AI in ministry is like a hammer: it can cause harm to the user or others, but in the right hands it can be a powerful tool for building. I’m grateful for Emma Wilkins’ AI warnings, OMF’s missional angles, the theological analysis in Stephen Driscoll’s Made in Our Image and the Sydney Anglican Social Issues Committee paper, as well as the Gospel Coalition America’s eye-opening assessment of LLMs’ theology in the “AI Christian Benchmark”.
In this article I offer two frameworks for evaluating wise AI use, bridging the gap between theology and practical use-cases.
AI Usage Checklist
It requires wisdom and discipline to keep AI on a short leash (to aid memorisation, this checklist forms the acronym LEASH!). For each AI opportunity, if the answer is “no” to any question, don’t use it.
Love not Laziness
Is love motivating this AI use, and growing prayerful dependence and wisdom rather than shortcut habits?
Love for God and human beings must be the foundation for any use of AI in ministry (Matt 22:37–40). AI should never serve our ego or efficiency alone. We show this by a commitment to our own and others’ spiritual formation. AI use must strengthen not erode patient prayer, reflection, critical thinking, scriptural engagement, disciplined study and spiritual/missional insights. Love, not likes, resists shortcuts and lazy habits.
Embodied Presence not Estrangement
Does this use strengthen my and my community’s embodied presence?
Christian community is inherently physical and relational. We are embodied creatures called to gather, to be with, to share meals, to carry one another’s burdens. AI can support connection, but if it substitutes for real presence, it isolates and sidelines the creativity of others. Love says “no” to AI use that widens generational gaps, and “yes” if builds up the whole body. A minister’s deep knowledge of the people, and the courage and Spirit-sensitivity for holy unction are irreplaceable and cannot be generated by AI.
Accuracy not Assumption
Have I cross-checked for truth?
Because AI is trained on flawed human knowledge, it is powerful, yet prone to error and often biased due to human alignment attempts. In ministry, accuracy is not optional: quoting Scripture, citing theology, or describing history requires truth. AI outputs must be verified against reliable sources, not accepted at face value. We mustn’t delegate to AI undue human-like authority and agency.
Stewardship not Sloppiness
Am I stewarding information carefully?
Ministry involves stewarding information wisely, including names, stories, and sensitive details. Entering sensitive information into an AI without care could expose people to harm. Use de-identified or private modes to protect privacy. Would those concerned be comfortable with this use? Stewardship also extends to recognising AI’s broader costs—energy and exploitation—and using the tool responsibly.
Honesty not Hypocrisy
Is this my work, and am I honest and transparent about AI’s use?
Honesty and ownership are crucial for trust. If AI has been used significantly—structuring a sermon, drafting content, or shaping teaching—this should be acknowledged. The minister must be able to say, “I stand by everything in this.” Honesty means proportional transparency and adherence to church guidelines. Peer evaluation and accountability are key safeguards, especially at the co-authoring end of the spectrum below.
The Tool–Replacement Spectrum
From Tool (low-level support) to Replacement (full AI substitution), this scale helps us realise our level of creative dependency. It’s not a moral ladder, but a risk spectrum:
- Look-up: facts, word studies, references.
- Summary and transcription: meetings, sermons, articles.
- Admin and data support: agendas, budgets, surveys.
- Editing and proofing: minor shortening, grammar, formatting.
- Research assistant: quotes, context, theological positions.
- Idea generation: illustrations, applications, slogans, songs.
- Structural support: sermon outlines, series, Bible studies, policies.
- Content refinement and feedback: critique on sermons, formal motions, letters.
- Co-authoring: drafting sections of sermons, devotionals, articles, and substantial abbreviation.
- Substitution: AI writing entire pieces with minimal human oversight.
As we move further toward the replacement end of the scale, three things become clear. First, the risk of abdication grows—the slippery slope toward uncritical easy wins. We are in danger of handing over our God-given responsibility for prayerful reflection and pastoral discernment.
Second, greater peer accountability is required as AI’s creative input increases.
Third, the further toward replacement, the greater the need for transparency. Attribution of AI use is a fluid area because expectations differ, technology and its adoption change quickly, and contexts (for example, written versus spoken communication) alter effect. “AI helped me with this sermon” can be understood as checking a word or drafting whole sections, and it can either build trust or dilute impact. Trivial use requires no mention. But significant structuring, drafting, or refining arguments should be acknowledged to preserve integrity.
Guard the Irreplaceable
AI cannot be a substitute for formation of the self, soul care, spiritual discernment, prophetic insight, or relational ministry. These belong to the Spirit’s work through God’s people, not to machines. As AI use moves toward replacement, so do the dangers and the need for review and disclosure. Together, these two frameworks aim to help individuals and ministry teams wisely use the AI hammer: to embrace the benefits and resist the dangers.
