AI Ethical Framework

Overview

In evangelical circles, responses to artificial intelligence (AI) range from outright resistance to enthusiastic adoption. Some see it as a tool of the enemy; others regard it as a providential gift for our time—an ‘idolatrous threat’, a ‘divine tool’, or something in between. Modern AI tools are designed to be intuitive and easily adopted, yet uncritical use without ethical grounding can lead to unintended and harmful consequences. Conversely, fear and misunderstanding may prevent engagement, even when biblically responsible use could offer tangible benefits. Regardless of one’s initial posture, AI’s influence and impact will only continue to grow in the decades ahead.

Institutions across all sectors are racing to incorporate these technologies to stay relevant and effective, while simultaneously attempting to shape ethical guidelines. While much of this advancement is driven by business priorities, the use of AI within churches and mission organizations brings with it distinct application use situated within theological and ethical considerations that require careful, prayerful discernment.

As AI, particularly Generative AI (GenAI), advances in capability and accessibility, it becomes increasingly urgent for Christians to engage it through a biblically grounded ethical lens. This LIGHT Briefing examines the ethical implications of AI and highlights key questions and conversations surrounding its use across the spectrum of mission practice. We begin by presenting an ethical framework that undergirds the subsections that follow.

An Ethical Framework for AI in Missions

There are many frameworks used to assess the ethical and responsible use of AI, both outside and within the church. While some originate in the fields of medicine, public policy, or technology ethics, others have emerged from within religious traditions seeking to faithfully respond to AI’s growing influence. The comparative chart below highlights key ethical principles across a range of representative models, revealing areas of shared concern.

In addition to these frameworks, a growing number of religious traditions have developed their own ethical approaches to AI, each grounded in distinct theological convictions and moral visions. The chart below compares how key faith communities articulate ethical priorities in response to the challenges and opportunities posed by AI.

When comparing the two charts, we see that principles like autonomy, human agency, and human-AI alignment in secular frameworks are often extended in religious ethics to include moral agency and theological alignment. To the concept of wellbeing is frequently added stewardship, spiritual formation, and the centrality of community and relational flourishing. Similarly, the concepts of justice and accountability are deepened in the religious ethics context to encompass expressions of human dignity, the sanctity of life, and our moral responsibility before God.

Building on this foundation, we offer a biblically grounded, missional framework for evaluating AI through the guiding themes: (1) Commission Alignment, (2) Relational Alignment, (3) Utility and Equity Alignment, and (4) Moral Alignment. Together, these categories provide a lens for faithful engagement with AI in service of the Great Commission.

Christian Ethical Framework & Key Alignments

Commission Alignment

The first step in thinking about biblically responsible AI is focusing on our unique relationship with God, as his image bearers, along with our God-given roles of stewardship and dominion over the earth. Genesis 1:26-27 makes it clear that we are created in God’s image. He breathed His life into us (Gen 2:7). Genesis 1:28 provides our purpose: to fill, subdue, and rule the earth, and to take care of it (Gen 2:15). Micah 6:8 reinforces our moral agency as humans and God’s representatives to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. Jesus, reiterating God’s greatest commands, points us to the Sh’ma (Deut 6:4-5), requiring us to love God completely, and also to love our neighbors as ourselves (Lev 19:18).

AI systems should honor human dignity as unique image-bearers of God. They should also support the biblical principles of justice, truth, and love, and serve the kingdom’s purposes of shalom and human flourishing.

To help us apply these concepts in practice, we suggest asking: Does this AI application honor our human dignity as image-bearers of God? Does it impact our moral agency? How well does it align with and reinforce the biblical principles of justice, truth, and love?

Relational Alignment

Part of our human uniqueness lies in our capacity for relationship, rooted in our communion with God and with one another (John 17:20–26; 1 John 4:7–21). Jesus came to earth as God Incarnate, Emmanuel (Is 7:14; Matt 1:20–23), embodying divine presence in human relationship. At the heart of this relational design is the Trinity itself: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existing in perfect, eternal communion. Made in the image of this triune God, we are relational by nature, created not only for individual faith but for mutual love, embodied fellowship, and interdependence.

AI must not be allowed to interfere with these essential relationships; neither our communion with God nor our connection with others. Rather, it should be leveraged to reinforce and enable them: strengthening authentic human connection inside and outside the church, within the family, between generations, and across cultures.

Core questions to ask include: Does this technology strengthen or weaken authentic human relationships? Does the AI application foster communal trust, or substitute artificial connection in place of real community? How does it shape the way we love, listen to, and serve one another? How does AI foster or hinder our relationship with God?

Utility & Equity Alignment

Jesus instructed us to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matt 22:39), calling us to a life of active, sacrificial service. When evaluating the utility of AI, we must ask whether it genuinely serves human need and enhances, not diminishes, our capacity to love and serve others. This aligns with the prophetic call in Micah 6:8 to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. Scripture consistently reminds us to uphold the cause of the poor, the marginalized, and the voiceless, making equity and justice non-negotiable priorities in any ethical evaluation of technology.

Justice and utility are also inseparable from questions of sustainability. From the opening chapters of Genesis, we are reminded that the earth belongs to the Lord and that humanity has been entrusted with its care—not for exploitation but for faithful stewardship. The development and use of AI often require significant energy consumption, computing infrastructure, and resource allocation. These environmental and social costs frequently fall most heavily on the poor and underserved. Ethical AI must therefore be evaluated not only in terms of who benefits and who is harmed, but also by how it affects our shared world, especially for future generations.

We must ask: Do our AI tools address genuine human needs, or do they create artificial dependencies? Do they close or widen the digital divide? Are they deployed in ways that prioritize long-term justice and sustainability over efficiency? True stewardship means cultivating both expertise and discernment so that these technologies are used wisely, equitably, and faithfully.

Moral Alignment

To exercise our stewardship responsibility well, we must remain aware of how AI is being used and ensure that we understand and retain control over its systems. Scripture makes clear that God holds us accountable for what we say and do. We are also accountable to one another as the people of God, and we are called to love, serve, and protect each other in truth.

As beings morally accountable to God, we can never assign moral agency to machines. AI should not be allowed to present itself as human, whether in written or verbal interaction. Clear transparency about how and when AI is used is essential, along with understandable explanations of its decisions, awareness of how it functions, and clarity about who is responsible for its outcomes.

This calls on developers and ministry leaders alike to ask: Does our AI solution clearly identify itself as not being human? Is it obvious who is accountable for the AI and its output? Are our AI systems used with integrity, transparency, and with proper human oversight? Are there safeguards that identify and address errors, harm, and unintended consequences? Ultimately, we must take responsibility for the technologies we use and share with others.

Conclusion

While this AI ethical framework serves as a starting point, it is not intended to be a comprehensive approach. Rather, it offers a foundational perspective and a high-level tool for evaluating the design and use of AI in alignment with biblical ethics. Full assessment of any system will require further scrutiny, including technical evaluation and, where appropriate, verification by independent auditors.

Yet ethics in the abstract is not enough. Real-world application matters. The true test of any framework lies in how it shapes decisions in specific contexts. For this reason, the remainder of this LIGHT Briefing explores a range of use cases, examining how AI is already being applied across various aspects of Great Commission efforts, from discipleship and Bible translation to evangelism, church ministry, and integral mission. Our hope is to equip the global church with both discernment and imagination for faithful engagement in this new technological frontier.

Endnotes

1. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-Being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. 1 ed., 2019. standards.ieee.org/content/ieee-standards/en/industry-connections/ec/autonomous-systems.html.
2. OECD. ‘Scoping the OECD AI Principles.’ (2019). https://doi.org/10.1787/d62f618a-en.
3. OECD. Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence: OECD/LEGAL/0449, 2025.
4. European Union. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, 2019.
5. UNESCO. Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, 2021.
6. African Union. Continental Artificial Intelligence Strategy: Harnessing AI for Africa’s Development and Prosperity, 2024.
7. Leslie, David, Cami Rincón, Morgan Briggs, Antonella Perini, Smera Jayadeva, Ann Borda, S. J. Bennett, et al. AI Ethics and Governance in Practice: An Introduction. The Alan Turing Institute, 2023. www.turing.ac.uk/news/publications/ai-ethics-and-governance-practice-introduction.
8. ERLC. ‘Artificial Intelligence: An Evangelical Statement of Principles.’ (2019). Accessed 19 August 2025. https://erlc.com/policy-content/artificial-intelligence-an-evangelical-statement-of-principles/.
9. Swiss Evangelical Alliance. ‘Gemeinde & Digitalisierung: KüNstliche Intelligenz (KI) in Der Kirche.’ (2025). Accessed 19 August 2025. www.each.ch/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/250522_Arbeitspapier_KI_und_Kirche_25_web.pdf.
10. 1Vatican. ‘Antiqua Et Nova: Note on the Relationship between Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence.’ Updated 28 January 2025, 2025, accessed 19 August 2025, press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2025/01/28/0083/01166.html#ing.
11. Kalman, David Zvi. ‘Artificial Intelligence and Jewish Thought.’ Chap. 5 In The Cambridge Companion to Religion and AI, (Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press, 2024),69-87.
12. Fauzi, Muhammad Rifqi, and Kharis Nugroho. ‘The Ethics of AI Usage from Perspective of the Qur’an.’ Proceeding ISETH (International Summit on Science, Technology, and Humanity) (2025-01-21 2025): 819-25. doi.org/10.23917/iseth.5467.