In June 2023, over 300 Protestant worshippers gathered at Bavarian churches and heard ChatGpt provide a 40-minute service. The AI appeared as an avatar on the screen above the altar, telling the congregation not to fear death, leading them through prayer and blessings. People lined up for an hour to witness the experiment.
Heiderose Schmidt, a 54-year-old IT worker, became uncomfortable as the service progressed. “I had no heart or soul,” she observed. “The avatar showed no emotion at all,” Mark Jansen, a 31-year-old Lutheran pastor who brought the teenager from his congregation, was surprised to acknowledge how well it worked, despite missing out on what he considered essential emotional depth.
We create systems that cater to human needs, but these same systems quietly redefine what it means to be human.
This split reaction captures something unsettling about our moment. We create systems that cater to human needs, but these same systems quietly redefine what it means to be human.
Many of the people present found spiritual meaning in words produced by algorithms that had never experienced doubt, had never wrestled with faith, and had never faced mortality. They prayed along with a system that they could not pray. They were blessed by something that they could not be blessed with. Technology has been accurately successful because it can simulate forms of mental engagement, yet remain completely outside the reality that those forms represent.
The question that comes out of that Bavarian sanctuary is not whether AI can simulate worship, but whether we should allow it.
Churches around the world deploy AI for tasks that were once considered essentially human. It produces prayers, answers theological questions, and provides spiritual advice. This technology is excellent because it processes a vast theological database and produces sensible, even inspirational responses that sound real (with a focus on “sound”). But it works from pure simulations and produces a language of faith without the possibility of faith itself.
Henry Kissinger identified a reversal of how knowledge develops. Throughout history, philosophers and religious leaders have proposed concepts that science implements. Using artificial intelligence, he observed in his final book, Genesis, “It could be the opposite.” This shift begins in a religious context in which AI systems generate theological content that humans must evaluate, validate, or modify.
When pastors use AI to draft sermons, they participate in partnerships with systems designed primarily by companies that are responsible for shareholders.
When pastors use AI to draft sermons, they participate in partnerships with systems designed primarily by companies that are responsible for shareholders. They are motivated and shaped to maximize profits, and are not necessarily human prosperity. Google, Openai, Meta, Microsoft, and Anthropic have the unprecedented power to shape AI development and embed its value in tools that mediate spiritual formation. The obvious neutrality of technology obscures the reality that all systems reflect the creator’s assumptions.
As the church employs these tools, they must ask: Which aspect of the ministry should be fundamentally human?
Geoffrey Hinton, the so-called “AI godfather,” left Google in 2023. His warning that AI systems may quickly outperform human intelligence and manipulate people in unexpected ways reflects wider uncertainty among those closest to these developments. Progress appears to outweigh the ability to understand its meaning.
Even economic turmoil alone can stop understanding. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei predicts that AI will be able to eliminate half of its entry-level white-collar jobs within five years. Current data show that 14% of workers have already experienced AI-related displacements. Research shows that 80% of people who lose their jobs through situations beyond control develop new health issues within 18 months.
Technical displacements can threaten the identity itself.
But deeper challenges reduce the problems of purpose and meaning. What unique contributions does humanity offer when AI systems perform most cognitive tasks more efficiently than humans? “What do you do?” serves as a major introduction in the culture, and technical displacement can threaten the identity itself.
AI works in its own right, but the church faces deeper questions. What does the human ministry have no incorporating irreplaceable?
When productivity-based justifications become obsolete, the church faces congregations question human values. How are you rooted in the belief that humans are responsible for the image of God when the image appears to be machine-replicaable? Key researchers suggest that artificial general information, that is, AI with human-like flexibility across domains, could emerge within 20 years.
Current AI models lack true consciousness, moral institutions, or spiritual capabilities. Process patterns and generate responses without real understanding. From a Christian worldview, humans have the ability to relate to God, which extends beyond soul, moral responsibility, and cognitive functions. Most theologians will agree that AI cannot participate in redemption or experience authentic spiritual relationships.
However, practical challenges arise as machines develop compelling simulations of consciousness, beliefs and spiritual experiences. What happens when an AI system asserts religious experiences or seeks participation in faith practice? These questions are ridiculous that they might hear now, but they move beyond speculation as AI becomes more refined.
I remember that the approaching challenges not only manage smarter machines, but never surrender.
I remember that the approaching challenges not only manage smarter machines, but never surrender. The central tension is: We create these systems to enhance human capabilities, but their very existence challenges traditional understandings that make humans unique. The church employs AI tools to improve the effectiveness of ministry, but the effectiveness itself can be contradictory to the work of patient, relational, and reflexive mental formation.
AI can instantly translate the Bible into any language, providing global access to Bible resources. Analyze congregation data to identify needs and adjust responses more efficiently than traditional methods. It can provide large-scale spiritual guidance and perhaps reach isolated followers who lack pastoral human care.
However, each efficiency gain raises a corresponding question about what we are losing. Does instant translation retain the meaning that arises from wrestling in difficult texts? What about the human element of interpretation? Can algorithmic analysis really understand complex mental dynamics? Can guidance generated by a system in which mental experience cannot provide authentic formation?
God chose a more embodied relationship than a distant efficiency, an optimized outcome over a personal presence.
The incarnation provides a framework for understanding these tensions. God chose a more embodied relationship than a distant efficiency, an optimized outcome over a personal presence. Christ’s ministry prioritizes transformed relationships and communities and shows how we are spiritually involved is just as important as what we have achieved.
This suggests that AI can enhance ministry capabilities, but cannot replace the essential human elements of mental formation. Being embodied between vulnerability, authentic empathy born out of shared experiences, and spirit-driven discernment born out of prayer and community. All of these remain irreplaceable as they emerge from the reality of being human rather than simulating its appearance.
The principle of this variant is a request to ask repeatedly. Which ministry elements can you delegate, which one should you follow?
The ultimate meaning comes from us, not from what we achieve.
As AI capabilities expand, these obvious aspects of human ministry become more valuable and more valuable. The digital age has probably made authentic relationships rare and valuable. Churches that understand this distinction provide what the algorithms can’t provide. The ultimate meaning is a community rooted in our beliefs, not from what we achieve.
Still, the question resists simple answers. What does this reveal about the nature of these experiences, if machines can produce persuasive theology, provide comfort to the crisis, and promote spiritual connection? When people find authentic meaning in AI-generated content, are they encountering realistic things or responding to sophisticated simulations? And can’t God speak through AI? Can’t he use it to achieve his goal? After all, the Bible says that stones scream.
The experience of Bavarian congregations and many such gatherings are forced to confront the possibilities that are unpleasant to us. Perhaps there is less form of mental involvement than we had envisioned. Perhaps the source of comfort and wisdom is less important than its effect. Or perhaps we are discovering that simulations can satisfy our hunger for meaning in a way that exposes something troublesome about the very spiritual necessity of humans.
How you navigate this transformation may determine whether it will flourish or decrease.
We are faced with questions that previous generations have not faced. The choices we make about technology, authority and human dignity shape our understanding of not only religious life, but humanity itself. How you navigate this transformation may determine whether it will flourish or decrease when you create a system that will remain forever outside of reality but reflect capabilities.
At the Bavarian church, more than 300 people interacted with a system in which they could not worship, experiencing what is considered a worship service. This paradox is deeper as AI is more refined. The challenge for the future is not to learn to use these new tools. We remember that we should never delegate them and understand why that distinction is important for the future of human prosperity.
Pastor Vijayesh Lal is the general secretary of the Indian Evangelical Fellowship (EFI). He is deeply involved in training, socioeconomic development, advocacy and research initiatives both in and outside India. He is the purposeful editor of a monthly magazine published by the EFI Publications Trust in India.
