Sorry to just drop links! I agree with some of the premises above. But the outright wholesale rejection of AI for writers on a moral basis has me wondering if CT would feature someone like you offering a counterweight? It also has me wrestling with my pragmatic justification for AI use.
An upcoming problem I’m seeing with AI (not related to the “fill the earth”/ being image-bearers) is the kind of content it’s producing.
I’m noticing more agnostic or atheistic pages generating articles with AI that make claims about Jesus (e.g., calling him a sorcerer or narcissistic), but they rely heavily on the Gospels to do so.
Then they conclude the Bible isn’t reliable and Jesus is not God — which feels a bit inconsistent, since they’re using the same text to build their argument in the first place.
I use AI in similar fashion to you. With some reticence. I’d be interested to see you engage with one or both of these articles:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/2026/04/to-write-well-is-human-ai-writing-editing-church/
https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com/p/writers-against-ai?utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app
Sorry to just drop links! I agree with some of the premises above. But the outright wholesale rejection of AI for writers on a moral basis has me wondering if CT would feature someone like you offering a counterweight? It also has me wrestling with my pragmatic justification for AI use.
Same here. i find it fascinating and it is a great tool for researching, learning, and discovery.
I find it fascinating.
An upcoming problem I’m seeing with AI (not related to the “fill the earth”/ being image-bearers) is the kind of content it’s producing.
I’m noticing more agnostic or atheistic pages generating articles with AI that make claims about Jesus (e.g., calling him a sorcerer or narcissistic), but they rely heavily on the Gospels to do so.
Then they conclude the Bible isn’t reliable and Jesus is not God — which feels a bit inconsistent, since they’re using the same text to build their argument in the first place.