Mark 12:31: “And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” There has been a lot of buzz about AI over the past few years. There are hopes and fears surrounding this technology. Many voices have been raised offering guidance through the brave new world. Few of those voices are concerned with the ancient faith centered on historical events two thousand years past. What would something so old have to tell us about something so new? We believe that the Bible has everything to say about AI and any other technological advances. You see, the tech might change, but human nature remains the same. The tech changes, but its essential nature does not. Well, those are some big countercultural claims. I best start backing them up. First, I want all our readers to understand that this article is not anti-AI. Our purpose is not to decry the new innovation and to stay off any change it might bring. We believe that innovation is an expression of the image of God in humanity. However, we also believe that with power comes the responsibilities of stewardship. Our purpose then is to think Biblically and critically about the potential of AI, about its ethical and profitable uses, and more broadly, to move towards a healthier engagement with technology in general.
The Bible on AI
What is AI
AI stands for artificial intelligence and has come to represent a set of technologies that allow programs to perform analysis, make predictions, learn from past experiences, and enhance their own performance. These programs require less human oversight and are also more capable of understanding human input. That definition covers a fairly wide range of programs. Within that range, the current conversation seems to focus on generative AI, which is a particular kind of program that analyzes a large sample group of materials, finds patterns, and then uses those patterns to create new content. With a prompt of a few words, a generative AI can produce a picture, story, song, or video within a very short time.
The appeal of generative AI is obvious. It eliminates the need to spend years learning the skills to bring an idea into reality. It provides content for use in a variety of applications more quickly and cheaply than human creators could. We might say it has levelled a playing field.
We have seen a lot of predictions about what AI will be able to do in the future, but such speculation is difficult to ground. At the moment, generative AI is putting out highly generic material that can usually be distinguished from authentic human productions. The content is not bad, but it is also not great. The quality of the production is sure to improve, AI voice will likely become more natural. Whether the algorithms will gain the ability to innovate is less certain. There is something about human creativity that seems beyond mathematical expression.
Creativity
In the beginning, God Himself created. It was work He Himself did, and rested from on the sixth day. When God created humanity, He created them with a capacity to create not as He has done from nothing, but from the materials around them. Adam’s first job involved the creation of names for all the animals God had made him steward over. In Genesis chapter three, Adam and Eve created some loincloths; they did not turn out so good.
The creative act is special as it directly reflects the work of the Creator in whose image we are made. How odd it is that AI should first be used to short-circuit the creative work, rather than alleviating the more toilsome and less inspired tasks of our lives. All work is work, and under the curse, all of it has some portion of toil. This is true even of the creative works of the arts, music, and literature. Nevertheless, there is goodness in our work as we were made to do it just as our Creator worked.
Do not miss this: God did the work. He did not delegate it: there was no one to delegate to. God did not feed a prompt into a program that produced the world, God fashioned all of it by Himself. It is the direct product of His own labor, and as such, He has certain rights. Our idea of creator rights is founded in this historical reality.
When Generative AI enters the picture, the work of creation becomes blurry. You had an idea, but what was it, and how does it relate to what the program made of it? Did you object to that last phrase, “…the program made of it?” Did you create or provide the inspiration from which a program created? This is a question that needs to be answered theologically, philosophically, ethically, and legally.
Those are big questions, so let us approach them by asking a much smaller question. Should we use Generative AI for ministry? That is the pressing question that the church is facing. I suspect many have already answered it.
Should AI be used in Ministry?
All ministry, whether it is preaching, teaching, music, or otherwise, is derived from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. AI does not have that relationship, nor can it. When a Chrisitan song is composed, there is an act of worship in the act of composition which makes the song truly Christian. When that song is performed, there is an act of worship in the performance, which makes it truly Christian. Each contributor in their contribution is to some degree worshipping their risen and reigning Lord.
By worship, I mean that they are responding to the reality of Christ and His Gospel in their lives. They are affirming a reality, and this is something AI would seem unable to do.
Now, suppose that a true believer in an attitude of worship used generative AI to flesh out an inspired prompt. Supposed I had an AI write this article (I did not), wouldn’t that still be something of worship? Perhaps it would be something, but I do not think it would be the full thing. You see, the investment of writing a prompt is far less than the investment of writing the full article. The talent of writing a prompt is not the talent of writing a full article. The offering is less, even if the intention behind it is not.
What about those who haven’t the time to master the skills to realize some worshipful intention? I am a much better prose writer than music writer. I have written lyrics that I cannot write the music for. My music is very simple and plain, and even the least song generator can easily spit out a song more interesting than what I can do. Yet, if I do, it is from the little I have. It may not be much in the estimation of the world, but it is the best I can offer. If we might extend the lesson of the widow’s mite beyond finance, then the use of generative AI greatly reduces our offering in spirit and in truth.
We should also remember how generative AI works, it is drawing from a large pool of examples to identify trends and pushing out content based on those trends. So, its interpretation is going to be biased by volume. If there are many traveling the road to destruction and few walking the way of life as Jesus said in Matthew 7, which direction is AI most likely to teach?
It is likely possible to program out this fatal flaw, but even the simple is limited to only the most orthodox; there is still no spirit involved with the truth. What you would end up with is an amalgamation of second-hand understanding and not the first-hand learning of a soul who worked, struggled, was mastered, and then compelled. God has involved humans in the transmission of His word for a definite reason.
The reason we do not want an AI-generated sermon or lesson is the same reason we do not want a ghost-written sermon or lesson. There remains the matter of pure entertainment, but I am not the one to take it up as I do not believe it exists – not when we label it as Christian, anyway.
The AI is not at fault in the above scenario, it is the victim of the saturation of false teaching. The program is only carrying out its orders according to its directives. It recognizes trends, it does not discern. We could ask it to find faithful teaching and refine its parameters so that it narrows its sample, but we are the ones exercising discernment. Discernment requires intention, and the program has no intention as it is not imitative.
AI is a tool we are using, but rather than helping us to do the work, it is doing the work for us. We are responsible for requesting but not for producing directly. So, what is the difference between using a generative AI and hiring out the work to another human? Functionally, I cannot perceive one, but legally, the difference is that humans have rights, and AI does not. AI presumably does not need rights for the same reason your hammer doesn’t need rights. However, both require the right usage to be truly profitable to us as tools.
To answer questions, generative AI should not be used in ministry as it cannot discern truth from lies on its own, cannot of itself worship, and hampers the worship of the user. Using generative AI to write sermons or lessons prevents the preacher or teacher from being fully mastered by the text. Both become mere presenters of materials not their own. We should also be aware of the potential for plagiarism in the use of generative AI.
Perhaps some will object that generative AI is just a tool and can be used as well as any other tool in the work of ministry. This raises the interesting question of what a tool is. OK, maybe that is not the most interesting question, but it is one that needs to be answered.
Tools
A tool helps us accomplish our work. The spellcheck within the program I use to type up these articles is a tool. It helps me avoid errors. The program itself is a tool that makes writing faster by eliminating the need to draw out each letter by hand. The internet is a tool of communication that allows us to publish these resources and distribute them throughout vast sections of the world at very little cost. The work is much, much easier than it otherwise would be, but we are still doing the work.
AI can be a tool; it might improve my spellchecker, for example. AI might help sort through databases to pull the most relevant articles for research. AI might help remove background noise from recordings or enhance the sound quality. An AI might even make one voice sound like multiple voices or make a guitar sound like a banjo. All of this would help with work. In all these instances, AI would be a tool.
Generative AI does the work for us. We put in an order just as we do at a restaurant, we do not cook the food, we only receive it and enjoy it. Our right to that food is based on our order and payment. It is our food to enjoy, but not our product. If we took up the spatula ourselves and cooked the burger, it is our product to do with as we please. We did the work with the spatula; the spatula had no agency of any kind save that which we imparted to it. Generative AI does have some agency to fulfill our request. The AI makes decisions about the final product. Those decisions are based on our initial request, but they are not our decisions.
The question is, what have we done? Have we actually worked, or are we only ordering the work of another? Are we getting help with our work, or are we avoiding work altogether? That last question is Biblically significant as it is written in 2 Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”
We are made for work. It has significance personally and socially. That significance is the value that purchases our sustenance, whether we get up from the ground or off the shelf. Even among the Christian brethren, every man was expected to do his part willingly.
So, if the AI is doing the work and making the decisions that will produce the finished work according to our order, who has the creative rights to the work? Who has the rights of the originator? The AI does not have the ability to hold those rights, but the person who produced the AI does, and as we are dealing with the product of his product, the rights should rest with him. He can sell those rights, or even generously give them away, but they are his to do with as he pleases. Save that in no circumstance could anyone claim to have actually created the work, as they did not.
Now, if the legal rights are given or sold to me to do whatever I please with the finished product, that little detail about creating it might not seem too important. I could still sell it and profit off of it. I could also sell the hamburger I bought from a fast-food chain, but why would anyone want to buy that burger from me when they go to the same place where I got mine and get their very own exact to their own order? Why would anyone buy my song when they could just go and have their song made? What value do I add?
I can see only one possible answer, which is that my order is somehow special. There is something about what I asked for, the spark of my inspiration, that is worth your hard-earned money. I believe this is the ultimate question of the generative AI economy. What is the value of an idea?
The Value of an Idea
God requires more than a thought in our worship. He wants thoughts to lead to action so that they become something tangible. The thought itself seems only to be worth what it accomplishes. Nor is God satisfied if we think about loving others; He wants us to act on those thoughts. A thought cannot fill a man’s belly or keep him warm in the dead of winter. A thought cannot fix a leaking roof or build an access ramp. A thought cannot share the Gospel. A thought has no value until it is realized.
This is why no one can make a living thinking of fast food orders or ideas for books. The money is making that food and writing that book. Or making the spatula that helps make the food or doing the marketing that helps sell that book. The value of prompting a generative AI is not in the prompt but in the refinement of the AI’s processes that result.
What makes artists of all kinds financially viable is not their ideas but their ability to do something with the idea. A lot of famous musical artists got by on recording other people’s songs; their value was in making beautiful sounds. The people who wrote the songs knew how to craft lyrics, melodies, or both. All of these people did something beyond coming up with ideas.
There is one kind of idea that has some value on its own, and that is the original idea. Ecclesiastes says there is nothing new under the sun, but occasionally someone stumbles onto something not well known or remembered under the sun and does something fairly unexpected under the sun; and we call it original even if it isn’t. Every time this happens, it opens up our minds to form ideas that are fresh. It is exciting.
That is exactly what is happening with generative AI. It is not really new, just a more powerful version of something we already had. We are excited about it because it is something fresh to our thinking. We are eager to explore the space, thrilled with the possibilities that might exist ahead. With Generative AI, though, there really cannot be anything original up ahead, as all it can do is craft formulaic products based on its representative sampling.
Our ideas are not being enhanced by AI but reduced to something less original and more generic. It is quick, cheap, and fun, but it is not valuable. How can it be if it requires so little to produce? Look at it this way: I can produce an entire album of AI-generated music in an afternoon by myself. To record that same album would require weeks of human effort. One costs more than the other, and that cost should be reflected in the price.
The AI album is going to be formulaic and artificial; the human recording will have mistakes and flaws, but also happy accidents of inspired moments. The AI album will be something like what I wanted, but the human album will be much closer to my vision. With human recording, you get more for your money.
A world where quick and cheap mean more to us than craftmanship is a disposable world. It is not a place of meaning, which is not a healthy place at all. In Genesis 2, God gave man a job, not just to come up with names for everything, but to give those names. He did the whole thing himself, and therein was the meaning, the purpose that was so necessary to life that at no point did man exist without it. Why do we want to get away from that, especially in the creative realm?
Why AI?
When I come to ponder why so many are jumping on the generative AI bandwagon, my first thought is of a song by the Chrisitan parody band Apologetix titled “God is great, grace is good, and people are lazy.” Who has time to be creative anymore? Who has the energy?
However, I believe the better part of the hype stems from that excitement of potential we spoke of earlier. You see, in Genesis 3, a snake showed up with this great new idea that we could be like God, and it did not go well. There was a curse pronounced on humanity and the work we do. Work became toilsome. Ever since, we have been looking for relief, groaning with the whole world under this awful curse.
We have been looking for an answer that does not involve bowing our knee because we are still kind of liking the sound of being like God.
We tell AI to write us a song, and it is done. We tell it to paint a picture, and there it is. Imagine what could be accomplished if we hooked this up to a 3D printer. Imagine if AI could do our laundry, fix our car, build our house, or this or that. Perhaps it really can someday, but we do not know; it is new.
I do not mean to get anyone down, but we have seen this one before with the internet and with social media; a lot of promises were made, and a lot of them were broken. Technology is not going to deliver us; technology does not change our fundamental nature. Yes, innovations have changed some aspects of our society, but it has not made us more or less human.
Looking back at the trend, I see that we get excited about what a new program or gadget can do, and we embrace it without pondering the full effect or the proper use. We apply social media to everything, and what happened? It didn’t do what it was speculated to do. I could be wrong, but I believe generative AI will pan out much the same.
There are a few voices already warning that this new technology has been overhyped. There are already some experts pointing out the limits of what can be done. It is time for more voices to rise questioning what should be done. Tools are helpful when used with care. Tools are dangerous when used thoughtlessly.
Love of Neighbor
When we consider anything Biblically, we must consider its effect, good or ill, on our neighbors. The effect of generative AI on our neighbors is already evident, it is closing a sector of industry to them. As we have observed a few times already, AI creates pictures, prose, music, and videos much faster and cheaper than humans. That is wonderful if you are an aspiring YouTuber who needs background music for a video without a budget or a Hollywood studio trying to score a film and trim costs. It is not good at all if you are a struggling composer/musician trying to sell your hard-earned skills.
There are doubtless human artists willing to contribute their talents for free in order to build a portfolio in hopes of garnering more work. I am sure a lot of creatives would work for mere living wages if only they could dedicate themselves to their craft. They get a chance to do what they enjoy, and we get better products. The economy as a whole remains larger and more diverse, with more employment opportunities.
Humanity retains skills that could be lost if we stop using them professionally. Perhaps the skills of writing, composing, and playing an instrument are not the most important, but that does not make them unimportant. There is value in the process of acquiring such skills.
Speaking of people who have developed skills in the creative realms, their work is and has been used without permission or compensation to train generative AI models. So as long as the AIs exist as science experiments, such training could fall under fair usage; I am not a legal expert. However, if AIs are making money, then the people who contributed to building the AIs’ abilities ought to be compensated for the use of their work.
Further, I think their permission should be obtained before their work is used to train an AI for any reason. This is simply a good show of respect for the creator and their work. If no creators are willing to allow an AI to train on their work, there is plenty of material in the public domain.
A World Without Neighbors
It is very difficult to express love to neighbors if you do not come into contact with them. Generative AI is being used to replace human neighbors in our online communities. This is troubling for Christians at a time when community has moved more and more online. The use of AI to maintain social media and online presence makes a lot of sense from the perspective of businesses. The AI is a singular presence that is always, consistently available: theoretically, at least, no program is perfect. The AI follows orders unquestionably. The AI can create a constant stream of appealing content to keep eyes on the screen and keep the money coming in.
The psychological impact of isolation from real human community is a legitimate Chrisitan concern, but far-pressing is the effect on the work of spreading the Gospel. Imagine Lord’s Library reaching an army of bots. We all think we are writing effective articles that are impacting real lives, but in all actuality, we are shouting into a void. It isn’t just that AI can further insulate those who are not interested in the Gospel, it can encapsulate those who wish to share it online.
The worst-case scenario is a multitude of witnesses shunted off into a realm of isolated delusion, wasting their talents without knowing it.
AI impersonating real people is identity theft; AI pretending to be a human is false advertising at best. Both of these need to be legislated against. AI should be clearly identified as such online and on social media. The contents that AI creates should be clearly marked as made by an AI. I do not think it is likely that humanity will be so foolish as to lock itself into AI simulations of community. I do think we should be wary of the possibility.
The Newest Crystal Ball
Scanning through vast libraries of data and picking out trends might also be useful in predicting future trends. That thought is how predictive AI came to be the latest means of divination in man’s never-ending quest to know the future. The Bible is very clear that this entire enterprise is doomed to fail, and so it has once again. Predictive AI could spot trends, but it could not account for statistical anomalies, calculate all the factors, or know which information was actually relevant. The world is just too complex to be reliably predicted.
Control
If we cannot predict the future, we may try to control it. Manipulation is an old craft that evolved with every technological advancement. The would-be controllers are very good at leveraging new tools. AI is programmed by someone with a worldview and an agenda. It is very simple to have AI exclude some information. We might censor some of the words of the Protestant Reformers because they are very critical of the Roman Catholic Church. We might censor the work of creationists because it goes against the prevailing theory of evolution. We might even exclude the latter portion of Romans 1 for its claims that homosexuality is a sin and a curse.
A lot of truthful and helpful content could be edited for fear of causing offense. Even more content might be excluded for political expediency. We have this sort of thing happening on social media already. AI simply allows for more control over what content gets promoted.
The solution to this problem is simply to ask how the machine is operating. Where is it getting its data, how is it prioritizing the information, and what is the algorithm set up to do exactly? We cannot blindly trust a program to put out truth any more than we would blindly trust a person to put out truth, we must be Bereans online always turning back to the one errant, infallible source of perfect truth which is God’s Holy Word. Editor’s note: Amen!
I believe that AI of every kind should have to display its operating mechanics and its sources. In terms of generative AI, this should help to reduce the theft of intellectual property. In terms of AI-powered search engines, it reduces the risk of manipulation.
Dystopia and Utopia
Throughout this article, we have addressed some implications of AI that could dramatically shift our way of life. I personally, am not convinced such sweeping changes are inevitable or that they will be as dramatic as some predict. However, many intelligent people who know a lot more about AI than I do have warned of a great transformation rapidly approaching.
Wiil it be a good change in which AI frees humanity from the toil of labor, and provides universal prosperity? It seems pretty unlikely. Will it divide the elite and the rest of humanity into entirely separate societies, subjecting the majority of us to a trite and meaningless existence of mere subsistence? More plausible, perhaps, but still dubious. Utopia and dystopia both tend to see man and his inventions driving the narrative, and we know this is not the case.
The Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation were written to God’s people in times of great trouble, persecution, and deep uncertainty. Both books proclaim a simple message of hope: God is absolutely sovereign and is building His eternal Kingdom. There is plenty of room left for economic rise and fall, for disasters, disease, wars and rumors of wars, and much else.
See Matthew 24:6-13: “And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.”
Through all of that, the ultimate end is assured.
So, we think calmly about where the latest innovation is taking us, and we can respond reasonably out of wisdom and love of neighbor. We do not have to react or be driven along by events. We have options to weigh. We also have the sure promise of Matthew 6:33 to rest on: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”
Conclusion
AI is not really the issue. It is an issue, and the current issue, but the real issue lurking behind this and every other emerging capability is the search for salvation. We groan under the curse of sin, and we keep thinking we can engineer our way out. We rush into every new capability with wide-eyed hope, and then, with horror, we watch as the curse dashes these hopes to pieces and turns our salvation into another difficulty.
So, why must we go about so frantic when Christ has offered us sure rest by unmerited favor received in faith in the work which He fully accomplished on our behalf for His glory? Why labor in vain when He has finished the job? He does not require us to bear some heavy burden as all our handmade messiahs do. His burden is light, for He did all the heavy lifting already.
The only reason we look to technology instead of to God is that AI is a genie in a bottle, and God is no tame lion. We will not bow the knee, so we continue to bleed ourselves out. It is the great tragedy of humanity. That is our true crisis now and tomorrow till Christ returns. So, worry not what AI will do; only go and tell all people of what God has done for them.
Lord's Library participates in affiliate programs. We may make a small commission from products purchased through this resource.
- Prosperity Gospel Meaning in the Scriptures: Is it Biblical? - April 7, 2025
- Word of Faith Movement Defined: Is it Biblical? - April 7, 2025
- Name It and Claim It Movement Meaning: Is it Biblical? - April 7, 2025
