St. Thomas Aquinas fact-checks Summa Theologica citations on Wikipedia while the others doomscroll. One might consider: would the Church Fathers have approved?
Introduction
The intersection of technology and theology has long provoked both fascination and concern among Christian scholars and practitioners. From Johannes Gutenberg‘s printing press, which revolutionized access to Scripture, to digital databases that place centuries of patristic writings at our fingertips, the Church has repeatedly encountered technologies that reshape how we engage with divine revelation and theological reflection. Today, artificial intelligence represents perhaps the most significant technological development since the digital revolution itself, and its implications for Christian theological studies merit careful, discerning examination.
This essay argues that artificial intelligence, when understood properly and employed wisely, offers substantial benefits for traditional Christian theological education and scholarship. Rather than viewing AI as a threat to authentic theological inquiry or as a replacement for Spirit-led discernment, we should recognize it as a sophisticated tool—much like the concordances, lexicons, and commentaries that have served theologians for generations. The difference lies in AI’s remarkable capacity for synthesis, speed, and accessibility. When paired with human wisdom, pastoral sensitivity, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, AI can enhance rather than diminish our engagement with the deep things of God.
The concerns that accompany any new technology are legitimate and deserve serious consideration. Indeed, we will conclude with essential caveats that every Christian user of AI must understand. Yet we would be remiss to ignore the genuine goods that AI offers for theological work. The following sections explore four primary areas where artificial intelligence demonstrates particular promise: exploring complex doctrines, summarizing theological literature, aiding language translation, and making scriptural study deeper, faster, and more accessible.
AI as an Interactive Tool for Exploring Complex Doctrines
Christian theology contains doctrines of extraordinary complexity—the Trinity, the hypostatic union of Christ’s two natures, the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom, and the nature of the atonement, to name but a few. These doctrines have occupied the greatest minds in Christian history for two millennia, generating vast libraries of philosophical and theological reflection. For the seminary student, the pastor preparing for confirmation classes, or the lay believer seeking to grow in understanding, navigating this complexity can prove daunting.
Artificial intelligence, particularly in the form of large language models, offers an unprecedented resource for interactive doctrinal exploration. Unlike a static textbook or even a pre-recorded lecture, AI can engage in genuine dialogue with the inquirer. A student struggling to understand the Chalcedonian Definition can pose questions, receive explanations tailored to their level of understanding, and then ask follow-up questions that probe specific points of confusion. The AI can present the same doctrine from multiple angles, offer historical context, provide analogies, and identify potential misunderstandings before they take root.
Consider how this transforms the study of Trinitarian theology. A traditional approach might involve reading Athanasius’s On the Incarnation, Augustine’s De Trinitate, and various systematic theology textbooks. While these remain indispensable, an AI can help the student synthesize these sources, identify points of agreement and tension between them, and explain how later theologians such as Thomas Aquinas or Karl Barth developed these ideas further. The student can ask the AI to explain the difference between the Eastern and Western approaches to Trinitarian theology, or to clarify why the filioque controversy matters. This interactive capacity accelerates understanding without replacing the primary sources themselves.
Furthermore, AI enables exploration of diverse theological perspectives within the Christian tradition. A Reformed student can use AI to understand Catholic soteriology from within its own logic, or an evangelical can explore Eastern Orthodox theosis without first having to locate and read dozens of specialized texts. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems can draw upon extensive databases of theological literature, allowing researchers to explore perspectives from church fathers, medieval scholastics, Reformation theologians, and contemporary scholars across denominational lines. This breadth of access fosters the kind of charitable engagement with other traditions that strengthens rather than weakens one’s own theological convictions.
AI’s Ability to Summarize Theological Literature
The volume of theological literature produced over two thousand years of Christian thought presents a formidable challenge to any scholar. No human being can read, much less master, the entirety of patristic, medieval, Reformation, and modern theological writing. Even specialists in particular periods or figures must make difficult choices about which texts to prioritize. AI offers a powerful tool for navigating this ocean of material through its capacity for rapid, accurate summarization.
AI tools can analyze massive volumes of theological texts, identifying themes, cross-referencing ideas, and uncovering connections that might escape even careful human readers. For literature reviews—a standard component of doctoral research and scholarly publication—AI dramatically accelerates the process of surveying relevant secondary sources. A researcher investigating, say, recent scholarship on the New Perspective on Paul can use AI to summarize dozens of articles and book chapters, identifying the major positions, key arguments, and significant points of disagreement. This allows the scholar to focus their limited reading time on the most essential primary sources and the most influential secondary works.
For pastors and teachers, the summarization capacity proves equally valuable. Complex commentaries—such as those in the Word Biblical Commentary or the International Critical Commentary series—can run to hundreds of pages on a single biblical book. AI can summarize key exegetical conclusions, highlight interpretive debates, and present the commentator’s arguments in condensed form. This does not replace reading the commentary itself, but it enables the pastor to identify which sections require careful study and which can be reviewed more quickly. In the demanding rhythm of weekly sermon preparation, such efficiency is no small gift.
AI also excels at identifying consistent patterns across historical and contemporary sources. When researching how the church has understood a particular passage throughout history, AI can survey patristic commentaries, medieval glosses, Reformation-era expositions, and modern critical scholarship, presenting the reader with a synthesis that would otherwise require months of research. This diachronic1Diachronic (adjective): of, relating to, or dealing with phenomena (as of language or culture) as they occur or change over a period of time. perspective enriches theological interpretation by situating contemporary readings within the great tradition of Christian exegesis.
AI’s Role in Aiding Language Translation
The Christian Scriptures come to us in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek—languages that present significant challenges for most contemporary readers. While English translations abound, serious theological study benefits immensely from engagement with the original languages. Here, artificial intelligence offers tools of remarkable sophistication through Natural Language Processing (NLP) technologies.
Traditional language study requires years of dedicated effort. Seminarians typically complete two years of Greek and at least one year of Hebrew, yet even this substantial investment leaves graduates far from fluency. AI-powered tools can supplement this training by providing instant, contextual translations that go beyond simple glosses. When a student encounters an unfamiliar Greek construction, AI can explain the grammatical phenomenon, provide parallel examples from the New Testament and other Koine texts, and discuss how major translations have rendered the phrase.
More significantly, AI can assist with the nuanced work of understanding semantic ranges. The Greek word logos, for instance, carries a breadth of meaning—word, reason, account, principle, speech—that no single English term captures. AI can explain how logos functions in different New Testament contexts, how John’s Prologue draws on both Jewish wisdom traditions and Greek philosophical concepts, and why translators make different choices in different passages. This contextual understanding enriches the reader’s grasp of Scripture in ways that simple word-for-word translations cannot achieve.
Beyond the biblical languages, AI facilitates access to theological works never translated into English. Many significant patristic texts remain available only in Latin, Greek, or Syriac. Medieval theological works, including some of Thomas Aquinas’s lesser-known writings, have never received an English translation. AI can provide working translations of such texts, opening previously inaccessible resources to researchers who lack fluency in multiple ancient and medieval languages. While such translations require verification by specialists, they nonetheless expand the horizons of theological research.
For global Christianity, AI translation tools hold particular promise. The vast majority of theological scholarship has been produced in European languages, yet the church’s center of gravity has shifted dramatically toward the Global South. AI can help translate important theological works into languages spoken by millions of Christians who currently lack access to such resources. Conversely, AI can help translate theological reflection emerging from African, Asian, and Latin American contexts into English and other Western languages, enriching the global theological conversation.
The Impact of AI on Making Scriptural Study Deeper, Faster, and More Accessible
The three benefits examined above—interactive doctrinal exploration, literature summarization, and language translation—converge in their impact on scriptural study. AI makes engagement with the Bible deeper through access to a wider range of interpretive resources, faster through efficient summarization and synthesis, and more accessible through the reduction of technical barriers.
Consider depth first. When studying a passage such as Romans 9, the interpreter confronts questions of divine election, human responsibility, and the relationship between Israel and the Church. AI can present the Augustinian, Arminian, and Calvinist interpretations of this text, explain the exegetical arguments each tradition advances, and identify where contemporary scholars challenge or refine these historic positions. The student can then explore the passage’s Old Testament background, examining how Paul’s quotations from Exodus and Hosea function in their original contexts. AI can also introduce the student to recent scholarship on Paul’s rhetoric, the social world of Roman Christianity, and the theological implications of different manuscript readings. This multi-layered engagement produces the kind of thick interpretation that serious Bible study demands.
Speed matters because theological educators, pastors, and lay students all face constraints on their time. The pastor preparing Sunday’s sermon cannot spend forty hours researching background and interpretive options. AI allows that pastor to quickly survey the major commentaries, identify key exegetical issues, and access relevant secondary literature—tasks that once required a substantial theological library and many hours of reading. The efficiency gain does not shortcut the hard work of reflection and application, but it does remove unnecessary obstacles to thorough preparation.
Accessibility perhaps represents AI’s greatest contribution to scriptural study. Not every Christian has access to a seminary education, an extensive theological library, or mentorship by trained scholars. Yet the hunger for deeper biblical understanding exists across the global church. AI-powered tools on church websites can provide immediate, biblically-grounded answers to questions about doctrine, practice, and Scripture. A believer in rural Africa or Southeast Asia can access the same quality of theological resources as a student at a well-funded Western seminary. This democratization of theological knowledge has profound implications for the health of the global church.
Enhanced study tools also facilitate personalized learning. AI can generate study plans tailored to an individual’s existing knowledge, learning goals, and available time. For the new believer seeking foundational understanding, AI can guide a systematic journey through essential doctrines. For the advanced student preparing for doctoral examinations, AI can organize reading lists, summarize key arguments, and identify gaps in their preparation. This personalization represents a significant advance over one-size-fits-all educational approaches.
Essential Caveats: What Everyone Must Understand
Having articulated the genuine benefits of AI for theological study, intellectual honesty requires frank acknowledgment of its limitations and dangers. These caveats do not negate the benefits described above, but they establish boundaries within which AI should be employed.
First and most fundamentally, AI cannot replace the work of the Holy Spirit. Christian theology is not merely an academic discipline but a spiritual endeavor. The Apostle Paul reminds us that “the natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14). No amount of computational power can substitute for the illuminating work of the Spirit who “searches everything, even the depths of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:10). AI can provide information; only the Spirit can bring transformation. Theological study divorced from prayer, worship, and life in a Christian community becomes mere intellectualism, however sophisticated its tools.
Second, AI outputs require human verification. The concept of “human-in-the-loop” is essential for responsible AI use. Large language models can generate plausible-sounding but incorrect information. They may misrepresent historical positions, conflate distinct theological viewpoints, or produce anachronistic interpretations. They lack the capacity for the kind of careful, qualified judgment that characterizes rigorous scholarship. Every AI-generated summary, translation, or explanation must be verified against primary sources by a knowledgeable human reader. This is particularly crucial in theology, where subtle errors can have pastoral consequences.
Third, AI cannot substitute for pastoral wisdom. The application of theological truth to specific human situations requires the kind of discernment that emerges from relationship, prayer, and experience. A person struggling with assurance of salvation needs more than doctrinally correct propositions; they need a pastor who knows them, their history, and their particular temptations. AI can inform pastoral care, but it cannot perform it. The church must resist any temptation to automate the care of souls.
Fourth, reliance on AI for theological writing risks undermining the formative nature of the writing process itself. When a seminarian struggles to articulate the doctrine of justification in their own words, that struggle produces understanding. The labor of writing—organizing thoughts, selecting language, anticipating objections, crafting arguments—forms the theological mind in ways that reading AI-generated content cannot replicate. While AI can assist with research, brainstorming, and editing, the core work of theological reflection must remain the student’s own.
Fifth, users must remain alert to potential biases embedded in AI systems. The training data for large language models reflects the perspectives and prejudices of their sources. Western, English-language, and theologically liberal perspectives may be overrepresented. Conservative evangelical, Orthodox, or Global South perspectives may be underrepresented or mischaracterized. Users should approach AI outputs with the same critical awareness they would bring to any human author, recognizing that neutrality is impossible and perspective is inevitable.
Finally, AI use raises questions of intellectual integrity that educational institutions and publishers must address. Clear guidelines regarding attribution, plagiarism, and the appropriate use of AI tools in academic and professional contexts remain in development. Christian scholars should model honesty about their use of AI assistance and advocate for policies that maintain academic integrity while permitting legitimate uses of these powerful tools.
The Art of the Ask: Why Prompt Engineering Matters
The remarkable capabilities of artificial intelligence do not activate themselves. Behind every sophisticated theological output lies a carefully constructed prompt—the question, instruction, or framework that guides the AI toward useful results. This reality introduces a skill that every serious user of AI must develop: prompt engineering, the disciplined art of asking the right questions in the right way.
Consider the difference between asking an AI to “explain justification” versus instructing it to “provide a comprehensive comparison of the Lutheran and Reformed understandings of justification, including their respective interpretations of Romans 3:21-26, their historical development, and their implications for the doctrine of sanctification, written at a seminary-educated level with citations to primary sources.” The first prompt yields generic content; the second produces material worthy of serious engagement. The tool is only as effective as the craftsman wielding it.
Prompt generators—specialized tools and templates designed to structure effective AI queries—have emerged as invaluable resources for theological work. These frameworks help users specify the desired perspective (patristic, Reformed, Catholic, etc.), the intended audience (scholarly, pastoral, lay), the depth of treatment required, and the sources to prioritize. Learning to use these generators, or developing one’s own prompt templates for recurring theological tasks, dramatically improves the quality and consistency of AI outputs.
Yet even the most sophisticated prompt represents only the beginning of responsible AI use in theology. What follows must be a rigorous process of verification and refinement. Asking for additional clarification is not optional—it is essential. When an AI presents a historical claim, the discerning user responds: “Provide the primary source for that assertion.” When it summarizes a theologian’s position, the careful reader asks: “Quote directly from this author to support your characterization.” When it offers a translation insight, the prudent student requests: “Show me the lexical evidence and compare how the ESV, NASB, and NIV render this term.”
Citation checking deserves particular emphasis. AI systems can and do fabricate references—inventing book titles, misattributing quotations, and citing works that do not exist. Every citation an AI provides must be independently verified before any theological content reaches public consumption. This is not excessive caution; it is basic scholarly integrity. The theologian who publishes AI-generated content without verifying its sources has failed both their readers and their calling.
Extensive editing completes the process. AI-generated first drafts require the same rigorous revision that any written work demands—often more. The theological author must interrogate every claim, refine every formulation, and ensure that the final product reflects not merely what the AI produced but what the author, having evaluated and refined that material, is prepared to stand behind. The AI assists the human authors. The AI suggests; the human discerns. The AI drafts; the human takes responsibility.
The Transformative Value of Disciplined AI Use in Ministry
When this disciplined approach governs AI use, the value it adds to Christian ministry becomes nearly limitless. Sermon preparation that once required a full day can be accomplished in hours—not because corners are cut, but because research that previously demanded manual searching through dozens of volumes now happens in minutes, freeing time for the irreplaceable work of prayerful reflection and pastoral application. Bible study leaders gain access to the breadth of interpretive tradition, enabling them to present not merely their own reading but the wisdom of the church across centuries. Personal devotional practice deepens as believers explore connections between passages, trace theological themes, and encounter the insights of faithful readers they would never otherwise have discovered.
Christian evangelism, too, stands to benefit enormously from the judicious use of AI. The street-corner evangelist, the campus minister, and the neighbor sharing faith over a backyard fence will inevitably encounter adherents of religious traditions they know little about. The landscape of American spirituality alone presents a dizzying array: Latter-day Saints with their distinctive claims about priesthood restoration and additional scripture; Jehovah’s Witnesses with their non-Trinitarian Christology; Muslims who revere Jesus as prophet but deny His deity and resurrection; Buddhists and Hindus whose worldviews differ fundamentally from biblical theism; practitioners of New Age spirituality who blend Eastern mysticism with Western self-help; and the growing ranks of the “spiritual but not religious” who construct personal belief systems from whatever sources appeal to them.
Effective evangelism requires more than zeal—it requires understanding. The apostle Paul demonstrated this principle on Mars Hill, engaging the Athenian philosophers on their own terms, quoting their poets, and building bridges from their altars to the Unknown God toward the proclamation of Christ crucified and risen. AI equips contemporary evangelists to follow Paul’s example by providing rapid, substantive introductions to unfamiliar belief systems. Within minutes, a believer can learn the core tenets of Sikhism before a conversation with a Sikh colleague, understand the particular objections Muslims raise against the Gospel before engaging in interfaith dialogue, or grasp the internal logic of Mormon soteriology before welcoming missionaries into their living room. Those called to share Christ with Native American communities can explore the rich diversity of indigenous spiritual traditions—from Navajo concepts of hózhó (harmony and balance) to Lakota understanding of Wakan Tanka (the Great Spirit) to the ceremonial practices of the Cherokee, Ojibwe, or Pueblo peoples. Each nation possesses its own distinct worldview, creation narratives, and spiritual vocabulary, and the evangelist who takes time to understand these traditions demonstrates honor rather than cultural imperialism. AI can illuminate points of resonance—such as the widespread Native emphasis on a Creator, the significance of sacrifice, or the longing for restoration and healing—while also clarifying the places where the Gospel offers what no other tradition can provide: reconciliation with the holy God through the finished work of Jesus Christ. Such preparation transforms evangelism from monologue into genuine dialogue, from imposition into invitation.
This knowledge serves love, not merely debate. When we understand what our neighbors actually believe—rather than caricatures or secondhand summaries—we demonstrate the respect that genuine witness requires. We avoid strawman arguments that alienate rather than persuade. We identify the points of contact where the Gospel speaks directly to the longings and questions embedded within other traditions. And we prepare ourselves to give the reason for the hope that is in us with the gentleness and respect that Scripture commands (1 Peter 3:152but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,).
The Great Commission sends us to all nations, and all nations have come to us. AI cannot substitute for the Holy Spirit’s work in opening hearts, but it can help us steward our minds in service of that mission.
For those engaged in apologetics and “contending for the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), AI offers particular advantages. The apologist can rapidly survey the strongest formulations of opposing positions, identify the most compelling responses from Christian thinkers past and present, and anticipate objections before they arise. Whether engaging Latter-day Saint missionaries, responding to the new atheists, or addressing the challenges of religious pluralism, the well-prompted AI becomes a research partner of extraordinary capability—provided always that its outputs receive the verification and refinement that responsible use demands.
The formula is straightforward: thoughtful prompts, persistent clarification, rigorous citation checking, and extensive editing. Skip any step, and the tool becomes dangerous. Honor every step, and the tool becomes transformative.
Conclusion
The Christian church has always employed the tools of its age in the service of the gospel. Monks preserved learning through careful manuscript copying; the printing press multiplied Scripture’s reach; digital databases made patristic literature searchable. Artificial intelligence represents the next chapter in this long history of technology serving theological ends. When understood as a tool rather than a replacement for human thought and spiritual discernment, AI offers genuine benefits for contemporary Christian theological studies.
AI enhances our capacity to explore complex doctrines through interactive dialogue, to survey vast theological literature through efficient summarization, to engage the biblical languages through sophisticated translation tools, and to make deep scriptural study accessible to believers worldwide. These benefits serve the church’s central mission of knowing God more fully and making Him known to others.
Yet wisdom demands that we employ these tools within appropriate limits. AI cannot replace the Holy Spirit’s illumination, pastoral wisdom’s discernment, or the formative labor of theological reflection. Human oversight remains essential, and critical awareness of AI’s limitations and biases must inform all our interactions with these systems.
Approached with both gratitude and discernment, artificial intelligence can serve the noble goal that has animated Christian theological study from its beginnings: faith seeking understanding, minds renewed by truth, and hearts transformed by the God who has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Scriptures. In this sense, AI becomes not a departure from traditional theological study but a new instrument in its service—one more tool in the hands of those who labor to love God with all their mind.
Join the Conversation
The integration of artificial intelligence into Christian theological work represents new territory for the Church, and new territory is best explored in community. The perspectives offered in this essay reflect one theologian’s attempt to think carefully through both the promise and the peril of these emerging tools—but faithful reflection on such matters benefits from many voices.
Perhaps you have discovered applications of AI in your own ministry that deserve wider attention. Perhaps you harbor concerns that this essay has not adequately addressed. Perhaps your experience—whether encouraging or cautionary—could sharpen the thinking of fellow believers navigating these same questions. Or perhaps you simply want to push back, to test these ideas against your own theological convictions and practical wisdom.
Whatever your perspective, your voice matters. The comment section below exists precisely for this kind of iron-sharpening-iron exchange. Pastors, teachers, seminarians, lay students, skeptics, and enthusiasts alike—your questions, concerns, and additional thoughts are not merely welcome but genuinely sought. The Church thinks best when it thinks together.
So let us hear from you. What has your experience been? Where do you see opportunity? Where do you sense danger? How might we, as a community committed to faithful inquiry, steward these powerful tools for the glory of God and the good of His Church?
The conversation continues below.
Soli Deo Gloria