How Churches Should Think About Using AI

The first question is not what AI can do for your church. It is what your church should never hand over to AI.

Key takeaways

• Start with "never," not "can." AI can write, summarize, automate, and draft almost anything. Churches that skip the boundary question often adopt tools that feel efficient but make ministry less human.
• The church is a people, not only an organization. Software should be judged by whether it helps love people better, not only whether it saves time.
• Use AI where it helps humans be more faithful. Do not use it where it replaces what humans are called to do. Administration and research can be fair game. Pastoral presence, discernment, and relationship are not.
• AI should be a sheepdog, not a shepherd. Let it notice, organize, and alert. Do not let it pastor, counsel, or simulate care on your behalf.
• Five simple questions at the end of this post can help a staff or elder team decide whether a specific AI use crosses the line.

Quick answer: How should churches use AI responsibly?

I tell churches to start with what AI should never do, not what it technically can do. Use it where it clears busywork and helps humans stay faithful, and refuse tools that send messages, simulate pastoral care, or act without a person in the loop. Software should be judged by whether it helps people love people better, not only whether it saves staff time.

What should churches ask before using AI?

Churches should ask what they will never hand to AI before they ask what AI can do. The second question has endless answers. The first question draws the line: pastoral presence, sermon preparation as a pastoral act, spiritual discernment, prayerful care, creativity that belongs to image-bearers, and actual human relationships stay human. Everything else may be worth evaluating case by case, with a human still reading, checking, and deciding.

The wrong first question

A lot of churches are asking the wrong first question about AI.

They start with "What can we use AI for?" The list of answers is long: content, meeting summaries, graphics, sermon drafts, devotionals, follow-up automation, Q&A bots, admin work. AI can do a lot.

Capability is not permission.

The better first question is "What should we never hand over to AI?" Skip that step and you will adopt tools that feel helpful while quietly stripping away what the church is called to be.

The church is more than an organization, a nonprofit, or a Sunday event. It is a people who know one another, pray for one another, carry burdens, and walk together. When you evaluate AI, ask not only "Will this save time?" but "Will this make us more faithful?" and "Will this help us love people better, or make us less human?"

I am not anti-AI

I am not anti-AI. I use AI every day and am building FlockConnect with it. Churches do not need to fear every use case. AI can organize information, summarize notes, handle admin load, surface missed patterns, and help teams communicate more clearly.

But AI can slide from tool to replacement fast. Organizing meeting notes, tightening a paragraph you already wrote, or summarizing data so a pastor sees a pattern sooner: those are different categories of use than replacing pastoral presence, sermon preparation, spiritual discernment, prayerful care, creativity, or actual human relationship.

That is where I would slow down. For a longer look at the two ways churches get this wrong, see the AI question churches are getting wrong.

"Can we?" is not the same as "should we"

Michael Crichton put the core problem in Jurassic Park this way:

Scientists are actually preoccupied with accomplishment. So they are focused on whether they can do something. They never stop to ask if they should do something.

Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park

Swap "scientists" for almost any noun and the line still stings. We can build AI pastors, sermon writers, prayer bots, automated follow-up, automated care, and demos that look brilliant on stage. The live questions are "Should we build this?" and "What human work might this take away?"

Here is the framework I would give any church staff:

Use AI where it helps humans be more faithful. Do not use it where it replaces what humans are called to do.

Where AI can help a church

Administration

AI can help with church admin: emails, meeting notes, calendars, volunteer schedules, policies, documents, reports. Summarizing a meeting, cleaning up a staff doc, organizing next steps, or drafting a clearer announcement can be a legitimate use.

Even there, do not trust the output blindly. A human still reads it, checks it, and decides whether it is true, wise, and appropriate. AI assists. It does not get the final voice.

Research

Research is another fair use. A pastor or ministry leader might gather information, compare views, surface questions, or find gaps in their study. Information is not discernment. AI cannot pray for you, know your people for you, or carry pastoral responsibility for you.

Where churches should draw a hard line

Sermons

Sermons are where I draw the hardest line.

I do not think pastors should use AI to write their sermons. A sermon is a pastoral act. A pastor needs to know the text and the people: their suffering, temptations, questions, immaturity, fears, and hopes. Then he brings the Word of God to those people.

AI cannot do that for him.

A pastor might use AI for narrow prep tasks: research, tightening wordy sentences, brainstorming an analogy, surfacing another view on a passage. Outsourcing the sermon itself is a different matter. He should not ask AI to write it and preach the output unchanged.

Something has gone wrong in how we understand preaching and pastoring when a machine writes the sermon a pastor preaches.

Pastoral care

The same applies to pastoral care. AI can help notice something, summarize notes, surface patterns, or organize information. It can remind a pastor someone has not been seen in a while.

AI should not pastor the person, pretend to be the pastor, or send spiritual counsel on a pastor's behalf. Automated care that looks personal on the surface is still automated care.

For why presence stays irreducibly human, see when the robot writes the reminder.

AI should be a sheepdog, not a shepherd

I use the sheepdog metaphor a lot. The full version is in AI should be a sheepdog, not a shepherd. The short version for tool evaluation: let AI help you notice, organize, and see patterns in the work that supports ministry. Do not let it become the ministry.

The pastor still pastors. The leader still follows up. The member still invites someone over. The small group leader still prays with the person. The body still has to be the body.

The church needs to become more human, not less

The world will get more automated, not less. I already talk to AI more than I talk to most people, and it does not spiritually feed me, truly know me, or challenge me the way my wife, my pastor, or a real friend can.

The answer to AI is not a more automated, less relational church. It is a church more intentional about what AI cannot do: deeper relationships, pastors who know their sheep, congregations where people are visible and known by people, not only tracked by systems. For more on why relational visibility matters, see church relational health matters.

Five questions before you adopt any AI tool

So if a church is trying to decide whether to use AI, I would ask a few simple questions.

1. Does this help us love people better, or does it let us avoid people?
2. Does this help us notice people, or does it replace the act of knowing them?
3. Does this support pastoral care, or does it simulate pastoral care?
4. Does this help us communicate more clearly, or does it create generic content that sounds spiritual but has no real weight behind it?
5. Does this help humans be more faithful, or does it replace something humans are called by God to do?

Those five questions are worth putting in front of any staff or elder team before you buy or build.

Keep AI in its proper place

AI can be used well in the church, with boundaries, theological conviction, and patience. Keep it in its proper place: a tool, not a pastor, church member, shepherd, or substitute for the body of Christ.

Use it where it helps. Avoid it where it replaces. Keep humans in the loop and pastors in the role of pastors. Keep the church relational. AI can bark. The shepherd still has to shepherd.

About the author

Michael Tribett is the founder of FlockConnect, a Church Relationship Manager built to help pastors see who is connected and who is drifting. He holds a Master of Divinity in Christian Ministry from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, where he focused on missions and discipleship, and he serves as a small group leader at his church in the Raleigh, North Carolina area. FlockConnect is an official Planning Center partner.

Frequently asked questions

How should churches use AI responsibly?

I tell churches to start with what AI should never do, not what it technically can do. Use it where it clears busywork and helps humans stay faithful, and refuse tools that send messages, simulate pastoral care, or act without a person in the loop. Software should be judged by whether it helps people love people better, not only whether it saves staff time.

What should churches never hand over to AI?

Churches should ask what they will never hand to AI before they ask what AI can do. The second question has endless answers. The first question draws the line: pastoral presence, sermon preparation as a pastoral act, spiritual discernment, prayerful care, creativity that belongs to image-bearers, and actual human relationships stay human. Everything else may be worth evaluating case by case, with a human still reading, checking, and deciding.

Can churches use AI for sermon preparation?

But AI can slide from tool to replacement fast. Organizing meeting notes, tightening a paragraph you already wrote, or summarizing data so a pastor sees a pattern sooner: those are different categories of use than replacing pastoral presence, sermon preparation, spiritual discernment, prayerful care, creativity, or actual human relationship.

Should AI replace pastoral care in churches?

1. Does this help us love people better, or does it let us avoid people?
2. Does this help us notice people, or does it replace the act of knowing them?
3. Does this support pastoral care, or does it simulate pastoral care?
4. Does this help us communicate more clearly, or does it create generic content that sounds spiritual but has no real weight behind it?
5. Does this help humans be more faithful, or does it replace something humans are called by God to do?

What is the sheepdog metaphor for AI in ministry?

I use the sheepdog metaphor a lot. The full version is in AI should be a sheepdog, not a shepherd. The short version for tool evaluation: let AI help you notice, organize, and see patterns in the work that supports ministry. Do not let it become the ministry.

What questions should a church ask before adopting AI tools?

The better first question is "What should we never hand over to AI?" Skip that step and you will adopt tools that feel helpful while quietly stripping away what the church is called to be.

What is the first question churches should ask about AI?

Not "What can we use AI for?" but "What should we never hand over to AI?" Answering the second question first keeps a church from adopting tools that replace pastoral presence, discernment, or relationship.

Should churches use AI for administration?

Often yes, with boundaries. Summarizing meetings, cleaning up documents, and drafting clearer announcements can free staff for people work. A human should still read, verify, and approve anything AI produces.

Can pastors use AI for sermon preparation?

Small uses around research, tightening prose, or brainstorming may be acceptable. Outsourcing the sermon itself is not. Preaching is a pastoral act that requires knowing both the text and the particular people God has entrusted to the preacher.

Should AI send pastoral care messages to church members?

No. AI can surface who may need attention and help organize information, but care that looks personal when it was automated is not care. The pastor or leader still has to show up.

What does "sheepdog, not shepherd" mean for churches?

AI should alert and assist, like a sheepdog helping a shepherd notice the flock. It should not make pastoral decisions, send counsel, or replace the human love and discernment shepherding requires.

Is it unfaithful for a church to use AI at all?

No. The issue is replacement, not tools. AI used to organize information and surface who may be drifting can help humans be more faithful. AI used to simulate relationship or automate shepherding crosses the line.

How does this relate to church management software?

ChMS tools often excel at vertical communication and operations. They may not show who is relationally isolated while looking active on paper. AI layered on top of admin is different from AI replacing the horizontal work of knowing people. For the distinction, see what is a church connection.