Issuu

INSiGHT is published quarterly by Council for World Mission Ltd 114 Lavender Street, #12-01, CT Hub 2 Singapore 338729 T: (65) 6887 3400 F: (65) 6235 7760 E: council@cwmission.org W: www.cwmission.org

INSiGHT Editorial Committee The Council for World Mission is a worldwide partnership of Christian churches. The 36 members are committed to sharing their resources of money, people, skills and insights globally to carry out God’s mission locally. CWM was created in 1977 and incorporates the London Missionary Society (1795), the Commonwealth Missionary Society (1836) and the (English) Presbyterian Board of Missions (1847).

Rev. Dr Young-cheol Cheon, CWM MS – Communications (Editor) Prof. Lilian Cheelo Siwila, University of KwaZulu-Natal Rev. Dr Alesana Pala’amo, Malua Theological College Mr Andy Jackson, United Reformed Church Rev. Dr Graham McGeoch, CWM MS – Discipleship and Dialogue Scan QR code for online version

Company Limited by Guarantee Registered in Singapore Unique Entity Number 201206146Z Copyright © 2026 Council for World Mission Ltd. Al l R i g h ts R e se rve d . C o n te n t ma y n o t be re p ro d u ce d , d o w n l o a d e d , d i sse mi n a te d, published, or transferred in any form or by any means, except with the prior written permission of Council for World Mission Ltd.

CONTENT 5

Editorial

Beyond Algorithms: The Holy Spirit, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of Mission Dr Fenika Faalave

Beyond the Ministry Copilot: AI, Trust, and the Mission of Presence in South Korea Rev. Dr Jaeho Jang

Faithful Discernment in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: The Church, Technology, and Mission Rev. Kraig De Leon Diedrick

Bearing Witness in the Age of AI: The Church as a Trusted Source and Human Voice Rev. Ralf Peter Reimann

Communication Justice in the Age of AI Sara Speicher

CWM News

Member Church News

CWM TV

Artificial Intelligence and the Church: Making All Things New or Facing the Tower of Babel? Rt Rev. Prof. Fred Sheldon Mwesigwa

Mission as a Digital Network Why Digital Infrastructure Has Become Part of Mission Infrastructure Dennis Kahl

How Can I/the Church Influence AI? And How Should I/the Church Let AI Influence Me/Us? Dr Corey C. Schlosser-Hall

Editorial Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping how we communicate, learn, work, and relate to one another. It is also transforming the contexts in which churches participate in God’s mission. The theme of this issue of INSiGHT, “Artificial Intelligence and the Church: Reimagining Mission in a Digital Age,” invites us to explore the opportunities and challenges AI presents for churches and their mission. The question is no longer simply whether churches should use artificial intelligence. AI is already embedded in many aspects of everyday life and ministry—from translation, research, administration, and communication to sermon preparation and theological education. The deeper questions concern how the church engages these technologies faithfully, whose interests they serve, and how they can contribute to justice, human dignity, and life-flourishing communities. In “Beyond Algorithms: The Holy Spirit, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of Mission,” Dr Fenika Faalave, writing from a Samoan and Pacific perspective, reminds us that AI may assist mission but cannot guide it. AI processes information, but the Holy Spirit transforms persons. Technology must therefore remain a servant of mission rather than its master.

understanding of humanity as created in the image of God. Dennis Kahl takes the conversation into the structures supporting global mission. In “Mission as a Digital Network,” he demonstrates how digital infrastructure increasingly shapes participation, collaboration, and inclusion. Secure, resilient, and accessible digital systems are therefore becoming part of mission infrastructure itself. Dr Corey C. Schlosser-Hall challenges churches to move beyond simply adapting to technological change and instead participate in shaping AI. He calls for collaboration among churches, technology developers, governments, and wider society so that emerging technologies contribute to justice, equity, and human flourishing. Reflecting from the South Korean context, Rev. Dr Jaeho Jang moves the discussion “beyond the ministry copilot.” The measure of AI-assisted ministry, he argues, is not efficiency but whether technology enables the church to become more present to its neighbours, especially those at the margins. Rev. Ralf Peter Reimann emphasises the continuing importance of authentic human witness. In a world of AI-generated texts and images, the credibility of Christian communication rests ultimately in people whose lives embody the gospel.

Rev. Kraig De Leon Diedrick similarly calls for “faithful discernment.” He argues that AI is neither the church’s saviour nor its enemy. Digital spaces have become genuine mission spaces, but technological efficiency must never replace prayer, relationships, pastoral care, or theological discernment.

Finally, Sara Speicher places AI within the wider struggle for communication justice, highlighting questions of access, control, participation, representation, and accountability. These are not simply technical concerns but matters of faith and justice.

In “Artificial Intelligence and the Church: Making All Things New or Facing the Tower of Babel?”, Rt Rev. Prof. Fred Sheldon Mwesigwa explores AI’s considerable potential for communicating the gospel while warning against allowing technological advancement to undermine human responsibility, pastoral relationships, and our

Together, these contributions remind us that reimagining mission in a digital age does not mean replacing the church’s mission with a technological one. The mission remains God’s. Our task is to discern how emerging technologies can serve that mission while protecting human dignity, strengthening relationships, pursuing justice, and enabling life-flourishing communities.

3/2026

Beyond Algorithms: The Holy Spirit, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of Mission Dr Fenika Faalave Abstract Artificial intelligence can translate languages, preserve archives, assist theological education, and help churches communicate across distance. Yet Christian mission begins in God’s initiative, not human innovation. Drawing on Acts, narrative characterisation, and Pacific relational theology, this article argues that AI may assist the church’s mission but must never become one of its spiritual guides. AI processes information; the Holy Spirit transforms persons. From a Samoan and Pacific perspective, where truth is lived through prayer, elders, pastors, story, song, memory, and communal wisdom, the church is called to welcome AI as servant while resisting its use as master. Introduction: Mission in an Age of Intelligent Machines Across the world, churches are asking whether artificial intelligence can help pastors prepare sermons, translate Scripture, preserve oral histories, organise archives, support theological students, and make Christian resources more accessible. AI already shapes communication, education, administration, health care, commerce, and social life. It now stands at the door of the church, raising not only practical but theological questions. For churches in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and the Pacific, the deeper question is missional: what kind of church are we becoming when intelligent machines shape our imagination, speech, decisions, and practices? In Samoa, wisdom is relational, learned through family, village, congregation, elders, pastors, prayer, worship,

3/2026

memory, and patient communal listening. Speed is not discernment. Efficiency is not obedience. Information is not revelation. This article offers a Pacific theological response to AI and mission. Its argument is simple: AI is a remarkable human achievement, but it must never replace the living guidance of the Holy Spirit. It cannot discern God’s will, repent, worship, receive a divine calling, or create disciples. Christian mission has always depended upon God’s initiative rather than humanity’s innovation. Artificial Intelligence: Promise and Peril Artificial intelligence refers to computational systems designed to perform tasks ordinarily requiring human intelligence. Contemporary AI is built on data, prediction, algorithms, probability, pattern recognition, and machine learning. Generative AI can draft text, translate languages, summarise documents, create images, imitate styles, and respond conversationally. It is not magic but an extension of human creativity, mathematics, engineering, and social imagination. The church should not respond to AI with fear alone. Genesis 1 presents humanity as made in God’s image and entrusted with creation; Psalm 8 marvels that God gives human beings responsibility for God’s works. Used well, AI may assist Bible translation, language preservation, archives, research, administration, accessibility, and students where libraries are limited. Yet Scripture warns that human achievement can become idolatrous. Babel shows humanity building upward to make a name for itself. Psalm 115 mocks idols with mouths that do not speak and eyes that do not see. In an AI age, the irony is sharp: machines speak but do not know, answer but do not discern, imitate wisdom but do not fear the Lord. The church must receive AI critically, neither rejecting it as evil nor baptising it uncritically as progress. Mission Has Always Been God’s Initiative Christian mission begins not with a committee, strategy document, platform, or missionary hero,

but with the sending God. The Father sends the Son; the risen Christ sends the disciples; the Holy Spirit empowers the church; and mission moves toward new creation. David Bosch described mission as participation in the missio Dei; Lesslie Newbigin insisted that the church is not mission’s author but its sign, instrument, and foretaste. My Otago doctoral research on dreams and visions in Acts, using narrative criticism and Cornelis Bennema’s theory of character, argues that Luke portrays recipients of divine encounters as active responders rather than passive instruments. Peter interprets his vision and crosses a boundary. Ananias overcomes fear and goes to Saul. Paul responds to the Macedonian vision and receives encouragement. Luke’s characterisation shows that divine guidance forms people for mission: God speaks, and human beings respond. AI can assist planning, translation, research, and communication. It cannot initiate the mission of God, send the church in the Spirit’s power, call a person to costly obedience, or create holy courage under pressure. Dreams, Visions, and Divine Guidance in Acts Acts repeatedly presents dreams, visions, angelic messages, prophetic speech, and Spiritled direction as turning points. They reveal that the church’s mission advances through divine

initiative rather than human optimisation. In Acts 9, Saul is interrupted by the risen Christ, and Ananias is sent to the man he fears. In Acts 10, Cornelius and Peter receive visions that unite a Gentile centurion and a Jewish apostle. Peter learns that God shows no partiality. No predictive model trained on early Jerusalem assumptions would likely have recommended this boundarycrossing. In Acts 16, Paul receives the Macedonian vision and the missionary route changes. In Acts 18, the Lord tells Paul in Corinth, “Do not be afraid, but speak.” In Acts 27, Paul receives assurance that God will preserve life through the storm. Mission continues through weakness and promise. These episodes reveal a theological pattern: AI predicts, but God reveals. AI analyses history, but God creates new futures. AI recognises patterns, but the Spirit opens closed imaginations. The recipients of visions are changed: Peter is enlarged, Ananias becomes courageous, Paul is redirected, and the community learns to recognise God beyond familiar boundaries. Artificial Intelligence versus Spiritual Discernment The central contrast is clear. AI is built on data,

3/2026

prediction, algorithms, pattern recognition, and machine learning. Divine guidance is received through the Holy Spirit, Scripture, dreams, visions, prophecy, wisdom, prayer, and Christian community. AI can imitate language but not communion with God. It can generate information but not faith. It can reproduce theology but not know Christ. John 10 presents Jesus as the shepherd whose sheep hear his voice. John 14–16 promises the Spirit of truth, who teaches, reminds, testifies, convicts, and guides. Romans 8 speaks of the Spirit who bears witness and intercedes. Discernment is not choosing the most efficient option; it is learning to hear, test, pray, listen, and obey. AI cannot repent, confess sin, worship, love a congregation, carry grief with the bereaved, baptise a believer, break bread at the Lord’s Table, or stand with the poor. It has no body to offer and no heart to be formed in holiness. A Samoan and Pacific Theology of Community A Pacific response to AI begins with relationality. In many Pacific cultures, truth is woven through relationship with God, land, ocean, ancestors, family, village, church, and creation. Samoan life is formed by vā, the relational space that must be respected and made right. Theology is sung, prayed, remembered, embodied, and discerned in community. Pacific theologians remind the wider church that theology must be rooted in context. Sione ‘Amanaki Havea challenged imported Christianity to take root in Pacific soil. Upolu Lumā Vaai develops relational theology as a decolonising alternative to individualistic knowing. Jione Havea invites readers to “Pasify” biblical interpretation. I. Sevati Tuwere’s theology of vanua links land, people, and sacred belonging, while Konai Helu Thaman reminds us that knowledge is carried through culture, values, language, and community. From this perspective, AI may store information

3/2026

about a community but cannot belong to it. It may translate words but cannot inhabit covenant responsibilities. It may reproduce a sermon structure but cannot stand within the vā between preacher and congregation. It may preserve a song but cannot worship through it. Pacific churches practise communal discernment through prayer, pastors, elders, families, congregational wisdom, respectful dialogue, and shared responsibility. Algorithmic recommendations may provide useful data, but they must not replace the prayerful discernment of the body of Christ. The Church’s Missional Response Pastors may use AI as an assistant but not as a substitute for pastoral vocation. AI can organise notes, locate resources, compare translations, or simplify language. But sermon preparation is prayerful listening to Scripture, God, congregation, context, suffering, and hope. The preacher must still wrestle with the text, listen to the Spirit, and speak as one accountable before God and community. AI-generated sermons may be coherent, even moving, but they cannot arise from pastoral presence, repentance, prayer, or the burden of a particular congregation. They may imitate theological form without spiritual depth. The danger is the loss of the pastor as a formed witness. The church needs Spirit-filled witnesses whose words are joined to life. Theological colleges should teach AI critically and theologically. Students need digital literacy, ethical awareness, and practical skills: how AI works, where it fails, how bias enters systems, how misinformation spreads, and how to disclose AI assistance. But they also need formation in Scripture, doctrine, spiritual disciplines, pastoral care, Pacific theology, and communal discernment. Churches must also disciple young people in an AI culture. Many will grow up with machines that answer instantly, personalise entertainment,

imitate friendship, and blur truth and falsehood. Discipleship must teach them to ask: Who made this? What data shaped it? Whose interests does it serve? Does it honour Christ and strengthen love of God and neighbour? Churches must develop practices for discerning truth when AI generates persuasive falsehood. Congregations should learn to verify sources, resist sensational claims, recognise deepfakes, protect vulnerable people from scams, and refuse the rapid spread of untested information. Yet Christian truthfulness is more than factchecking; it is a life shaped by the faithful God. Finally, churches should use AI for justice and life rather than domination and profit: language preservation, accessible resources, contextual theological education, disaster communication, responsible administration, and ethical research. AI must serve the poor, strengthen community, and support creation without becoming another tool of surveillance, manipulation, or digital colonialism. Conclusion: The Spirit Creates Disciples Artificial intelligence may become one of the church’s useful tools, helping translate, teach, organise, preserve, communicate, and research. We should receive such possibilities with gratitude, creativity, and caution. But AI can never become one of the church’s spiritual guides. The mission of God advances through the living presence of the Holy Spirit rather than the predictive power of algorithms.

Works Cited Bennema, Cornelis. 2014. A Theory of Character in New Testament Narrative. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Bosch, David J. 1991. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Faalave, Fenika. 2026. Dreams and Visions in Acts: Luke’s Characterisation of the Human Recipients. PhD diss., University of Otago. https://doi.org/10.82348/ourarchive.00044. Havea, Jione, ed. 2021. Theologies from the Pacific. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Havea, Sione ‘Amanaki, ed. 1986. South Pacific Theology. Oxford: Regnum Books. Newbigin, Lesslie. 1989. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Thaman, Konai Helu. 2003. “Decolonizing Pacific Studies: Indigenous Perspectives, Knowledge, and Wisdom in Higher Education.” The Contemporary Pacific 15 (1): 1–17. Tuwere, I. Sevati. 2023. Vanua: A Fijian Theology of Place. 2nd ed. Suva: Pacific Theological College Press. Vaai, Upolu Lumā, and Aisake Casimira, eds. 2016. Relational Hermeneutics: Decolonising the Mindset and the Pacific Itulagi. Suva: Pacific Theological College Press. Vaai, Upolu Lumā, and Unaisi Nabobo-Baba, eds. 2017. The Relational Self: Decolonising Personhood in the Pacific. Suva: Pacific Theological College Press. Dr Fenika Faalave is a New Testament Lecturer, Malua Theological College, Samoa, from the villages of Fusi Safotulafai, Faala i Palauli, Lotofaga, and Vaiala. Member of the EFKS/CCCS church, formerly LMS in Samoa. PhD research was in Dreams and Visions in the Acts of the Apostles at the University of Otago, New Zealand.

From Samoa and the wider Pacific, mission is not a machine process, but a relational journey carried in prayer, song, story, worship, Scripture, creation, community, and the Spirit’s breath. AI can assist the canoe, but it cannot become the wind. It can help read the map, but it cannot call us across the sea. Therefore, the church may use AI, but it must follow Christ; it may learn from algorithms, but it must be guided by the Spirit.

3/2026

Faithful Discernment in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: The Church, Technology, and Mission Rev. Kraig De Leon Diedrick Introduction When I was much younger man and the drum was played in church, it was looked at and listened to with much disdain, as the droning of a poorly played organ was preferred to the upbeat tempo of a dynamically played drum kit that was considered too worldly, too loud, or too closely associated with secular entertainment. Having investigated the matter, there was a recognition that in and around the 16th century, reformers like John Calvin called the organ the “Devil’s box of whistles” as they believed that it distracted worshippers from what was considered the pure worship of God. Technological revolutions in their infancy were viewed with some suspicion. The church has encountered quite a few of those moments throughout its history. The codex replaced the scroll, then the printing press was invented, the radio followed, the television, which is referred to by some in Jamaica as the “Tell-Lie-Vision,” the internet and social media, which in many respects is what keeps most of us connected today irrespective of our ages. While each had their fair share of suspicion and despite the reservations, they each became a significant vehicle for the propagation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in their eras. Today, artificial intelligence presents us with a similar moment of discernment. Is AI another imminent threat to our faith? Will it reshape the substance of the Gospel, or is it simply another tool through which the church may faithfully participate in God’s mission? While we wrestle, it is important to know that artificial intelligence is neither humanity’s saviour nor the church’s enemy. It is a powerful humancreated tool whose faithful use and stewardship depends not on the technology itself but on the theological imagination of those who choose to employ it.

3/2026

Understanding AI Many persons believe that AI is something that is very new and came in post-COVID-19. But what if I told you that AI is actually older than some of you reading this? Artificial intelligence is an advanced technology, typically run by a series of algorithms, computers, or robots (bots), that uses real-time or near to real-time data to simulate human intelligence. It refers to computer systems or software that can do things that typically require human intelligence. It is important to understand that it simulates human intelligence but is not human intelligence. The idea or concept of AI dates as far back as the 1940s and 1950s. The idea was the creation of “intelligent machines.” Alan Turing introduced the concept of a “universal machine” which was capable of performing any intellectual task. This was then known as the “Turing test.” The gears started to turn in 1951 when the very first stable AI application was developed by Christopher Strachey from the University of Oxford. It was not until 1955 that John McCarthy coined the term that we know today, “artificial intelligence.” Many of us interacted with AI long before we knew what AI was. Many will remember or still use applications like Siri, Cortana, Alexa, and Google Assistant. But let us go a little further: how many of us remember Microsoft’s “Clippy,” the paperclip that many of us found annoying on our computer screen? We have been using AI for a good minute. Now we get to platforms like ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Jasper AI, Grok, Claude, ReadAI, and the list can continue until the Parousia. It is important to note that AI, generally, is pattern recognition; it predicts and generates. AI does not think and it does not possess consciousness. It has no soul, no moral agency, no wisdom, and most of all, AI cannot love. The long and the short, AI has no personhood. It performs intelligence-like tasks without possessing personhood. AI is an extraordinary servant, and it is a terrible master. Church and Technology Every significant tech advancement has forced us as Christians to wrestle with the same fundamental questions. Will this strengthen our faith or weaken it? Will it serve the propagation of the gospel or distract from it?

Long before there were computers, Christians experienced technological revolutions. Codices (older versions of bound books) replaced scrolls of significant lengths into manageable and portable volumes of information. While seemingly insignificant to us today, it transformed how we collected, copied, and read the scriptures. The Bible became something very easy to carry and reference. Further, its accessibility to wider Christian communities grew exponentially.

radio, but live pictures and enabled worship to be participatory across great distances. Then came that which changed our entire existence and how we functioned. The internet came and brought with it social media platforms which, to this day, the church continues to use with great effect. Worship services are streamed live with the capacity to rewatch and rewind at one’s leisure. Bible studies are made participatory through platforms like Zoom and Google Meet.

Many of us remember Martin Luther for his role in the Protestant Reformation as he nailed his 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. His thoughts became widespread because Johannes Gutenberg developed the printing press which was the genesis of the modern photocopier. The reproduction of scripture in a shorter time allowed it to become more widespread on a scale that was potentially never contemplated before. Many feared that placing the Bible into the hands of ordinary people would lead to confusion and error. But the printing press became one of the greatest catalysts for the Protestant Reformation and for the global spread of biblical literacy. There seems to be a pattern emerging. The telegraph could be said to be the father of globalization as it reduced the distance between neighbours, countries, and continents. Radio signals carried the gospel message into homes and cars, giving hope to those who needed to hear it. The television brought not just the sound from the

Here is what the history reveals. The technologies themselves were rarely the greatest challenge. Rather, the challenge was in how people chose to use them. Looking back, it becomes clear that the church’s enduring question has never really been, “What is this new technology?” The deeper question has always been, “How does this technology shape our faith and witness?” That is the question the body of Christ must ask again as it seeks to understand and interact with artificial intelligence. The issue is not whether AI exists; that reality is already here. The issue is whether the church will engage it with fear, with uncritical enthusiasm, or with the wisdom and discernment that have always marked faithful Christian mission at its best. Why the Church Has Been Afraid Much of the church’s hesitation surrounding artificial intelligence is not irrational. It is born out of a longstanding desire to preserve the integrity of the Gospel and to safeguard the sacredness of

3/2026

Christian ministry. Throughout history, believers have rightly questioned whether new technologies would serve the mission of God or subtly reshape it. AI has simply become the latest development to provoke those questions. One of the greatest fears is that AI will replace people in ministry. If a computer can write a sermon, answer theological questions, compose prayers, or spit out Bible studies in seconds, what becomes of the pastor, the teacher, or the theologian? Such questions strike at the heart of a vocation and a calling. Yet this fear makes a significant assumption. It assumes that ministry is primarily about producing and regurgitating biblical content. This ministry, however, has never been defined merely by information. It is rooted and grounded in relationship. It is walking with people through the cut and thrust of life, the joy and grief, while discerning God’s leading in community, and embodying the love of Christ in ways no machine can replicate. There is also a genuine concern about truth itself. Generative AI systems like ChatGPT and DeepSeek are capable of producing misinformation, fabricated quotations, and false historical claims that are generally convincing based on the dataset they have been trained out. If there is false information in the dataset, then the results will also be false. We already live in an era that is marked by disinformation and deepfakes. Christians must become even more committed to careful study, verification, and intellectual honesty. Sometimes even a simple Google search is able to verify the information produced by these platforms. As Christians, we are called to be people of truth, and that calling does not diminish simply because information can now be generated at unprecedented speed. Perhaps the deepest fear, however, concerns what it means to be human and bear the Imago Dei. Machines can imitate conversation, compose music, create artwork, and even appear empathetic. There are those who will wonder whether humanity is becoming less unique. Christian theology offers a very clear response. Human dignity has never been defined by our intelligence, creativity, or productivity. Genesis 1:26, before we understood intelligence, creativity, or productivity, declared that human

3/2026

beings are created in the image of God. Our value comes not from what we can do but from whose we are. No algorithm bears the Imago Dei. No machine enters into covenant with God. No artificial intelligence can worship, repent, love sacrificially, or experience redemption through Jesus Christ. As the song writer declares, “No not one, no not one.” These fears deserve to be acknowledged rather than dismissed. Some come from genuine ethical concerns about bias, privacy, employment, and the concentration of technological power as we see in our world today. Others emerge from misunderstandings about what AI actually is and its capacities. The church serves neither itself nor the world by responding with panic or naïve optimism. Instead, it is called to exercise the wisdom commended in 1st Thessalonians 5: 21, “but test everything; hold fast to what is good.” Fear has generally been our first response to technological change, but it has rarely been its final word. The challenge before us is not to toss discernment, but to allow discernment, rather than fear, to shape our interaction with artificial intelligence. Only then can we faithfully discern how this new technology might be placed in the service of God’s mission rather than becoming an obstacle to it. AI as Tool, Not Replacement Having established that AI possesses neither personhood nor moral agency, the theological question becomes how such a tool ought to be stewarded. Like every significant technological development before it, its morality is determined not by what it is but by how it is used. Psalm 24 asserts, “The earth is the LORD’s and all that is in it…” Genesis 1: 28, “…Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it…” The word “subdue” suggests that we ought to bring the world under our subjection. Many may view this kind of language as dangerous, so we must ground the understanding in the context of sinlessness and perfect world. The scripture presents humanity as God’s stewards of all creation even the derivatives of intellectual processes. Throughout history, this stewardship has included the development of tools that improve human life and extend our capacity to fulfil God’s calling. From the plough to the printing press, from the microscope to the

internet, AI is no different. AI can assist in translating Scripture into multiple languages, organizing church administration, analyzing community needs, or making theological resources more accessible. It helps to transform sermons into weeklong devotions, keeping the focus on the Word. This very same technology may also be used to create and spread disinformation, manipulate public opinion, reinforce prejudices, or exploit the vulnerable. We have experienced the same in Jamaica. After arguably the most devastating hurricane to hit our shores, the government sought avenues to facilitate external aid. There were those who had nefarious intentions and used AI to create web applications to mimic the platforms created by the government for financial gain. The ethical question is therefore not whether AI is good or evil. It is whether those who use it are guided by wisdom, justice, and love. Recognising AI as a tool helps to impose limits. It can process massive amounts of information in seconds, identify patterns, summarize complex ideas, and create content with remarkable speed. Impressive? Definitely! But it should not be confused with the work of Christian ministry. Ministry is not simply the transfer of information from one mind to another. It is the formation of people into the likeness of Christ through worship. AI platforms may help a preacher draft a sermon. What it cannot do is wrestle with the Holy Spirit in prayer. It may organize biblical resources, but it cannot discern the Spirit’s leading for a congregation. It may even produce very comforting words, but it cannot sit beside a grieving family, wipe their tears, or embrace them with a hug. These are not simply tasks; this is relationship, and relationships remain at the core of Christian mission. Could it be that the greatest danger is not that AI will replace the church, but that the church might allow efficiency to replace faithfulness? Technology inherently encourages speed, automation, and optimization. Yet the Kingdom of God often grows in the opposite way. It is usually through patience, presence, and faithful relationships grounded in the Holy Spirit that

expansion happens. There are some areas of ministry which simply cannot be rushed without losing something essential. AI should therefore be welcomed as a servant, never pedestalized as a master. It can strengthen ministry but it cannot replace discernment, prayer, holy living, pastoral care, or the transforming work of the Holy Spirit. Reimagining Mission The mission of the church has never been determined by the technologies available to it but by God who sends it. Every generation has been called to proclaim an unchanging Gospel within a changing world, and ours is no exception. The church does not have a mission of its own; it participates in the Missio Dei—the mission of God. Artificial intelligence therefore does not require the church to redefine its mission but to discern how it might participate more faithfully in God’s ongoing work in the world. Mission has always required the church to go where people are. Throughout Scripture, God continually sends His people into the places where life is lived. Jesus ministered in homes, beside wells, on fishing boats, on mountainsides, and in marketplaces. Paul proclaimed the Gospel in synagogues, lecture halls, and public squares because those were the places where people gathered to work, debate, learn, and seek meaning. The geography of mission has always followed the geography of people. The same principle applies today. While churches continue to gather in sanctuaries, millions of people now spend a significant part of their lives in digital spaces. They ask questions through search engines and AI platforms, learn through online courses, build relationships on social media, and participate in communities that exist entirely online. For many, these are the first places they explore questions of faith, purpose, suffering, and hope. Digital spaces are therefore not an alternative to the mission field; for many people, they have become the mission field. Artificial intelligence can help us participate more effectively in that mission. Translation tools can overcome language barriers, accessibility technologies can serve persons with disabilities,

3/2026

and AI can assist in preparing discipleship resources and streamlining administrative work. These efficiencies enable ministers and lay leaders to devote more time to preaching, teaching, pastoral care, discipleship, and community engagement. AI serves the mission best when it creates more space for ministry rather than replacing it. Yet faithful participation in God’s mission requires more than effective use of technology. Every technology shapes the people who use it. Faithful disciples must therefore ask not only what AI enables us to do, but what habits it encourages us to cultivate. If efficiency begins to replace prayer, automation replaces discernment, or convenience replaces relationships, then the church risks allowing technology to shape its ministry more than the Gospel itself. AI must always remain a servant of the church’s mission, never its master. For this reason, the church’s responsibility extends beyond using AI wisely; it must also help shape the ethical conversations surrounding it. Questions of truth, privacy, bias, inequality, and accountability are not merely technological concerns but theological ones because they affect human dignity and justice. The church has a vital role in advocating for technologies that promote human flourishing and reflect the biblical conviction that every person bears the image of God. The challenge before the church is therefore not whether to enter digital spaces—they are already shaping the lives of those whom God loves—but how to enter them faithfully. As Paul engaged the marketplace of Athens, so the church is called to engage today’s digital marketplaces with wisdom, humility, and hope. The methods may change, but the mission remains the same: to meet people where they are and bear faithful witness to the saving work of Jesus Christ. Conclusion As history has repeatedly shown, every level of innovation has prompted questions about faith, witness, and mission. Artificial intelligence is simply the latest chapter in that continuing story. The question before us is not whether AI will shape society; it already is. The question is

3/2026

whether we will engage it with fear, uncritical enthusiasm, or faithful discernment. As this paper has argued, AI is neither humanity’s saviour nor the church’s enemy. It is a tool. Like every tool, its value depends on the wisdom, integrity, and love of those who use it. The Gospel does not need to be rewritten for the age of artificial intelligence. It needs to be faithfully proclaimed within it. Our calling remains to make disciples, care for our neighbours, pursue justice, and bear witness to Jesus Christ. If artificial intelligence enables the church to fulfil that calling more effectively without compromising the truth of the Gospel or the centrality of human relationships, then it should be received not with fear, but with faithful stewardship. Rev. Kraig De Leon Diedrick is an ordained minister of the United Church in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands (UCJCI). He serves on the Synod’s Strategic Planning for Mission Committee and as vice-chair of the Children and Youth Committee. He has also represented the church on the Jamaica Council of Churches.

Artificial Intelligence and the Church: Making All Things New or Facing the Tower of Babel? Rt Rev. Prof. Fred Sheldon Mwesigwa 1.1 Background The digital age that is associated with revolutionising of science and technology has ushered in an era of looking at mission from a new perspective. Rev. 21:5 “Behold I make all things new.” I will borrow the words of Revelation to John to sum up the high expectations of artificial intelligence to solve man’s problems including theological, mission, and social psychological. There are numerous opportunities on the horizon to ease church ministry in a digital era (Kitayimbwa Nsaale 2022; 45-52; Heidi; 2020; 95). Equally, there are numerous challenges on the horizon that raise questions on the motivation behind the rapid developments in artificial intelligence and whether it will serve the needs of man? Isn’t artificial intelligence, especially the underlying principle of replacing humans with machines, likely to trigger a series of theological and social-psychological problems? Isn’t the upscaling of AI to AGI so that by the year 2027 machines are superior to humans and self-directed, not likely to cause a cataclysmic reaction that may even destroy humans or disperse them as in the tower of Babel scenario? As in Genesis 11, it seems the driving motive of artificial intelligence in producing artificial general intelligence (AGI) machines is to make a name and not to meet needs of man. 1.2 Opportunities of Artificial Intelligence Artificial intelligence is grounded in the concept of the ability of machines to learn, reason, and make decisions. As regards theology, it is now easier

to instruct ChatGPT, an AI software developed by OpenAI, to write a sermon on a text of one’s choice, commanding it to tailor the sermon to a specified duration and congregation of a particular ethnicity or level of education. What a quick way of using AI to write a sermon instead of putting in hours of preparation consulting several books! There are several pre-recorded sermons that one can access and download for use from renowned evangelists like late Bishop Festo Kivengere, Billy Graham, etc. The use of AI applications like ChatGPT can help give access to all those sermons which an evangelist or pastor can make use of with great effect. Through the use of artificial intelligence tools on my iPhone, I have been able to record social media scripture video clips which I have transmitted using the broadcast function to 2,000 people in my phone memory on a daily basis. Beyond Uganda, I have contacts in different countries abroad and whoever receives also forwards. Imagine how many people I have reached for Christ! Recently, I received a compliment and follow-up task of counselling a couple in Texas USA when I am based in Uganda. The man

3/2026

received my social media clip on 1 John 1:8 “If we say we have no sins, we deceive ourselves but if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us from all unrighteousness.” In expanding the few minutes message, I implored that we need to forgive one another since we are all sinners. The gentleman shared with me his woes with his wife, which I was familiar with. We started from there and now we are in the process of reconciling the two, thanks to the ease of communication by the digital means. The subject of the influence of AI on Pentecostal churches is well-documented since they have taken the lead in this field (Kurlberg; 2022;13); Bowler (2010;1-5). AI can translate sermons, e-books, Bible study guides, and other Christian literature which can be very helpful in dissemination of the gospel in areas that would otherwise have difficulty getting preachers or teachers. In the new dispensation of AI, it is going to be easier to develop software that can be used to translate materials from say French or Spanish to English language with ease and reduced cost (Verkauis, Josiah E; and Dustin R. Smith(eds), 2025). AI can also be helpful in developing language software applications that can produce materials for minority or Indigenous communities that are unreached by many missionary teams that favour teaching masses who have common lingua franca. 1.3 Challenges of Artificial Intelligence The fundamental challenge in adoption of artificial intelligence in the mission of church in a digital era is that it carries the risk of questioning the intelligence of man or his being made in the image of God. Gen. 1:26 “Let us make man in our image.” If science and technology can make a machine that learns, reasons, and makes decisions, are we relinquishing our Godgiven intelligence to do just that? With artificial general intelligence, which aims at manufacturing self-directed machines which can rebel against humans, what message are we sending about the responsibility God gave us

3/2026

to care for the garden of Eden (Gen. 1:28; Gen. 2:15)? Can machines solve human social-psychological problems? Perhaps, but can they replace humans in form of priests and counsellors? It is surprising that research conducted in 2025 revealed that the first three highly-ranked uses of AI were related to addressing the loneliness epidemic in the western world. The three uses of AI were cited as seeking therapy and companionship, organizing of one’s life and healthy living. Can a machine provide qualitative social psychological counselling to a Christian with suicidal intents? I strongly argue that humans are better placed to provide counselling and pastoral care instead of AI-driven machines that may not be adept to assessing social psychological and emotional needs of humans. The potential for AI to create distortion through pre-created sermons, scriptural expounding, or theological interpretations is high. The content creators of AI may belong to a particular school of theology, say liberalism, and the content created most likely may have a bias to liberalism instead of say conservative or evangelical theology. AI has a supermarket model of various alternatives on offer, and this is likely to disobey the consumers of the product and make the work of the mission of the church an uphill task (Sunggu A. Yang, 2024; Estes Douglas, 2026). 1.4 Synthesis I wish to argue that AI is a creation of humans who are made in the image of God. AI can be used in easing communication of the gospel in the digital era to great effect (and) over wider area. Nonetheless, AI needs to be checked so that it does not get out of man’s control, as is the 2027 targeted concept of AGI. The world runs the risk of going back to the “Tower of babel” disruption and missing out on the message of “Behold I make all things new.”

Bibliography Bowler, Catherine. “Blessed: A history of American prosperity gospel.” Journal of American History, 110 (6) (2010); 1-5. Estes, Douglas, ed. Artificial Intelligence for Bible translation and interpretation. T&T Clark, Bloomsburg Academic, 2026 Campbell, Heidi. “Conveying theoretical approaches within the digital religion studies. New Media and society Campbell, Heidi. “The Distanced Church; Reflection on doing church online.” E-book, (2020); 195 https://hdl. handle.net/1969.1/187891. Kitayimbwa, Nsaale. “Communicating the gospel in the digital age; Case study of the Diocese of Kampala and Namirembe in the Anglican church of Uganda.” Stellenbosch University Thesis, 2022:(215) Kulberg, Jonas; Nam Vo & Sarah Afshari. Lausanne Occasional Paper: Being Church in a Digital Age.” Lausanne Conference (2022): 1-22. Sunggu A. Yang, The Digital Pulpit: Preaching in the revolutionary Era of online Technology and social Media, Cascade books (2024) Verkauis, Josiah E., and Dustin R. Smith (eds), AI Critical New Testament (AI CNT): Neutral Translations with Annotations for over 7000 Textual Variants. Integrity Syndicate (2025) Rt Rev. Prof. Fred Sheldon Mwesigwa serves as bishop of Ankole Diocese in the Church of Uganda, providing pastoral and administrative leadership to approximately 200,000 Christians. He is also chancellor of Bishop Stuart University, which was founded by Ankole Diocese, and contributes to the university’s research and teaching as an adjunct professor.

Mission as a Digital Network Dennis Kahl Why Digital Infrastructure Has Become Part of Mission Infrastructure Introduction What Gutenberg’s printing press once meant for the church, digital infrastructure increasingly means today. For centuries, mission depended on physical networks: roads, ships, printing presses, schools, offices, and church buildings. Today, global mission is increasingly shaped by digital connectivity, communication platforms, data infrastructure, and online collaboration. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this transformation dramatically. What had previously been considered optional or experimental suddenly became essential. International meetings, worship services, leadership consultations, theological sharing, education, and administration rapidly moved into digital spaces. In many cases, digital communication became the only way to maintain global church relationships. Within the United Evangelical Mission (UEM), this development fundamentally changed how collaboration is organized across regions and member churches. UEM is a communion of 39 members, including 38 churches and the von Bodelschwingh Foundation Bethel (vBS) across Africa, Asia, and Germany. Offices in Germany, Tanzania, and Indonesia are connected through shared digital infrastructure and collaborative platforms. International meetings now take place almost daily, often involving participants from multiple continents and time zones. Today, a staff member can work securely from almost anywhere in the world with equal access to communication tools, shared resources, and organizational systems. Administrative

3/2026

processes, financial systems, collaboration platforms, and even international assemblies increasingly operate within digital environments. Mission is no longer only supported by digital tools. Mission itself is increasingly becoming a digital network. Digital Infrastructure as Participation Infrastructure Digital transformation within global church networks is often described primarily in technical terms. But its deeper significance is somewhere else: digital infrastructure increasingly shapes participation. Who can join a meeting? Who has access to information? Who can contribute to global discussions? Whose voice is heard? These questions are no longer only organizational questions. They are also digital questions. Within UEM, international committees and governing bodies are intentionally composed across regions and cultures. Digital collaboration platforms such as Microsoft Teams, shared cloud environments, and centralized communication systems have made this form of international cooperation significantly easier and more sustainable.

At the same time, digitalization has lowered barriers for participation from regions that previously faced logistical or financial limitations. Online meetings reduce travel costs, simplify coordination, and create new possibilities for exchange and networking. However, digital participation is only meaningful when access is reliable, secure, and inclusive. This remains a major challenge within many global church networks. Internet availability differs significantly between regions. Stable electricity cannot always be taken for granted. Smaller churches often lack trained IT staff, structured governance, or secure systems. Capacity building therefore becomes just as important as technology itself. Several UEM workshops in Africa and Asia repeatedly highlighted the same needs for: • • • • •

training, exchange and networking, digital governance, cybersecurity awareness, and sustainable support structures.

Digital transformation cannot succeed through technology alone. It requires investment in people, skills, trust, and long-term collaboration. Technology Is Not the Mission

3/2026

Digital transformation within churches and mission networks should never become technology for its own sake. Technology alone does not create community. Platforms do not replace human relationships. Artificial intelligence does not replace wisdom, trust, or spiritual intelligence. The central question is therefore not how much technology churches can adopt, but how technology can responsibly strengthen people, communities, and the mission they are called to serve. Within UEM, digital infrastructure is not understood as a goal in itself. Its purpose is to support human collaboration, strengthen participation, enable exchange, and help international communities work together more effectively across geographical and cultural boundaries. In many ways, technology has become part of the infrastructure that allows global relationships to remain active and connected. Shared communication platforms, digital workspaces, hybrid meetings, and secure systems make it possible for people from different continents to cooperate daily in ways that would have been unimaginable only a few years ago. Digitalization must remain people-centred. This is especially important in international mission networks, where technology can either deepen inequality or create new forms of inclusion and participation. Artificial intelligence very clearly illustrates this. On one hand, AI technologies already help churches and organizations overcome language barriers, summarize information, improve accessibility, and support communication across regions. For smaller languages and communities that are often marginalized within global communication structures, this creates entirely new possibilities for participation.

Translation tools increasingly support communication not only in dominant global languages such as English or French, but also in regional and local languages. This can strengthen inclusion and make global conversations more accessible for communities that previously remained excluded. On the other hand, digital transformation also creates new risks: • • • • •

loss of control over sensitive information, dependence on commercial platforms, growing shadow IT structures, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and increasing inequality between organizations with strong and weak digital capacities.

For this reason, responsible digital transformation requires governance, training, and secure infrastructure. Without a solid digital basement, mission networks become fragile. Cybersecurity is therefore not only a technical issue. It is also about protecting community, trust, communication, and shared knowledge. Hybrid Mission and the New Complexity of Collaboration One of the most underestimated aspects of digital transformation is the complexity of hybrid collaboration. Purely physical meetings are often simpler to organize. Fully digital environments can also become efficient over time. Hybrid structures require organizations to operate in both worlds simultaneously. This creates additional technical, organizational, and human challenges. International mission networks increasingly work within hybrid realities:

3/2026

• • • •

some participants join online, others are physically present, documents exist both digitally and locally, and events must remain accessible under very different regional conditions.

For UEM, this transformation became especially visible during international conferences and assemblies. For many years, large meetings required enormous logistical efforts and extensive paperbased workflows. International assemblies with up to 120 participants often produced between 80,000 and 120,000 printed pages for agendas, reports, minutes, and working documents. At the same time, conferences frequently took place in locations with unstable internet connectivity or unreliable power supply. This led to the development of the “UEMCloud,” a portable and resilient digital conference infrastructure designed specifically for global church contexts. The idea behind the system was simple but important: Digital participation should not depend entirely on stable internet access or expensive infrastructure. The UEMCloud creates a local conference network directly on site. Participants can access meeting documents, protocols, photos, and working materials from laptops, tablets, or smartphones, even during internet outages. The system also remains operational during temporary power failures through batterysupported infrastructure. In this way, digital collaboration becomes more accessible and sustainable. At the same time, the experience also demonstrated that hybrid systems require significantly more preparation, coordination, and technical support than many organizations initially expected. Cameras, streaming systems, local

3/2026

backups, secure synchronization, digital archives, and redundant infrastructure have become essential parts of international collaboration. Artificial intelligence may help reduce some of this growing complexity in the future through: • • • •

simultaneous or text translation, transcription and meeting summaries, workflow automation, and simplified content creation.

But of course, technology alone cannot solve structural challenges. Hybrid mission still depends on people who can build trust, maintain relationships, coordinate systems, and ensure that digital tools remain accessible and meaningful for the communities they serve. Capacity Building and Digital Justice One of the common lessons from the last three years I made is that digital transformation is not only about infrastructure. It is also about capacity, education, and inclusion. Technology can create new opportunities for participation, but only if people are equipped to use it safely and clearly. Across many member churches within Africa and Asia, digitalization is advancing rapidly. Communication platforms, livestreaming, cloud services, social media, and AI-supported tools are increasingly used within ministry, administration, and theological education. Nevertheless, many organizations still lack structured governance, secure infrastructure, training opportunities, and long-term IT environmental support. The gap between technological innovation and infrastructure is growing and becoming the true challenge. New technologies are often adopted very quickly, while cybersecurity, governance, and sustainable infrastructure development are behind. Tools such

as AI platforms or collaboration environments may improve communication and productivity, but they also increase dependency on external systems and create risks related to data protection, privacy, and institutional resilience. If churches and mission organizations do not provide secure and trusted digital environments, information and communication will increasingly move into uncontrolled platforms and shadow IT structures. For this reason, digital transformation must also be understood as a question of responsibility. Several UEM workshops and training programs in Africa and Asia repeatedly revealed similar priorities: • • • •

capacity building workshops, networking and exchange of experiences, convincing the leadership, and strengthening local IT structures.

This includes not only leadership development, but also investment in local IT staff and operational support structures. Too often, churches focus mainly on visible communication tools while underestimating the importance of secure infrastructure, backup strategies, identity protection, and sustainable governance models. A matter of fact is that resilient mission networks require resilient digital foundations. Workshops conducted with member churches highlighted practical challenges such as: • • • • •

missing backup systems, weak email security, insufficient power resilience, missing centralized governance, and absence of cybersecurity awareness.

At the same time, these exchanges also demonstrated strong motivation for learning,

collaboration, and long-term digital development. In Indonesia, discussions around digital mission infrastructure emphasized that digital communication and online participation are not replacing church community, but expanding the possibilities for connection, education, and ministry. Digital transformation therefore becomes part of missional capacity building itself. Workshops in Tanzania highlighted another important lesson: digital transformation cannot succeed without leadership commitment. Sustainable progress requires church leaders to recognize ICT as a strategic ministry, delegate responsibility to qualified staff, and invest in the people and structures that will sustain digital development for years to come. It enables churches to: • • • •

strengthen communication, improve collaboration, connect remote communities, and create new opportunities for participation across regions and generations.

I would also argue that age is not a general factor of how easy it is to join with technology-related topics. People who grew up without internet may know both worlds. That should be seen as an asset rather than task only the younger generations with digital topics. AI and Global Mission Networks of the Future Artificial intelligence is already starting to change how churches and mission organizations work on a daily basis. When AI comes up in conversation, sometimes it leads to moral questions or dystopian future tellings. Although these are important queries, they must not take away from the concrete situation that is already taking form in global mission networks.

3/2026

AI is taking over communication, administration, translation, knowledge management, and collaboration. For example, multilingual communication. Organizations like UEM do have obviously many countries, cultures, and languages in which they operate. Communication barriers often limit participation and slow collaboration. On the one hand, you miss the opportunity to speak up on the grassroots level, or communication gets lost in translation. On the other hand, If you translate it may cost more—also a challenge to church organizations worldwide. And there are many more local languages to be considered than the small number of dominant languages like English and French. New technology will help UEM to evaluate AI to become very performant but also very inclusive driver. AI now can also create excellent opportunities for: • • • •

meeting summaries and administrative support, educational content creation, digital learning environments, and easier access to information.

For smaller organizations and churches with limited resources, these developments may significantly increase operational capacity. For this reason, churches should approach AI neither with fear nor with uncritical enthusiasm. Instead, AI should be understood as a tool that must remain aligned with human dignity, participation, and the mission of the church. Technology must continue to serve people - not the other way around. The future of mission will therefore not simply depend on adopting more and more digital tools. It will depend on whether churches can develop responsible, resilient, and people-centered digital cultures that strengthen communities rather than fragment them.

3/2026

However, these opportunities also require careful reflection. Artificial intelligence should not deepen existing inequalities between churches with strong digital infrastructure and those without access to secure systems, training, or governance structures. The growing use of AI also raises important questions regarding: • • • • •

ownership of information, data protection, ethical accountability, misinformation, and dependency on external commercial platforms.

In this sense, artificial intelligence is not primarily a technological question. It is a question about how global Christian communities want to collaborate, communicate, learn, and care for one another in an increasingly digital world. Conclusion The digital transformation of our global mission networks is no longer a future scenario. It is already reshaping how churches collaborate, communicate, learn, and build community across regions and cultures. And more important: Digital transformation is not simply about adopting new technologies. The deeper challenge is how churches can develop digital structures that remain human-centered, resilient, inclusive, and responsible. Mission already works intensively with digital environments through: • • • • • •

online collaboration, documentation and archiving, hybrid worship and conferences, multilingual communication, digital learning, and global networks of exchange.

In this context, digital infrastructure has become part of mission infrastructure.

The experience of UEM over recent years has shown both the opportunities and the challenges of this development. Digital tools can also play an important role in participation, reduce barriers, improve collaboration, and create new forms of global connection. Artificial intelligence may further expand these possibilities, especially in areas such as translation, accessibility, and documentation. Alongside digitalization, there is also growing requirement for governance and cybersecurity, data protection, and long-term resilience of systems to digitalization. Without secure and sustainable structures, digital mission becomes fragile. For this reason, churches should not ask only: “What technologies should we use?” The more important questions may be: How do we protect community and trust in digital spaces? How do we ensure participation across regions and languages? How do we strengthen local capacity and digital justice? How do we use technology in ways that support human dignity and shared mission? Technology itself is not the mission.

Notes: Workshop on Secure and Efficient Server Virtualization Banjarmasin, Indonesia, 1-9 February 2026 UNESCO (2024), Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/recommendationethics-artificial-intelligence World Economic Forum (2025), Global Cybersecurity Outlook https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_ Cybersecurity_Outlook_2025.pdf Capacity Building about Information Communication Technology and social media DarTU University Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 22-26 June 2025 https://www.vemission.org/fileadmin/redakteure/ Dokumente/Publikationen/Echo/MISSION_ECHO_ June_2025_for_web.pdf Workshop on Digital Ministry Gunungsitoli, Indonesia, 21-25 August 2023 https://www.vemission.org/en/details/digital-ministry UEMCloud Asia, Afrika, and Germany 2017 - 2026 https://www.vemission.org/details/grenzenlos-verbundenmit-der-uem-cloud Dennis Kahl serves as head of the IT & Services Department at the United Evangelical Mission (UEM). He leads digital transformation and IT strategy for UEM, an international communion of churches across Africa, Asia, and Germany. Over the past decade, he has supported churches and partner organisations in areas including digital collaboration, cybersecurity, cloud technologies, and capacity building. His work focuses on harnessing technology to strengthen participation, resilience, and global cooperation in mission.

Its big value is that people will connect without barriers, collaborate in teams, learn together, and serve one another more effectively across geographical, cultural, and linguistic boundaries. What Gutenberg’s printing press once meant for the church, digital infrastructure increasingly means today. The future of mission may therefore not only depend on physical networks and institutions, but also on whether global churches can build resilient, inclusive, and trustful digital communities for future generations. 3/2026

How Can I/the Church Influence AI? And How Should I/the Church Let AI Influence Me/ Us? Dr Corey C. Schlosser-Hall Thy kingdom come Thy will be done on earth as in heaven The prayer Jesus taught the disciples and us seeks to help us, Jesus’ disciples, get aligned with God’s mission in the world. And too often in the last 40 years, the church—at least my little slice of God’s church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), a mainline protestant denomination in the U.S.—has been caught flatfooted on most technology advancements. Whether the global intro of the world wide web in the early 1990s or the emergence of social media in the early 2000s, or the development of virtual reality/augmented reality (VR/AR) tech we have primarily tried to play catch-up as “users” of these technologies more than “shapers.” And a bit slow at that. The advent of broad public access to “artificial intelligence” technologies with the release of Open AI’s Chat GPT in late 2022 served as a wake-up call to many in the church. While AI technologies have been developing for decades, only a very few theologians, ethicists, and pastoral leaders paid much attention to the development. We in the PC(USA) were no different. In early 2024, I was introduced to Rev. Lorenzo Lebrija and the TryTank Research Institute at Virginia Theological Seminary by our PC(USA) New Worshiping Communities ministry leader, Nikki Collins at that time. We started dreaming about pulling together an ecumenical learning community around AI and the church. I contacted a counterpart in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Innovation Lab and together

3/2026

we started plans to invite a small number of pastoral leaders, theologians, ethicists, and denominational leaders to Seattle, WA for an “AI & the Church Summit.” We thought it might take some significant work to find folks interested in the intersection of Christian discipleship, mission and ethics, AI development, and practical pastoral and ministry issues that emerge due to the rapid proliferation of AI accessibility. Wow, were we wrong! The interest was way more significant than we thought. That first AI Summit was a remarkable coming together. With special thanks to the partnership with AI & Faith (www.aiandfaith.org), a Seattle-based nonprofit that started in 2017, we were able to assemble a remarkable teaching lineup. We also organized a field trip to Microsoft and were grateful for Microsoft’s hospitality and willingness of their Responsible AI team to meet with a bunch of mainline Protestant Christians hopeful and concerned about the development of AI for the good of humanity. That first summit also generated a great connection with Father Paolo Benanti, Pope Francis’ advisor on AI and contributor to the Rome Call for AI Ethics who exercises continued leadership in Christian ethics and AI development. Then in 2025 these three denominations were joined by the United Methodist Church’s Discipleship Ministries to host the 2nd AI & the Church Summit in Minneapolis, MN hosted by Westminster Presbyterian Church. Both the 2024 summit in Seattle and the 2025 summit in Minneapolis have complete proceedings along with all video from the keynotes available captured in a journal from each year available here: https://www.trytank.org/aigathering.html At the end of August 2026 we will go to Nashville, TN to the UMC headquarters for the 3rd AI & the Church Summit. Participation in this summit is available virtually and you can register at www. aichurchsummit.org. In the event you read this article after August 2026, you can access the resources of the summit at that same website.

Innovation, and Microsoft all came together to say that the church, government, and industry need to work together on ethical shaping of AI for good. We see that in Anthropic’s willingness to develop a division to engage wisdom traditions like various streams of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and more to help shape the use and proliferation of AI tech.

Why am I telling you all of this? For 3 reasons: First, there is massive interest and sense of calling among the people of God in God’s mission on earth and the development of AI technologies. And the implications of that holds great possibility and also profound peril. Our modest effort is just one of many around the planet to help Christians get our heads, hearts, and arms wrapped around what’s afoot and begin to shift it for the better. Second, we sense that now is a time for people of faith to contribute to shaping these technologies for the benefit of humanity, so that AI can contribute to a world shaped more like God’s shalom-loving, just, and equitable. And to mitigate the very real current and potential harm, unjust, and inequitable influences of AI technology. Third, I think God’s Holy Spirit is using this moment in history to bring together people from diverse social locations, industries (if we can call them that), and interests to shape the present for a better future. For example, the Rome Call for AI Ethics (https://www.romecall.org) released in February 2020 on the cusp of the COVID-19 pandemic and before the release of ChatGPT, the Vatican, the Italian government’s Ministry of

We see that in Pope Leo’s delivery of his latest encyclical, Magnifica humanitas: On safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence, on 25 May 2026 (https:// www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/ documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas. html). This is a remarkable gift to all of us as Christians that traces the development of Catholic social doctrine, and explicitly addresses several levels where we need to protect and elevate the human person (often referred to in Christian theological circles as human anthropology), and lays out a comprehensive theological and ethical rationale for beneficial AI development and human alliances to make that happen. It was the first time that a pope has delivered an encyclical accompanied by leaders of AI development corporations and allowed one of them to speak. Chris Olah, the cofounder of Anthropic, was invited to make remarks (https:// www.anthropic.com/news/chris-olah-pope-leoencyclical). He issued an invitation in concluding his remarks: I’d like to close with a request. We need more of the world—religious communi-ties, civil society, scholars, governments, and indeed all people of good will—to do what His Holiness has done here: to take this seriously, to look closely, and to push events in a better direction. We need informed critics who will tell the labs when we are failing. We need moral voices that the incentives cannot bend. Today is just the beginning—the start of a

3/2026

long collaboration between those of us who are building this and those who can see what we, from inside, cannot. Today is a powerful illustration of the form this global project of good will might take. Let it also be a decisive first step toward a hopeful future for magnificent humanity.1 I am not seeking to promote or elevate Chris Olah or Anthropic or Anthropic’s AI platform Claude by sharing this. Simply underscoring that even though the everyday Christian person around the world might think all of this AI development is happening beyond their reach and all they can do is swallow it, or resist it, the door is open for engagement. And many of us are accepting the invitation. We hope you will too! In the denomination I serve, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) we took a good step toward accepting this invitation when the PC(U.S.A.) 227th General Assembly in July 2026 approved a social witness policy entitled The Algorithm and the Almighty: Navigating Artificial Intelligence Through a Reformed Lens.2 This policy developed and proposed by the PC(USA)’s Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy now provides a theological and ethical basis from which to engage in thoughtful conversation and advocate for just and equitable development and government regulation. That’s all well and good. However, when I connect with everyday Presbyterians and our ecumenical partners all over the U.S. about artificial intelligence and ministry I notice it’s difficult to engage a sustained conversation about God’s mission, the church, and AI in part because of the vast differences in AI competence and understanding. Some who have yet to prompt an LLM with a query. And others who have built and trained chatbots. And still others who are coding new apps and tools with AI. Another broad variation of those are more AI experienced and competent is those who use the tools as an individual personally or professionally, and those who are developing AI capacities,

3/2026

competencies, guardrails, and processes for ecclesial organizations. With all this variation at this early stage of AI’s intervention in human history, how does a congregation, leadership team, mission agency have a meaningful engagement that helps that entity discern how God is calling them to engage God’s mission in light of and with or without AI? I want to offer two resources to help ecclesial and missional organizations discern their way forward and respond in faithful ways. The first is a new Church AI Toolkit (https:// churchaitoolkit.com). In the ecumenical collaboration I’ve been part of mentioned at the beginning of this article we have been looking for ways to synthesize the learning we are doing and provide ways for colleagues to engage faithfully, justly, and innovatively in this season. One of the key needs was to provide pastoral leaders, chaplains, mission personnel, and other spiritual leaders tools for engaging the issues that come up in everyday Christian living and spiritual formation. The Church AI Toolkit is just that. And it will keep growing and improving as we continue to curate learning in this new day. The second was developed in 2025 when our ecumenical collective partnered up with a remarkable futurist, social simulation designer, and author of Imaginable: How to Create a Hopeful Future--In Your Own Life, Your Community, the World (2022). Jane McGonigal collaborated with us to design a process of engagement that could do just that. It is available for church and mission organizations to use as long as you provide appropriate attribution as outlined in the resource for it. If you choose to engage it I would ask that you customize it for your setting, make it better, help move God’s mission and AI forward with discerning, spirit-led engagement by the people of God. And tell us about it! The complete process along with Jane McGonigal’s keynote talk that includes instructions for how to engage it can be found at the links in the footnote.3 We titled the process “The Council

of Ethical Imagination” which meant we were inviting participants to think of themselves as part of the “Council of Ethical Imagination” deciding what the most urgent issue would be to address 10-years in the future so that we could begin thinking about and addressing them now.

for your highest priority/highest opportunity. Brainstorm possible actions to take for each of your two chosen pathways. Feel free to propose “ridiculous, at first” ideas. Stretch your imagination. You have successfully completed this step if you have thought of at least one possibility you have never thought of before. Record your team results for shared understanding (15 minutes)

The process is 3-fold4: 1.

Imagine your future self. Who are you in 2036, and how did you arrive at this future moment? Write a quick year 2036 bio (as if for a conference program or social media profile). Where are you living, working, serving? What have you learned, experienced, contributed, created, or achieved in the past decade to become ready to serve on the Council of Ethical Imagination? Try to imagine futureyou as different in some meaningful way from present-day you. After taking a few minutes to draft your future bio, introduce your future selves to each other. (10 minutes) Choose your most urgent futures. Which of the year 2036 “burning questions” do you personally feel most called and inspired to help address? Get familiar with the list of issues in front of the council this year — skim them (they are in the social simulation guide linked in the footnote) and see what jumps out at you. Together, discuss them with your fellow council members and try to rank these urgent futures from highest priority and opportunity to lowest priority and opportunity. It’s expected that your overall individual rankings will differ, but see if you can collectively agree on one or two highest priorities and high opportunities to focus on together. Record your team/ group results so that you can gain a sense of what seems to be most important to the group. (15 minutes). Now, select a pathway of future influence to impact your highest priority “burning question.” Explore the five pathways of future influence and decide which one or two of pathways you think would be best suited

Play it again: If you have time and/or a desire to keep futuring together, focus on your second highest priority / highest opportunity and brainstorm ideas for taking action along the other three pathways of future influence. (10-15 minutes) This social simulation process is not like a formula where you do step 1, add step 2, add step 3, and then get the result of what you may be called to address. It will help your team or organization engage a meaningful and rich conversation about what is most important to God, to you, and listen together for what God may be calling you to engage. No one part of us can engage the whole issue of AI, the church, and God’s mission on earth. But each part of the body of Christ engaging together with God, with each other, our neighbors, AI organizations, and government regulators can make a difference in shaping a better future for humanity and God’s shalomification mission on earth as in heaven. Notes 1.

Olah, Chris (Monday May 25, 2026). Following the release of Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical on the topic of AI: “Magnifica humanitas: On safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence.” Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah was invited to speak at the presentation of the encyclical in the Vatican City, doing so as part of Anthropic’s initiative to widen the conversation on the important questions raised by AI. The Algorithm and the Almighty: Navigating Artificial Intelligence with a Reformed Lens https://pcusa.org/ about-pcusa/agencies-entities/life-witness/ministryareas/social-witness-policy Jane McGonigal’s The Council of Ethical Imagination at 2025 AI and the Church Summit is here: https://

3/2026

pcusa.org/resource/social-simulation-council-ethicalimagination. The above only has 7 potential scenarios for the 2025 AI and the Church Summit process. Jane produced 22 scenarios from which to choose. You can see them all here. And please feel free to design your own. This three-part process is outlined by Jane McGonigal in the resource in footnote #3 above.

Dr Corey C. Schlosser-Hall serves as senior director for Presbyterian Life and Witness at the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). From 2006 to January 2022, he served as executive presbyter of the Presbytery of the Northwest Coast. He holds a PhD in organisational communication from the University of Minnesota and is a credentialed leadership coach with the International Coaching Federation.

Beyond the Ministry Copilot: AI, Trust, and the Mission of Presence in South Korea Rev. Dr Jaeho Jang From Astonishment to the Ordinary

In 2023, I gave a lecture to Korean pastors on

artificial intelligence and the future of ministry. Given a biblical text and a theme, AI produced

a sermon within seconds, complete with a title, outline, illustrations, and applications. I then displayed an AI-generated biblical scene rendered in a Korean visual idiom. The room erupted in

gasps and laughter. Some pastors were amazed, some were uneasy, while others immediately

asked how they might use it the following Sunday. Generative AI still felt like a curiosity—a glimpse of the future.1

Only a few years later, the astonishment has

become ordinary. Pastors use AI to conduct

sermon research, prepare Bible studies, draft notices, summarise meetings, create images,

and translate texts. Christians ask generative AI about faith and receive personalised devotions

or instant explanations of unfamiliar Bible

passages. Reference books and dictionaries that until yesterday sat on a pastor’s desk have now

found their way onto the smartphone screens of congregants.

The question must therefore change. It is no

longer enough to ask, “Should the church use AI?” AI is already present, even where no policy exists. The urgent questions are these: What purposes will it serve? Who will benefit? Who will bear responsibility? At stake is the kind of church being formed through its use.

Treating AI as either a saviour or a demonic threat

assigns too much agency to technology. AI will

neither renew nor destroy the church by itself. It

3/2026

is a socio-technical system shaped by corporate

South Korea is a distinctive place from which to

interests, and cultural bias. It can also widen

it experienced Japanese colonial rule and war,

capital, vast datasets, hidden labour, political

access, support creativity, and reduce linguistic

and accessibility barriers. The task is to discern the desires and values that govern its use in the church.

“Beyond the ministry copilot” does not mean

refusing AI assistance. It means refusing to make efficiency the final criterion. Does its use bring the church closer to its neighbours, make it

more accountable to people at the margins, and serve God’s mission by nurturing life-flourishing

observe this encounter. Within a few generations, followed

democratisation,

industrialisation, and

urbanisation,

digitalisation.

Social

scientists therefore describe it as a society of “compressed modernity”: changes that unfolded

elsewhere over longer periods arrived here

in overlapping waves. The expression ppalli-

ppalli—“hurry, hurry”—should not be read as evidence of innate national impatience, but as a collective habit formed by survival, competition, and rapid development.

communities? Where the church is going with

This “speed-oriented culture” is also evident in

performance.

Once a technology is proven to be convenient

its copilot matters more than the copilot’s

Korea as a Compressed Laboratory

the process of adopting digital technologies. and competitive, any hesitation quickly gives way

to rapid adoption. Generative AI is steering clear

3/2026

of the “adopt first, use later” approach often seen

an anxious person late at night or a young person

churches.

accessible point of entry.

in schools, corporations, public institutions, and

afraid to ask a question in church, it can offer an

South Korean Protestant churches are diverse,

Convenience raises new questions. Prayer

have been shaped by growth and expansion.

distress constitute sensitive information. While

and no account represents them all. Yet many After the Korean War, churches contributed

to relief, education, and community formation;

during industrialisation they embraced mass rallies,

church-growth

strategies,

broadcast

ministry, and multimedia mission. Technology

came to be understood not as antithetical to faith but as an amplifier of mission. The

COVID-19

pandemic

accelerated

this

trajectory. Churches moved quickly to streamed

worship, video meetings, online giving, and digital

fellowship.

These

practices

opened

participation for people in hospitals and care

facilities, disabled people with limited mobility, and Koreans living abroad, even as some older

adults were excluded. In South Korea’s 2024 Digital Divide Survey, older adults’ overall “digital

informatization level”—a composite of access, skills, and use—stood at 71.4 percent of the

requests, family conflicts, and psychological

personalization features can help users encounter the specific Bible verses they need, they also risk

creating an echo chamber—repeating only what the user wants to hear—thereby insulating them

from the challenges posed by Scripture or the counsel of the faith community.

Korean churches have long used new media adeptly. Yet speed can outrun discernment,

technical possibility can be mistaken for ethical

legitimacy, and reach can replace depth. If

churches absorb platform logic uncritically, pastors become producers, congregants become consumers, and the church becomes one

channel competing for attention. Korea is thus a compressed laboratory showing how technology

magnifies older desires for growth, influence, convenience, and control.

level for the general population.2 The gap thus

Between 80 Percent and 19 Percent

meaningful use.

percent and 19 percent. According to the Ministry

concerns not only connection but also skills and

Generative AI presents a double-edged sword, offering both risks and significant potential.

Small church communities can leverage it to draft bulletins, prepare educational materials,

handle subtitling and editing, and facilitate communication with immigrant neighbours who speak different languages. Features such as textto-speech and automated subtitling can enhance

accessibility and engagement. Even churches or small communities with limited financial resources

Two numbers illuminate the present situation: 80

Data Institute, the proportion of lead pastors responding to its surveys who reported having

used generative AI rose from 41 percent in 2023 to 80 percent in 2025. The proportion reporting its use in ministry or sermon preparation rose from

17 to 58 percent, while 81 percent of pastoral users employed it for research when preparing

sermons and lectures.4 In two years, AI moved

from the preserve of enthusiasts to a working tool for most respondents.

can now access tools that were previously

These figures also illustrate the immense pressure

platform, offers services such as Bible search

responsibilities—such as preaching, education,

unaffordable. “Chowon,” a Korean Christian AI and

commentary,

answers

faith-related

questions, prayer drafting, and personalized

devotional materials; according to the developer,

it has recorded 800,000 downloads to date. For 3

3/2026

pastors face. Many Korean pastors shoulder

administration, finance, publicity, counselling, and pastoral visitation—entirely on their own, with

little to no staff support. As congregation sizes and financial revenues decline, some pastors

even take on secondary jobs to make ends meet.

Fluent Language, Accountable Witness

and lectures each week, utilizing AI is not merely

actually delivering the sermon are two different

For pastors who must prepare multiple sermons

a shortcut born of laziness; rather, it can be a

practical solution to manage an overwhelming

workload. Churches need to reflect on why this situation has arisen and consider what level of

performance they realistically expect from their pastors. Yet

rapid

pastoral

adoption

sits

uneasily

with congregational expectations. In another

survey reported by the institute, 65 percent of Christians who reported some understanding of

AI considered it inappropriate to use AI to write sermons.4 This is not necessarily technophobia.

Congregants listen not only to a sermon’s content but also for signs that the preacher knows their

community’s joy and pain, has wrestled with the Word, and accepts responsibility for what is proclaimed.

The second number exposes a deeper crisis. A 2026 survey found that only 19 percent of the

public trusted the Korean church, while 75.4 percent did not. Asked what social action was most

needed to increase trust, 58.6 percent selected “strengthening ethical and moral practice.”.

This suggests that respondents wanted public

credibility and consistency between the church’s

Drafting an excellent sermon manuscript and matters. AI can summarize the background of a text, suggest illustrations, and refine scattered ideas

into

eloquent

sentences.

However,

credibility does not stem merely from eloquent speech. A sermon is a testimony shared within

a community by someone who stands under

both the judgment and the comfort of the Word, while also sharing in the community’s wounds

and joys. The crucial question here is not “Can AI write a good sermon?” but rather “Who takes responsibility for these words?” No matter how deeply AI is involved in the sermon preparation process,

teaching,

the

responsibility

counselling,

remains with the pastor.

and

for

preaching,

decision-making

Paul writes, “We were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well” (1

Thessalonians 2:8). Mission goes beyond merely conveying the gospel accurately; it involves

sharing life together. The authority of a sermon

does not stem from the preacher’s eloquence. It depends on the Holy Spirit, who speaks to the

community through the Word, while at the same

time, the preacher must take responsibility for the interpretation they present.

words and its life more than additional content.

This is not a discussion about whether machines

Since each survey differs in terms of timing,

existing legal, institutional, and ecclesiastical

sample, content, and methodology, one cannot

infer a direct causal relationship; in other words, AI is not the cause of the church’s longstanding crisis

of trust. However, placing the figures “80” and “19” side-by-side highlights a missional paradox: while the church is churning out sermons, educational

materials, images, and videos faster than ever,

it is not garnering a commensurate level of trust. AI may offer eloquent language, but what

can truly possess consciousness. Within the order, AI cannot serve as a responsible pastoral agent. Furthermore, a sermon is—prior to being

a matter of religious content—a communal event that entails interpretation. The congregation consists not of consumers subject to behavioural

analysis, but of participants in the work of the Holy Spirit who may even question the preacher’s interpretation.

society demands is a life that aligns with those

An incarnational theology does not demand that

be the words themselves, but rather trustworthy

encounters as real.

words. Ultimately, what is truly lacking may not testimony and sincere companionship.

we view online relationships as fake and physical

Friendship,

learning,

prayer,

and

solidarity

3/2026

can all take place in digital spaces; for those

constrained by illness, disability, distance, or caregiving responsibilities, online connections

acquires gospel meaning only when its dividend is reinvested in relationship and mercy.

can serve as an essential means of participating

Being alongside need not mean sharing one

the “Word” did not remain abstract information

streamed worship may be life-sustaining. The

in community. A deeper truth lies in the fact that but became vulnerable flesh in a specific time and place. Incarnational communication involves

taking responsibility for one’s words, accepting

interruptions caused by the needs of others, and maintaining a willingness to change in response.

This does not prove the superiority of offline

communication; rather, it demonstrates a form

room. An online conversation, a message, or

issue is whether we remain responsive: can another’s words interrupt our plans and revise our judgement? Will we stay with uncomfortable

questions and return to apologise when wrong?

AI can widen opportunities for encounter, but it cannot bear this responsibility for us.

of love that fulfils its responsibilities. Therefore,

From Digital Mission to Digital Diakonia

on the criteria of vulnerability, mutuality, and

broadcast

digital activities should be evaluated based accountability.

Digital mission work in Korea—ranging from sermons

and

YouTube

worship

services to Bible apps and AI-driven spiritual

counselling—has focused primarily on how to

What Simbang Teaches About Presence

spread the Gospel further and faster. While

pastoral visitation to homes, workplaces, hospital

metric of mission work. Who pays the price for

Korean churches have long practised simbang: rooms, and places of mourning, through which ministers enter the concrete circumstances

of people’s lives, listen, and pray with them. It embodies the conviction that ministry moves into the places where people live rather than waiting

reach remains important, it cannot be the sole

such convenience? Whose labour and data are left behind, unseen? Does technology reinforce

existing concentrations of power, or does it care for the lives of the marginalized?

for them to come to church.

I describe the needed reorientation as a movement

Our task is not to restore past forms, but to recover

diakonia does more than provide religious content

the missional essence within them: reaching

out first, listening before judging, and standing by people’s side rather than rushing to solve problems. We must look beyond the words on a

screen to understand unspoken fears, exhausted bodies, precarious labour, and the heavy burden of care. When we sit together at the same table,

“church members” become “neighbours,” each with their own unique story.

Where AI-saved time goes becomes a theological

question. If AI reduces the time spent drafting

from digital mission to “digital diakonia.” Digital

online; it serves neighbours harmed or excluded

within the digital order. As the National Council

of Churches in Korea warns, AI and automation are

entangled

transnational

with

shadow

labour

labour,

displacement, multinational

technology monopolies, deepfake sexual crimes, disinformation, violations of privacy and human rights, and threats to political fairness.6 These are theological questions about dignity, work, truth,

and the common good—and therefore sites of mission.

notices, compiling minutes, researching, or

South

output? Or does it enable ministers to visit a

and democratization struggles of the 1970s,

translating, is that time reinvested in more lonely older person, listen to an unemployed

young adult, share a meal with a migrant worker,

or accompany an exhausted carer? Efficiency

3/2026

Korea’s

“Minjung

Theology,”

which

emerged amidst the authoritarian industrialization

taught the church to interpret faith and history from the perspective of the suffering. Applying this lens to artificial intelligence compels us to ask

whose lives are truly made more convenient and

AI can make the church’s language more

elderly, people with disabilities, migrants, platform

accountable body, an open table, and time spent

upon whom new risks are being offloaded. The workers, young people in precarious employment,

and members of small churches must not be viewed merely as passive beneficiaries; rather, they must be recognized as active participants whose knowledge and judgment shape decisionmaking processes. The experiences of those on

fluent. What makes its witness trustworthy is an

beside the wounded. If AI saves a minister an hour but that hour never reaches a lonely older

person, a precarious worker, or a wounded young

adult, the church has gained efficiency and lost mission.

the margins of society serve as the starting point

In earlier work, I called for an “AI theology for

cause of life.

respond faithfully to the theological questions

for assessing whether technology truly serves the

mission,” arguing that Christian mission must

of its time.9 The present essay sharpens that

This resonates with the Council for World

proposal: such a theology should be judged not

vision of life-flourishing communities.7 Mission

the kind of church it forms and whose lives its

Mission’s Mission from the Margins and its from the Margins does not mean the centre graciously “giving” others a voice, but centring

by the efficiency of AI-assisted ministry, but by technologies serve.

existing knowledge and changing the structures

The future of mission does not depend on an

of the New International Financial and Economic

church can use AI without becoming algorithmic:

that determine visibility. At a 2025 consultation Architecture

(NIFEA)

initiative

Pocheon,

South Korea, CWM Mission Secretary Daimon

Mkandawire warned that algorithms “coded

to serve empire and profit” would “deepen the

wounds of inequality.”. Therefore, the church 8

must move beyond digital mission toward digital diakonia. It must go further than simply

considering how to conduct missions efficiently using AI and instead stand in solidarity with the

“AI pastor.” The sharper question is whether the refusing to reduce people to predictable data, refusing to exclude those deemed inefficient, and

allowing another’s suffering to interrupt its plans. Such a church will bear embodied witness to the gospel in the age of AI. Notes 1.

marginalized of this era.

A Church That Does Not Become an Algorithm

The Korean church’s most important contribution

modernity and a culture of speed, Korea has

may not be rapid adoption. Within compressed experienced both the possibilities and the costs of technology. Its churches have seen rapid growth and success in media-based mission, yet

have learnt painfully that public trust cannot be

therefore join the worldwide church in seeking a

sustained by scale and performance. They can path beyond rejecting or worshipping technology:

using it skilfully while naming its limits, and returning the fruits of efficiency to neighbours.

Sim Ja-deuk, ‘What Percentage of Pastors Prepare Sermons with ChatGPT?’, Dangdang News, 9 November 2023, reporting on Jaeho Jang’s lecture, ‘Pastoral Strategy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence’ [in Korean], dangdangnews.com. National Information Society Agency, 2024 Digital Divide Survey Report (2025) [in Korean], nia.or.kr. Chowon, Google Play listing and developer-disclosed download figure, accessed 8 August 2026, play. google.com. Ministry Data Institute, ‘Numbers 329: Pastors’ Use of AI’ (2026) [in Korean], mhdata.or.kr. Christian Ethics Movement of Korea, 2026 Survey of Social Trust in the Korean Church (2026) [in Korean], cemk.org. National Council of Churches in Korea, ‘NCCK Centennial Social Declaration’ (2024) [in Korean], kncc.or.kr. Council for World Mission, ‘Mission from the Margins’, cwmission.org; Council for World Mission, CWM Strategy 2020–2029, cwmission.org. Council for World Mission, ‘NIFEA Consultation Addresses Global Inequality, Rise of AI, Fourth Industrial Revolution’ (2025), cwmission.org.

3/2026

Jaeho Jang, ‘Theological Issues in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Towards “AI Theology” for Mission’, Theology of Mission, no. 73 (February 2024): 216– 251

Rev. Dr Jaeho Jang studied systematic theology, philosophy, religious studies, and the dialogue between science and theology at Methodist Theological University (BTh, ThM), Yonsei University (BA), Seoul National University (MA; PhD studies, ABD), Boston University (STM), and the University of Edinburgh (PhD). He won the Peacocke Prize from the UK’s Science and Religion Forum in 2015. He contributed to Issues in Science and Theology: Are We Special? Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology (Springer, 2017). He is now associate professor of Philosophy of Religion at Methodist Theological University and runs the YouTube channel The Institute of Science and Theology.

Bearing Witness in the Age of AI: The Church as a Trusted Source and Human Voice Rev. Ralf Peter Reimann Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping our world. AI is transforming our society. It is also transforming how we work. It is changing education. AI is changing industries. It is changing medicine. AI is changing the labor market, which is evolving rapidly, changing not only individual professions but also the way organizations and institutions operate. And, of course, it is changing the church, as the church is also part of society. These changes are very dynamic. It is difficult for research to keep up. AI and the underlying large language models (LLMs) are dominated by US companies with a global reach. China has also become a global player, expanding into other parts of the world. Therefore, it is very difficult to write about and evaluate AI from a global perspective. This article adopts a European perspective and draws on the author’s experiences. Beyond these social and economic transformations, AI is challenging the boundaries of what it means to be human. Transhumanism poses profound challenges to Christian theology. Even if theology continues to affirm its traditional doctrines, many familiar concepts are being filled with new meanings. Can bots pray?1 Where does AI stand between humanity and the Creator? Omniscience is being redefined in relation to AI, which appears to have no limits in answering questions. As AI systems pass the Turing test, they transcend certain human boundaries. If they continue to acquire capacities that have traditionally been associated with the divine— such as seemingly limitless knowledge—they may increasingly be perceived as godlike, blurring the distinction between creation and the Creator. So, in order to remain relevant in a society shaped by AI and to speak meaningfully to people, the

3/2026

church must also engage with AI theologically and respond to the questions AI raises. If we want to proclaim the gospel, we must be able to express what the gospel means in terminology that is pertinent to the digital age. The church must become fluent in the language of digital culture and use its concepts as points of contact for Christian apologetics. To discuss the full implications of AI for Christian apologetics would require a full study. Artificial intelligence raises questions about being human, knowledge, consciousness, and truth. It is not sufficient simply to repeat traditional Christian teachings, but rather to define or reinterpret them in response to the new technological realities. Such theological reflections lie beyond the scope of this article. Instead, I want to focus on two other aspects: 1.

How can the church and the Christian message maintain a visible digital presence in an environment increasingly mediated by AI? How can the church use AI in ways that enable it to remain a credible and authentic witness to the gospel?

Digital Presence Artificial intelligence is redefining what digital presence means. AI-powered chatbots are changing the way websites are used. Increasingly, websites serve primarily as sources cited by AI systems, while users receive answers directly within the chatbot instead of visiting the original webpage. Search engines have gained a powerful competitor as increasing numbers of people turn to AI assistants instead of traditional web searches.2 At the same time, search engines themselves are integrating AI-generated summaries and direct answers into their search results. As a result, internet search is undergoing a fundamental transformation. More fundamentally, AI is changing what it means to have a presence on the web. Website traffic is declining as users increasingly receive answers directly from AI systems rather than visiting websites themselves. Search engines, once the primary gatekeepers of the internet,

are experiencing shrinking traffic as AI assistants become a common means of retrieving information. Websites are becoming less the destination where information is consumed and increasingly the data providers from which AI systems retrieve, structure, and synthesize information into their own responses. If AI develops into a trusted personal companion, the way people communicate, and interact on social media will also change significantly. AI is fundamentally changing the rules of digital communication, and this transformation is likely to remain. Churches have become digital. The question is therefore no longer whether churches should have a digital presence, but what kind of digital presence they need in an AI-mediated information ecosystem. These developments require churches to rethink what digital presence means. It is no longer sufficient simply to maintain a website that is attractive to human visitors. Information must also be prepared in ways that allow AI systems to find, interpret, and reuse it. Relevant information about churches, worship services, ministries, events, and Christian resources should therefore be published not only for human readers but also in forms that machines can process. This requires churches to publish their information in structured, machine-readable formats based on semantic web standards (i.e. schema.org). Structured data is becoming a foundation for digital visibility. Relevant information must be managed, standardized, enriched, and interconnected.3 Such a common data foundation allows AI systems to recognize relationships between churches, congregations, worship services, ministries, events, and other relevant information. A typical example illustrates why this matters. A person might ask an AI chatbot: “I would like to attend a Christmas Eve service with a nativity play in my city between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m.” An AI system can answer such a question only if churches have made information about worship services, locations, times, accessibility, and other relevant details available in a structured, machine-readable format. Without such data, churches become largely invisible within AI-mediated searches.

3/2026

In digital marketing, successful brands seek to become the primary—or even the sole— authoritative source of information about themselves. They strive to become the source of truth for queries related to their brand, their products, services, and identity. To achieve this, companies invest significant resources in structuring and publishing their data in ways that search engines and AI systems can easily interpret. They employ specialists in digital marketing and search engine optimization, benchmark themselves against competitors, and seek to become trusted sources referenced by search engines and AI assistants. Their goal is to ensure that their information is consistent, comprehensive, machine-readable, and recognised as authoritative. What does this mean for churches and Christian communities? Churches should likewise strive to become trusted and authoritative sources for information about the Christian faith, their ministries, and the gospel. During the age of the printing press, churches relied on specialists. Printers and publishers made the Christian message widely available by producing Bibles, catechisms, hymnals, sermons, and theological literature so that the gospel could be read and disseminated. Today, the equivalent specialists are experts in digital communication, digital marketing, information architecture, and AI technologies. Their task is to ensure that search engines and AI systems are supplied with accurate, structured, and trustworthy information so that churches become authoritative sources within the digital ecosystem. Not every local congregation owned a printing press in previous centuries. Instead, denominations, mission agencies, and publishing houses produced materials that local churches could distribute. Likewise, churches, denominations, and mission organizations today need specialists in digital communication whose expertise can support local congregations. They can provide technical infrastructure, common standards, training, and shared resources

3/2026

that enable even small churches to establish a meaningful digital presence. A second implication is equally important: the relevant data must be openly accessible. Information hidden behind paywalls or technical barriers can only be accessed by a limited audience. The gospel, however, should remain freely available—not only to those seeking it directly, but also to search engines and AI systems that increasingly mediate access to information.4 This principle applies not only to Scripture itself but also to theological resources such as hymns, sermons, liturgical texts, testimonies, educational materials, and other expressions of the church’s life and witness. Wherever possible, these resources should be published as open educational resources (OER), allowing them to be freely shared, reused, translated, and adapted. Open licenses not only broaden human access but also increase the likelihood that Christian resources will become part of the knowledge base from which AI systems generate responses. In an age increasingly shaped by AI-generated content, trustworthiness becomes even more important. The credibility of the church will depend not only on the truth of its message but also on whether its message is accessible and recognized as a citation source by the AI systems. The more authentic, accurate, and well-structured data are made openly available, the lower the risk of AI hallucinations and the greater the likelihood that AI systems will generate reliable responses. At the same time, many large language models exhibit biases in the way they represent religion and Christianity. These biases may arise from the data on which they are trained, the selection of sources, or the design choices made during their development. Churches have only limited influence over these processes. Their most effective response is therefore not merely to criticize such biases (and not to mention the question who controls the AI systems and sets their parameters) but to ensure that authentic, accurate, and citable Christian resources are as widely available as possible.

A broader discussion of who controls AI systems and determines their parameters lies beyond the scope of this article. By publishing high-quality, openly accessible, machine-readable information, churches can increase the likelihood that AI systems will draw on reliable Christian sources, thereby strengthening the faithful representation of the Christian faith in the AI-mediated access to knowledge. Bearing Witness in an Age of AI In theology, there is a broad discussion of what mission is and how the concept of mission can be understood. For the purpose of this article, this discussion cannot be pursued here. Instead, the focus is on the understanding that mission fundamentally means bearing witness to the gospel. Bearing witness involves two complementary commitments. First, faithfulness to the content of the gospel must remain central. Second, the methods employed must be consistent with the message being proclaimed. The means of communication should never contradict the values embodied in the gospel. As the medium is also the message. Bearing witness involves two complementary commitments. First, faithfulness to the content of the gospel must remain central. Second, the methods employed must be consistent with the message being proclaimed. The means of communication should never contradict the values embodied in the gospel. Marshall McLuhan’s observation that “the medium is the message” also applies here. As Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas5 emphasizes, artificial intelligence must always remain rooted in human dignity. Although this perspective is grounded in Catholic social teaching, statements by the World Council of Churches have reached similar conclusions. These shared concerns also have implications for the use of AI in churches. Using technology that contradicts Christian values undermines the credibility of Christian witness. AI governance, AI ethics, and the responsible use of AI are broad

fields. Nevertheless, the church’s use of AI should be guided by the principle that the gospel cannot be proclaimed through technologies that undermine human dignity or the common good. AI products come with a cost. Many depend on exploitative labor practices, including poorly paid clickworkers—often in African countries—who perform essential tasks such as data annotation. For example, OpenAI employed outsourced clickworkers, many of them in Kenya, to review and annotate sexually explicit and other harmful content for content moderation who were poorly paid and exposed to disturbing material.6 The environmental costs of AI are equally significant, particularly its enormous energy and water consumption. Moreover, the infrastructure that underpins AI is distributed unequally. Data centres are concentrated primarily in Western countries and China, while many nations in the Global South remain consumers rather than producers of AI technologies. Minority languages are significantly underrepresented in training data, and AI systems predominantly reflect North American and European cultural assumptions and values. Privacy and data protection are also important concerns and are often inadequately addressed. Consequently, the uncritical adoption of AI technologies may unintentionally reinforce patterns of digital colonialism, deepen existing global inequalities, exploit users’ data for training purposes without informed consent, or violate their privacy. AI also offers enormous opportunities. Faithful stewardship includes using resources wisely and economically. However, churches should not evaluate AI solely in terms of its monetary costs. They should also consider its ethical, social, and environmental costs and choose technologies that are consistent with their mission and values. The Global Digital Compact emphasizes human rights-based AI governance, inclusive digital ecosystems, the protection of independent media and civil society, and the safeguarding of freedom of expression and privacy.7 These principles are equally relevant for churches. AI technologies and service providers should be selected not simply

3/2026

because they are inexpensive or convenient, but because they uphold human rights, data protection, privacy, and inclusion.8 The use of AI therefore always raises ethical questions that require careful discernment. It is therefore helpful for churches and mission organizations to provide staff with AI tools that comply, as far as possible, with ethical principles and prioritize data protection. Providing appropriate tools also reduces the risk of shadow AI—the unauthorized use of unapproved AI applications by staff because suitable alternatives are not available. Training and guidelines can further help staff use AI responsibly. When churches and mission organizations provide AI tools such as chatbots, these should likewise reflect Christian values. Their use should be transparent, they should mitigate bias where possible, protect users’ data, and be hosted in countries and environments that ensure data sovereignty. User data should remain under the church’s control rather than that of large technology companies. Most importantly, it should always be clear that chatbots are machines, not human beings. Anthropomorphization should be avoided. There are many useful applications of AI, including chatbots that can provide information about the Christian faith. However, with regard to the proclamation of the gospel and pastoral care, it is essential that people remain at the centre. AI systems may use first-person language (“I”), but such language must not obscure the fact that users are communicating with a machine.

3/2026

Consequently, clear boundaries should be established for the use of such systems. They should rely primarily on the knowledge intentionally provided to them, rather than generating responses from unrestricted generalpurpose knowledge sources, thereby reducing the risk of hallucinated answers. When users ask a chatbot to pray, or when pastoral care is warranted, it should refer them to human contact persons rather than attempting to respond itself. Authenticity therefore remains indispensable. The church bears witness not only through what it proclaims but also through the integrity with which it communicates. AI should support this witness rather than replace it. Trust, transparency, and authenticity are therefore essential. AI can support church staff in their work, for example in text editing, image generation, or video production. However, it is important to preserve transparency and authenticity. This raises an important question: What is actually gained by replacing images of real people with AIgenerated ones? Whenever possible, authentic images of real people in their own context should be preferred to AI-generated content that may appear unrealistically perfect. The gospel is communicated through people who bear witness with all their strengths and weaknesses. They are people, not avatars. Their witness is credible because it is authentic. Images that appear too perfect are often immediately recognized as artificial. Such images may be appropriate in commercial advertising, but they are less appropriate when proclaiming the gospel. The same principle applies to the proclamation

of the gospel. It is important that people speak. AI can produce theologically correct texts, although they often lack a personal voice, even as the technology continues to improve. There are already churches that use AI-assisted sermon generation tools.9 A pastor provides the prompt, and the AI generates a theologically correct sermon. However, one observation about AI-generated sermons is striking: there is no personal “I” in the sermon. What happens to the “I” of the pastor or preacher when AI is used? Does a personal story or a shared experience with the congregation matter? Can AI-generated content truly become one’s own in an authentic sense? Christian proclamation is not merely the communication of theologically correct content; it is the personal witness of someone whose life has been shaped by the gospel. An AI-generated sermon cannot draw on a preacher’s own experiences with the congregation. It cannot tell stories from the preacher’s own life or bear witness to God’s work in that person’s own journey of faith. Therefore, the church’s voice must remain deeply human. Christian faith has always been transmitted through human witnesses whose lives embody the message they proclaim. AI may become a powerful instrument in the service of mission, but it can never replace personal witness, relationships, compassion, and embodied presence through which the gospel is ultimately communicated. The future of Christian mission will therefore depend not on replacing human witnesses with intelligent machines, but on equipping and enabling them to bear faithful, wise, and compassionate witness in a digital world—and on using AI whenever it serves the church’s mission. Transparency note: AI was used to improve the writing style.

Endnotes 1.

Cf. Reimann, Ralf Peter. “Praying with Avatars.” In Instrumente Gottes, edited by Lukas Brand, Martin Kutz, and Dominik Winter. Verlag Karl Alber, 2025. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783495993835-101. Silverstein, Jenifer, Kip Martin, Alan Antin, et al. Predicts 2024: How GenAI Will Reshape Tech Marketing. No. G00800771. Gartner, Inc., 2023. https://www.gartner.com/en/doc/800771-predicts2024-how-genai-will-reshape-tech-marketing. A pilot project of the Evangelical Church of Germany is making available for AI platforms, details available at: https://digital.ekir.de/inhalt/das-projekt-kirche-infoki-veraendert-die-suche/ . Reimann, R. P. “The Gospel for Free—Reflections on Open Content.” In European Churches on the Internet: Challenges, Experiences and Visions: A Selection of Papers from the European Christian Internet Conferences, 1996–2005 and the Vatican Documents, The Church and Internet and Ethics in Internet, edited by B. Hudd and R. P. Reimann, 145– 53. 2nd rev. and updated ed. Verlag IKS Garamond, 2006. Leo XIV. Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2026. https:// www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/ documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html Cf. Billy Perrigo, “Exclusive: OpenAI Used Kenyan Workers on Less Than $2 Per Hour to Make ChatGPT Less Toxic,” TIME, January 18, 2023, https://time. com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/. Kumar, Dev, Gitiara Nasreen, Vincent Rajkumar, et al. “Recommendations on the Implementation of the Global Digital Compact.” Media Development 71, no. 2 (2025): 6–13. https://waccglobal.org/wp-content/ uploads/2025/05/2-2025.MD-final1.pdf. Cf. Oosterlinck, Anna. “Independent Media, the WSIS+20 Review Process, and Public Digital Infrastructure.” Media Development 71, no. 4 (2025): 5–8. https://waccglobal.org/wp-content/ uploads/2025/11/4-2025.MD_final.pdf. Cf. the Prædikenhjælper („Sermon Helper“), an AIassisted platform developed by the Danish Pastors‘ Association for the Danish Lutheran Church, see: Ralf Peter Reimann, “Preaching in the Age of AI: A Conversation about the Danish Sermon Helper. Interview with Simon Nøddebo Balle,” TheoNet, June 18, 2026, https://theonet.de/2026/06/18/preachingin-the-age-of-ai-a-conversation-about-the-danishsermon-helper/.

Rev. Ralf Peter Reimann serves as internet commissioner for the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland. In his work, he advocates for digital justice and explores the intersection of theology and technology, with a particular interest in artificial intelligence and spirituality.

3/2026

Communication Justice in the Age of AI Sara Speicher Last year, about the same time as I am writing this, I stood behind an exhibit table at the World Summit on the Information Society High Level Review in Geneva. On one side of my table was a banner for the World Association for Christian Communication (WACC), and on the other, a banner for the World Council of Churches. On the table were our collective resources on digital justice. Many curious people approached the table, and the question I was asked most often: Why are the churches here? From the first gatherings of Christian broadcasters in the 1950s which led to the founding of WACC in 1968, information and communication have been seen as matters of faith and justice. Early radio and television broadcasters understood communication as essential for understanding, learning, sharing – and that it can also be abused through propaganda, suppression, discrimination. Communication is essential for mission. It is also a matter of justice. Fast forward to today, and the dichotomy is only more acute. Digital technology – and now the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) - has transformed our world, both bringing us closer together and pulling us apart. We can see and speak to people across the world, in multiple languages, to foster connection, and we can also spread incredibly believable falsehoods to destroy trust. WACC recognizes the positive opportunities the digital world, and specifically AI, brings. Indeed, some of the staff use it within our organizational guidelines. But many of the same justice issues we have faced with other forms of mass media – access, control, accountability, participation, representation – are all the more glaring in our digital world. And it is these justice issues that we,

3/2026

as people of faith, must take into account before, or at least at the same time as, we use AI as a tool for, in CWM’s terms, “radical and prophetic discipleship.” As a first step, we need to be clear about what we include when we talk about AI. AI covers a whole host of applications and technologies, of which you and I know very few and use even fewer (although probably more than you think). Our own use is usually from having personalized recommendations in our applications, text suggestions in our emails and documents, summaries presented in an online search. And now, through generative AI applications such as Claude or ChatGPT, helping to take notes, brainstorm, draft, research, create images, and even hold “conversations.” But the technology goes much further into deep learning, big data analytics, robotics, autonomous weapons systems, and more. All of these come under the AI umbrella of machines designed to emulate human intelligence. We also need to reflect on what we mean by justice. The Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement states, “Biblically speaking, justice is a relational concept involving structures and behaviours based on trust, solidarity and mutuality versus those relying on betrayal, oppression and exploitation. As stated in the book of Isaiah, when relations among God, human beings and creation are whole, peace prevails (Isaiah 32:17).” WACC will most often speak of digital justice and communication justice. The justice problems I will outline below are fundamentally about how we communicate with one other, whose voices are heard, who has access and knowledge in order to participate equally in society. These are issues not only of high concern, but areas where people of faith and churches have a central role to play, and at the end I will suggest some steps we can incorporate as part of our prophetic mission. Justice depends on trust. Trust depends on information integrity.

Digital communication platforms, frankly, bring out the best and worst of us. Social media platforms have enabled human rights defenders to expose abuses, share firsthand accounts to increase understanding, and connect with family, friends, and community. We also know digital platforms enable ways to create and spread false information faster and more widely – either innocently or deliberately – which cause confusion and distrust. The cool AI tools that can create deepfakes – or even deliberately bad fakes we call AI slop – only add to our increasing distrust of what we see and hear and read online.

industry that has been essential in providing researched information on current affairs – the news media.

The business model of social media platforms, as perfected by Google and Facebook, is based on collecting and analysing data on our digital activity to personalize information and advertising to us, and, in order to attract more advertising income, prioritize content that will keep our attention and generate engagement, which is generally conflict, controversy, and sensationalism. This impacts us personally and as a society by narrowing what we see and hear. But by drawing so much of global advertising income to their platforms, it’s also had a devastating impact on the other information

Powerful political leaders have then taken advantage of the social media business model and further destabilized trust in our news by branding the work of the most serious media institutions as fake news and using AI tools to create ever more prevalent and disturbing disinformation.

Public interest media is essential for holding power to account and providing researched information so that the public can make informed decisions about the matters that affect them. But the ability of news media to hire and support trained journalists as well as offer information and services which can compete in the attentiongrabbing information ecosystem has been severely undermined.

The result is that we are increasingly living in an information and communication system which causes us to constantly distrust and discriminate, weakens institutions designed to provide investigative information and hold power

3/2026

accountable, and rewards powerful companies, governments, and individuals with unchecked freedom and more wealth. How do we regain trust in the midst of this? Justice depends on solidarity. Solidarity depends on a vision of the common good. As The Guardian editor Nikki Gladstone remarked, “We have travelled a long way from the idealism of Tim Berners-Lee and the birth of the world wide web, when the hope was to offer a free service that would “unlock creativity and collaboration on a global scale”1. Journalist Karen Hao has written a book called the Empire of AI: Inside the reckless race for total domination. She calls AI an empire because she sees parallels with colonial history: these companies behind the major AI systems are consolidating vast amounts of power by exploiting human labour, data, and natural resources. And the narrative that accompanies empires are that they are bringing great benefits, enlightenment, progress – even a new religion. But this is certainly not benevolence, much less solidarity. What we have is frantic competition among the massive tech companies that is pushing up to 50% of global investment funding into AI development, and the vast majority of that funding is now going into physical infrastructure – data centres, energy generators, and computer chips.2 The environmental and economic costs of this physical infrastructure alone are enormous, from the extraction of rare earth elements and critical minerals for our devices to the water and energy use of data centres. The Environmental and Energy Study Institute reported in 2025 that a large data centre can consume up to 5 million gallons of water per day, equivalent to the water use of a town of 10 to 50,000 people. In terms of energy use, a recent report estimates that data centres are responsible for 2% of global electricity consumption and the overall percentage is rising.3

3/2026

The huge growth in data centres is being driven by the computing demand of AI systems. However, data centres are also required for the basic functions of the internet and cloud computing and storage. All of us – from the emails we respond to, to the photos we keep in the cloud that we never clear out – contribute to that. Individually our data print might be minuscule; collectively it’s huge. These are areas for global solidarity. Some of the strongest pushback and alternatives to our technological models come from the Global South calling for digital decolonialism – sovereignty over personal and national data, fair labour conditions, investment in community-led technology, democratic control over natural resources from water to minerals, and “meaningful inclusion of communities in the governance, design and deployment of AI systems.” 4 This leads to the third characteristic. Justice requires mutuality. Mutuality implies the recognition that we are interdependent, share one another’s concerns, and work together to meet each other’s needs. Addressing the harms of artificial intelligence and reaping potential benefits requires grounding the design, development, implementation, and governance on “lived realities” – the needs and experiences of people in communities all over the world. But currently the development of AI largely rests on a tiny group of extraordinarily wealthy, overwhelmingly white men, primarily based in a small geographical area on the west coast of the United States. Silicon Valley companies currently account for 60-65% of global AI funding.5 And all of us, perhaps despite our best efforts, have helped them get to where they are today. This limited lived experience, lack of diversity, and the huge competitive, no-holds-barred AI development race have increased individual and societal harms arguably more than they have solved any problems.

We’ve seen massive increase in tech-facilitated gender-based violence, particularly targeting women in the public eye – politicians, journalists, human rights activists. Online abuse - from misogyny, to sexual exploitation, to death threats – has real-world consequences from silencing women, impacting mental health, losing livelihoods, and transforming into real, physical violence. AI chatbots, while they are improving, also can display racial, ethnic, and gender discrimination because AI is largely trained on existing (i.e. historical) material and regurgitates the stereotypes of the past – patterns which if not specifically addressed in the training just keep repeating. Surveys are showing that more people feel comfortable asking a chatbot for medical advice than going to a doctor; people reach out to chatbots for pastoral support issues, mental health assessments, and more. Chatbots are programmed to be friendly and confident. They are not programmed, at least not yet, to say, “I don’t know” and there are frightening examples of where they get it very wrong indeed. Companies’ take-up of AI systems has impacted the labour market, particularly entry-level jobs in some industries. Social media and AI chatbots appear to be impacting young people’s ability to learn as well as their mental health. The tech companies have always used the argument that it’s not the platform, it’s how people use it. They are, in fact, currently legally protected in the US by a clause known as Section 230, which shields them from liability for the content that is published on them. But two recent court cases in the US found Meta and YouTube liable for social media addiction, and that Meta misled consumers about the safety of its platforms and enabled harm, including child sexual abuse. While a long appeal process is inevitable, this has dented the companies’ arguments against

accountability. But in the meantime, OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, xAI, and others are in a race to build even more powerful AI capabilities called artificial general intelligence aimed at exceeding human intelligence. As the Future of Life Institute, among others, states: the existing technology has benefits and risks enough; not only do we not need more advanced AI, we need regulation to manage what we have now. Our mission towards communication justice In April, WACC organized a symposium in Berlin in collaboration with the Association of Protestant Churches and Missions in Germany (EMW), World Council of Churches, and Brot für die Welt. We brought community representatives, secular institutions, and ecumenical organizations together not just to talk about the problems, but determine what steps we can take to make sure risks and harms are minimized and benefits are available to all. To be advocates, we don’t need to understand everything about how our devices and AI systems work, or the ins and outs of global economics. We know the impacts they have in real life. We have our faith values. We can work with others who are experts in their field and share our concerns, whether that’s in politics, technology, business, or human rights. The symposium generated three questions to guide our actions. These can be asked by any church or leader, whether making daily digital decisions or calling governments and companies to account. The questions are: Who knows? Who benefits? Who controls? “Who knows?” can mean several things: 1.

Keeping yourself educated about what your applications are doing with your personal data. Discussing and establishing clear guidelines

3/2026

for yourself, your family, and particularly the church on how you use AI tools responsibly and how you will let people know when you use them. Supporting public interest journalism – financially if you can. Trusted, researched reporting cannot survive on social media shares alone; press freedom survives best when people who read it pay for it. Making sure the church is a trusted source of information. Church newsletters, magazines, radio programmes reach millions – use these trusted platforms to bring people together and counter division and injustice. The question “Who knows?” points to larger advocacy actions we can take in our community: who knows about data centre developments in a region, what companies are behind it, what transparency is there in decisions that are affecting lives locally and nationally?

Who benefits? 1.

This can mean making conscious choices about the platforms and technologies you use to better align with your faith and values. Following the symposium, many participants are trying out alternatives to the virtual monopoly of Silicon Valley Big Tech. There is a growing movement looking at especially open source technology. Congregations and church leaders can raise awareness about specific harms: techfacilitated gender-based violence, racist targeting of migrants online, misinformation, and disinformation. Churches can also be places of dialogue and action on the impacts AI and digital platforms are having on people’s lives. In the symposium we heard about how the parishes of the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church have organized two major conferences bringing tech leaders, politicians, EU officials, civil society, and the church to talk about the human and technological issues of AI. The church is not only at the table – it can lead the discussion.

3/2026

Who controls? There is shockingly little regulation that holds AI development in check, and regulation and effective governance is essential. The church needs to be a place of influence in the public sphere, to call for accountability, transparency, accessibility, equity—and ultimately justice. Perhaps not surprisingly, these symposium questions mirror the definition of justice in the Ecumenical Dictionary. Our actions should be guided by truth (Who knows?), solidarity (Who benefits?), and mutuality (Who controls?). On this last point, one further action specifically for the churches. Again a quote from Nikki Gladstone: “I believe we must try to help people to look up and out instead, to connect with one another.” The church as a place of genuine human contact and community is more important than ever. A place of dialogue across differences, of support across division, of wholeness in how we communicate with one another. Coming together for worship and prayer is central, but the church can also open spaces for a variety of activities where people can meet each other, engage in a common, physical project, reconnect with what is real. Our day-to-day lives will increasingly be impacted by AI and digital technologies that will destabilize relationships, our work, our education. The church can be – must be – a space where people come together, support one another, and build the points of connection that digital isolation and political polarization try to take from us. Use the resources suggested below, and consider becoming a member of WACC, to continue to learn and bring communication justice issues into your congregations. Truth, solidarity, mutuality are the values that must guide AI if it is to serve humanity rather than exploit it. And churches are uniquely placed to embody and advocate for those values: in your

communities, in your institutions, and in the public square. We are people of faith, shaped by a conviction that has always insisted that how we treat one another – how we communicate, who we include, whose voices we protect – is a matter of justice. And justice is never achieved without action, without community, and without hope. Selected resources for further study and action: Just Digital: a fun online, self-directed course to help you navigate wisely and advocate effectively (WACC, EMW, WCC): justdigital.ngo More digital justice resources for study and action: https://waccglobal.org/resources/digital-justice/ Taking Action against Tech-Facilitated GenderBased Violence – Toolkit (WACC, WCC) and available in English and German: https:// waccglobal.org/resources/gender-justice/toolkitagainst-tfgbv/ World Council of Churches Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in WCC Communications: h t t p s : / / w w w. o i k o u m e n e . o r g / r e s o u r c e s / documents/use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-wcccommunications WACC Europe discussions (one hour monthly discussions on key topics -sign up for notices at europe@waccglobal.org) Why the Church is a good conversation partner on AI: https://waccglobal.org/why-the-churchneeds-to-be-part-of-ai-conversation/ Feeding AI: How Data and Chatbots Can Guide People to Church: https://www.oikoumene. org/news/webinar-explores-how-ai-can-guidepeople-to-church

all: https://www.oikoumene.org/news/wcc-callsfor-ai-governance-based-on-human-rights-andequal-benefits-for-all Submission by the Global Digital Rights Coalition to the Global Dialogue on AI Governance: https:// gp-digital.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/ Global-Digital-Rights-Coalition-submission-tothe-AI-Global-Dialogue.pdf April 2026 Symposium: “Our Common Future: Advocating Together for Digital Rights and AI Accountability” https://www.oikoumene.org/news/digital-justicesymposium-closes-with-joint-commitment-toaction (follow links at bottom for further articles and video statements) Notes 1. 2. 3.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/ sep/28/why-i-gave-the-world-wide-web-away-for-free https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ECONOMY/ AI-INVESTMENT/gkvlqbgxkpb/ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/ may/13/datacentres-electricity-consumptionuk-us-ai and https://www.computerweekly.com/ news/366642726/IDCA-datacentres-report-Globalconcentration-and-the-Goldilocks-zone Global Digital Just Forum submission to the Global Dialogue on AI Governance: https://gdjf. globaldigitaljusticeforum.net/submission/globaldialogue-on-ai-governance-submission-to-theinformal-stakeholder-consultation/ https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/07/silicon-valley-isso-dominant-again-its-startups-devoured-over-halfof-all-global-vc-funding-in-2024/ and https://waveup. com/blog/top-vc-firms-san-francisco-bay-area/

Sara Speicher has over 25 years of experience in ecumenical communication, working with the World Council of Churches, Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance, The Lutheran World Federation, International Catholic Migration Commission, Conference of European Churches, among others. She is currently deputy general secretary of the World Association for Christian Communication, as well as a senior communication officer with the World Council of Churches with a focus on artificial intelligence, communication, and ethics.

Global Advocacy: World Council of Churches calls for AI governance based on human rights and equal benefits for

3/2026

CWM NEWS

CWM celebrates 49th year of founding with renewed call to revision mission The Council for World Mission (CWM) marked the 49th anniversary of its inauguration in 1977 with a combined Communion service at St Mungo’s United Church in Sandton, South Africa, on 19 July. The service brought together church leaders, theologians, and congregation members from the United Congregational Church of Southern Africa (UCCSA) and the Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa (UPCSA), alongside global participants who joined online.

CWM inaugurates Jubilee House as new Africa Office The Council for World Mission (CWM) officially inaugurated its Africa Office, Jubilee House, in Johannesburg, South Africa, on 18 July, bringing together church leaders, ecumenical partners, and members of the CWM family for a service of thanksgiving and dedication. Delivering the opening message, CWM General Secretary Rev. Dr Jooseop Keum explained that the inauguration marks another important step in CWM’s journey towards becoming a truly polycentric and decolonial mission community. CWM affirms that Africa is not simply a recipient of mission but a source of theological wisdom, prophetic leadership, and transformative witness for the global church.

3/2026

Training in Mission 2026: Participants develop a heart for Christian “with-ness” Ten participants from the Council for World Mission’s (CWM) member churches gathered in Singapore from 29 June to 4 July for the onsite orientation of the 2026 Training in Mission (TIM) programme, following six weeks of online learning.

CWM invites global communion to celebrate CWM Sunday 2026 The Council for World Mission (CWM) invites its global family of member churches and partners to celebrate CWM Sunday 2026 on 19 July under the theme “Revisioning Mission.” Observed each year on the Sunday closest to 18 July, CWM Sunday commemorates the restructuring of the Council for World Mission in 1977 and offers churches an opportunity to celebrate God’s mission through worship, reflection, and a renewed commitment to justice, partnership, and transformation.

Inaugural MSP-V Regional Roundtable equips European churches for contextual mission The Council for World Mission (CWM) convened the first Mission Support Programme V (MSP-V) Regional Roundtable in Utrecht, Netherlands, from 1-3 July under the theme “Discern, Design, and Develop: Transforming Mission Project.” The gathering sought to strengthen the capacity of member churches to develop contextual, collaborative, and sustainable mission initiatives. Hosted by the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN), the Roundtable was the first of six regional meetings that will be held across CWM’s global partnership as part of the implementation of MSP-V.

CWM Europe Regional Assembly calls for unity in God’s Spirit and confronting the legacies of slavery Representatives of the Council for World Mission’s (CWM) member churches in Europe, together with ecumenical partners, gathered in Utrecht, Netherlands, from 28 June to 2 July for the first of six CWM Regional Assemblies. Hosted at the headquarters of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN), the assembly was held under the theme “Revisioning Mission.” Through Bible studies, worship, keynote addresses, and immersion visits, delegates reflected on how the church is called to bear prophetic witness in today’s rapidly changing world. The gathering also provided space for strategic discernment on how CWM member churches can renew their participation in God’s mission.

CWM calls member churches to prayer and solidarity with Guyana The Council for World Mission (CWM) invites Member Churches to stand in prayerful solidarity with the Guyana Congregational Union (GCU) and the people of Guyana following the tragic capsizing and sinking of the MV Barima on 18 July 2026 while en route from Georgetown to Port Kaituma.

South Asia MSP-V Round Table strengthens shared regional vision for life-flourishing communities The Council for World Mission (CWM) convened the South Asia Mission Support Programme V (MSP-V) Round Table in Bangkok, Thailand, from 7-8 August, following the South Asia Regional Assembly. The Round Table brought together 18 participants, including representatives responsible for finance from CWM’s four South Asian member churches, to deepen their understanding of MSP-V and discern mission priorities within their respective contexts.

3/2026

Season of Creation calls global Christian family to pray and act for Creation The Council for World Mission (CWM) is inviting its member churches to join the global ecumenical family in marking the Season of Creation from 1 September to 4 October, uniting in prayer and action to care for Creation. The Season of Creation is an annual Christian celebration to pray and respond together to the cry of Creation. As part of the event’s ecumenical steering committee, CWM is encouraging its member churches to participate in the month-long global expression of prayer, reflection, and action under the 2026 theme, “Living Water.”

CWM South Asia Regional Assembly calls churches to revision mission Forty-one representatives from Council for World Mission (CWM) member churches in South Asia gathered in Bangkok from 3-6 August for worship, theological reflection, contextual discernment, and mission planning, responding to a shared call to revision mission through healing, justice, solidarity, and hope. In his keynote address, “Revisioning Mission: Christian Mission in the Midst of Religious Nationalism,” Rev. Dr Selvam Robertson, registrar of the Senate of Serampore College, reflected on the relationship between religion, nationalism, and mission.

3/2026

Presbyterian Church of Trinidad and Tobago renews commitment to revisioning mission The Council for World Mission (CWM) and the Presbyterian Church of Trinidad and Tobago (PCTT) convened a Revisioning Mission consultation from 10-14 August to strengthen the church’s missional priorities and engage critically with CWM’s missiological mandate and values. Held at the PCTT Synod Auditorium in San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago, the consultation brought together 41 participants for prayer, theological reflection, and discernment.

Called to Care celebrates graduates bringing skills, dignity, and hope in Zimbabwe St Columba’s Presbyterian Church in Mutare, Zimbabwe, was filled with music, celebration, thanksgiving, and renewed hope from 7-9 August as the Called to Care Skills Training Programme celebrated graduation. The occasion marked an important milestone for vulnerable young women and men who gained practical skills, confidence, and opportunities to rebuild with dignified livelihoods. It also affirmed the message at the heart of the programme: hope is alive.

CWM welcomes Dr Alison Gray as Mission Secretary for Discipleship and Dialogue The Council for World Mission (CWM) is pleased to welcome Dr Alison Gray as its new Mission Secretary for Discipleship and Dialogue and the Europe region, effective 21 September 2026. Gray succeeds Rev. Dr Graham McGeoch and brings extensive experience in theological education, discipleship, leadership development, and ministry formation.

CWM Caribbean youth initiative confronts gender-based violence Young people from across the Caribbean gathered in Guyana from 20 to 23 August for the Caribbean Youth Initiative 2026, exploring how transformative masculinities can help churches and communities confront genderbased violence, including intimate partner violence and femicide. Fifteen participants from the Guyana Congregational Union (GCU), the United Church in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands (UCJCI), and the Presbyterian Church of Trinidad and Tobago (PCTT) took part in the fourday programme.

MEMBER CHURCH NEWS

Multicultural service at St James’s United Reformed Church celebrates unity in diversity St James’s United Reformed Church (URC) in Newcastle, England hosted a multicultural worship service on 3 June, bringing together people from diverse cultural backgrounds to celebrate their shared unity in Christ. The gathering centred on the biblical accounts of the Tower of Babel and Pentecost. Through Scripture readings, prayers, music, and worship in different languages and traditions, participants reflected on how God’s love transcends cultural and linguistic boundaries.

Churches across Kiribati unite in worship ahead of General Assembly Church leaders and members from across Kiribati gathered for a combined worship service at the Kiribati Uniting Church (KUC) Headquarters Maneaba on 10 July, expressing thanksgiving, unity, and prayer ahead of the nation’s Independence Day celebrations on 12 July. The service brought together representatives from 14 churches in corporate worship, reflecting their shared commitment to pray for the nation and give thanks for God’s faithfulness to the people of Kiribati.

3/2026

CWM TV

Creation Sunday 2026 Message

CWM TALK

CWM Regional Communications Workshop – Pacific

CWM TALK

Partners in Mission Series: Dr Joan Reid

3/2026

Partners in Mission Series: Jacob Zikuli

CWM Project Manager and Coordinators