For full disclosure, AI was used to draft this essay. All content and structure are my own. AI was used to reduce word count and simplify cumbersome sentences and sections.
The provocative question in the title of this essay will, no doubt, generate knee-jerk reactions from some. Those averse to AI will give an emphatic “No!” Techno-optimists will say “Of course!” Even those in the middle for whom teaching is a sacred activity may hesitate to utilize AI—and when the subject is Scripture, reticence may turn to outright forbiddance.
In this short reflection, I want to linger on this question long enough to move past our initial impulses. We can agree that there is something distinctively human about preaching and teaching God’s Word, but which parts must remain exclusively with the human? We will not exhaust this question, but perhaps we can begin to form the inklings of a response at least as it pertains to its use in an educational setting.
A Distinctively or Exclusively Human Act?
When we say that teaching Scripture is a distinctively human activity, some mean simply that it is intended to be done by humans rather than delegated to machines. This framing presents an all-or-none choice: either humans do it entirely or AI does. If those are the only options, then humans must do it all.
But is that truly the only option? AI can be employed in varying degrees and in diverse ways under human oversight—where the human drives the process, verifies the content, owns the final product, and acts as steward of the Master Teacher. If such a model is possible, then AI may have a legitimate place in the process—but before we explore this further, let’s consider what others may mean when they appeal to the distinctively human nature of teaching.
Others mean something stronger: that teaching Scripture is wholly human, that all aspects must be accomplished only by humans who are the sole invitees to the process. But has this ever truly been the case, even before AI? We have used scrolls and parchments to transmit teaching across contexts, word processors with spell-check and grammar functions to draft and refine our content, Bible software for word studies, complex searches, and interlinear comparisons, and presentation software to display visuals and help learners engage with lessons more fully. Tools and technology have supplemented human teaching for centuries without subverting human agency.
If we concede that AI is simply another such tool, the question shifts from “Can AI be incorporated?” to “In what ways may AI be used responsibly?” The challenge is that to some, AI does not appear to be just another tool—it seems categorically different and unprecedented. The next two sections take up that question briefly.
AI is Just Another Tool
In some ways, AI is the next tool in an already overstocked toolbox. Just as we use the internet to discover information and access digital resources, we use AI to process large quantities of data and generate new content. Just as we must validate information found online, content produced by AI must be verified. The same required balance of efficiency and human oversight could be rehearsed across many other tools, digital and analog. In this sense, AI is simply the next iteration of technology that humans may employ—but never irresponsibly, and never without oversight.
AI is Not Just Another Tool
In other ways, AI is unlike anything that has come before it. It generates new content with each prompt, operates at unprecedented scale, and has evolved faster than any prior technology. Its conversational interface creates a sense of dialogue we typically associate only with humans—giving the impression that AI threatens human agency in ways other tools do not.
Two things should temper this concern. First, despite its dialogical feel, AI remains an input-output mechanism, just one that is more sophisticated. Instead of typing, we talk. Instead of needing keywords, AI can process larger contexts of language. Instead of preformed text, a customized vernacular can frame the output. The form is new, but the function is familiar.
Second, while AI generates new content, it is not thinking. It has no agency. Its outputs are produced by processing enormous training data with statistical probability—predicting the most likely next character or word.
Therefore, while AI is genuinely different from other tools, that difference does not challenge human agency. Like all technologies, the human employing the tool must validate its output, provide the agency and context for it to function effectively, and own responsibility for any use made of it. For these reasons, any absolute aversion to AI in teaching Scripture is no more warranted than aversion to any other useful technology. The real question is not whether one can use AI, but how one might do so responsibly and faithfully.
Proposed Acceptable Uses for AI in Teaching
My specialization is the text and reception of the Old Testament—its languages, backgrounds, and transmission. Below is a sample of uses I have considered or employed in the courses I teach. Some may transfer to local church teaching contexts, but I leave that to each reader’s discretion. I would consider all of these applications to be generic enough to apply to multiple subjects and all quite basic. More specific and advanced uses may be the subject of future reflections, but this piece is aimed at the reader still wrestling with AI’s place in scriptural teaching generally.
Slide Deck Generation. Most major AI chatbots can generate high-quality presentations. The user will need to provide a set of notes, a clear content outline, and any contextual instructions so the output fits your specific audience. A representative prompt: “Build a slide deck from the attached notes. Add animations and transitions. Include some humor appropriate to the audience—students in an SBC seminary. Produce a custom look and feel—not a generic AI template. Format for Keynote.” If you are concerned about uploading your own content, most AI products can be configured not to use your sessions as training data.
Handouts and Infographics. If you want to leave your learners with a reference, AI can generate a handout or summary infographic of your session’s key content. Whether you are teaching on the Reformation, the doctrine of justification, the book of Genesis, or the textual history of Scripture, you can produce an artifact with key dates, concepts, and memorable images to reinforce retention.
Simplified Explanations. Students arrive with varying degrees of theological orientation, and technical jargon can be a barrier to understanding and growth. AI can be used to simplify and “de-jargon” a concept. Prompts like “Explain the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture to me like I am a ten-year-old,” “Explain the various interpretations of Philippians 2:5–11 without technical jargon and in 250 words or less,” or “Explain how Ephesians 2:8–9 and James 2:24–26 can both be true, as if I have no theological training” typically produce useful learning aids for the uninitiated student. If you want the simplification drawn from trusted sources, provide the source material and instruct the AI to work only from what you have supplied. Once validated by the teacher, the product can help level-set your students or be given after the fact as a reference.
Outlines, Summaries, Paraphrases, Illustrations, and Textual Comparisons. Sometimes the “big ideas” of a scriptural text can be difficult for students to get their minds around. AI can outline a biblical book or large passage to help students see its structure—no different in principle from a study Bible outline. It can summarize an entire book to give students the big picture before engaging the details, or paraphrase a complex passage in different syntax, which sometimes is exactly what a learner needs to grasp the main point. Similarly, a quality illustration may be the missing piece for a student to grasp a complex concept. It can also compare Bible translations side by side, helping students see where translators agree or diverge—a useful entry point for those without access to the original languages. In each case, the teacher should validate the output before distributing it.
Quizzes. AI can generate short quizzes over specific books or passages for student self-assessment or instructor use. Quizzes need not be purely grade-driven; used creatively, they can test recall, probe understanding of complex ideas, and motivate closer reading.
Simulations. Repetition is the mother of learning, and varying the mode of repetition is invaluable. AI can convert your lesson content into a podcast-style interview, connecting with students in a different register. It can also enable interactive simulations, such as apologetically defending a position or delivering content themselves for the first time. For example, a student might engage an AI to simulate a gospel conversation. The AI can be prompted to roleplay as a devout Hindu, giving the student the opportunity to present and defend the gospel while fielding objections on logical, historical, or personal grounds. A well-structured prompt can configure the AI to engage as a skeptic initially and “warm to the gospel” gradually over five to ten rounds, then—when the student prompts “how could I have addressed your objections differently?”—reveal additional strategies the student might have taken. Materials may be uploaded to provide the AI with specific understandings of Hinduism and Christianity desired by the instructor.1 This creates the kind of low-stakes, high-repetition practice that builds genuine apologetic confidence that cannot easily be replicated in a classroom setting.
Integrated AI Functions. AI is being built into virtually all software, whether word processors, presentation applications, or search engines, making the avoidance of AI essentially impossible. This reality includes Bible study platforms. AI integrations in Bible study applications allow users to search their library by concept, ask what Scripture says on a topic, summarize dense sections from a relevant resource, or develop discussion questions and illustrations—all from within tools teachers already use. This category alone warrants attention, since increasingly, using Bible software means engaging AI whether one intends to or not.
Custom Bot. For users willing to experiment, a custom AI bot is worth considering. Trained exclusively on materials you provide, such a bot will not stray outside your confessional boundaries. It can be configured for tone, set to guide students toward answers rather than providing them immediately, and made accessible via a link on a course portal or public web page. This bot can serve as a class assistant, tutor, or practice partner—answering syllabus questions, quizzing students before exams, explaining difficult concepts from your notes, guiding a research project, or answering questions about what was covered in a previous class. Its limits depend primarily on what you are willing to upload for its reference.
Keep Engaging
Wherever one falls on this question, engaging with AI will sharpen his or her thinking. On one hand, it may optimize one’s responsible use of AI and open up ideas that had not previously been considered. On the other hand, it may reinforce one’s opposition through first-hand experience and greater understanding. It may even cause some to change their stance—and if that change is principled and informed, it is a good outcome.
On AI—as on most contested topics—the extreme positions carry the most risk. Uncritical adoption produces shallow thinking in students and betrays the stewardship and trust a teacher must maintain. But unprincipled, untested resistance models exactly the intellectual timidity no good teacher wants to instill. If we want to cultivate lifelong learners, we must keep learning ourselves. Engaging with AI—whatever our conclusions—is itself a form of faithfulness to the craft. Critical, responsible engagement is one way we remain on that path—regardless of the stance it ultimately leads us to take.
- I have used this example in many presentations, and it appears in print in R. Adam Dodd, “What Has AI to Do with Christ-Centered Education? A Framework for Faculty Engagement” Integration 6 (2026). Accessible at https://iace.education/integration-journal. ↩︎
