leads to an inevitable lack of understanding. I recall a sermon growing up in which my pastor (whom I did and still do greatly respect!) was preaching a message on Pokémon. Yes, Pokémon. He made a couple of fair points, but most of what he said was complete nonsense. But it was nonsense because of a lack of direct acquaintance. He simply didn’t have the context that comes with knowing, firsthand, what was actually happening.

I heard many sermons growing up about how awful Harry Potter was, never mind how now I see HP as a wonderful framework for discussing good vs. evil and dealing with spiritual realities in the actual world. If you take the ignorance path, you end up with unfounded legalism.

Then, there’s the incorporation path. I see this mostly when it comes to music and production. Growing up in very traditional Baptist churches, contemporary worship music, lights, fog machines, and (for a while) even projector screens were deemed “worldly.” While there are some who follow the “ignorance” path in this realm, far more follow the “incorporation” path. These people eventually come to realize the methods can change without changing the message, but they are consistently 10, 15, or 20 years behind those who figured it out early. They are, in essence, missing out on the tools and experiences others have because of what turned out to be a misunderstanding.

To be clear, I am perfectly fine with adopting a slow, patient, wisdom-filled approach to incorporating new methods and technologies. But not once have I heard this legitimate justification used. Usually, it’s a gradual change that the “ignorance” crowd points to and calls them “compromisers.” So the cycle continues.

The point: I don’t use AI as or because I’m a Christian. I use it because I am a person in this world, and in this world, we happen to have AI. Now — as a Christian, I use it with discernment. But I don’t come with an avoidance approach at all. I come with a “cautious acceptance” approach. I don’t dive into something new just because it’s the cool thing. But it feels like the kind of tool that can be used by Jesus or Satan, so I want to learn how to use it for Jesus!

If there comes a time I determine there is no possible way to use this tool for Jesus and it can be used only for Satan, I will stop using it immediately. But it doesn’t seem like that is the case, and I’m not sure how I’d know unless I used it for myself.