Barna's research puts practicing Christians ahead of the general population in regular AI use, and ahead of the pastors who lead them. David Kinnaman argues the church's answer is not better tips, but a theology of technology, and a clear line between fluency and authority.
Are Christians really using AI more than everyone else?
Kinnaman opens with a caveat: research is good at telling us what is happening, less good at why. What it shows, he says, is a reversal. Practicing Christians, usually late adopters, are at the leading edge of this one. He cites Barna findings that 44 percent report using AI often or very often, against 31 percent of the US adult average and 29 percent of non-practicing Christians. Ed's framing: leaders still file AI under future issues, while the data puts it in their congregations' ordinary week.
Why are pastors more cautious than their congregations?
Ed pushes hardest here, asking whether the gap is healthy or a leadership problem. Kinnaman does not concede that caution is wrong, but he does argue pastors are behind. His explanation is sociological rather than theological: practicing Christians are more likely to be parents, volunteers, and members of community groups, so they meet more of the daily friction these tools remove. Pastors use AI too, he says, for ideation and sermon material, with cautions attached. The more consequential finding is what congregants want from their leaders. Not tips and tricks, but a philosophy, a kind of theology of technology. Kinnaman calls that a gap the church can fill, and does not say who fills it otherwise.
Should Christians use AI for prayer or spiritual growth?
Ed brings the question down to a case. During a recent hospitalization, ChatGPT told him it was praying for him before surgery. He posted about it and heard from the Washington Post. He asks where spiritual engagement with AI should be encouraged and where it should worry us, and Kinnaman declines to draw a bright line. His position is that the question has to be re-asked continuously, because what holds today may not hold in a few months. What he rules out is abstention. He tells a story about sitting out Facebook, and says AI is not that.
What does the church have that AI does not?
The argument lands on a distinction Kinnaman credits to another leader, whose name the transcript garbles. Language models are fluent, and fluency reads like knowledge because it moves in patterns we recognize. Authorship, not fluency, produces authority: you have standing on a subject because you did the work. The theological turn follows fast. The algorithms are never silent, which trains people to treat God as instantly summonable, a lamp to rub. Kinnaman's counterclaim is that the church holds what no model holds, the human word of forgiveness, spoken by a person, grounded in the cross. Asked what we have underestimated, he names what technology has always offered: comfort and control.
From the conversation
"So first of all I just think we have to have an adaptive, leaning in posture. This is not a revolution you can sit out." — David Kinnaman
"Authorship gives you authority. When you write something from scratch, you have an authority on that subject if you do your work and do your homework." — David Kinnaman
"We have to recognize I think this is going to be over the next five years, quite a bulldozer of all the things that we held dear" — David Kinnaman
About David Kinnaman
David Kinnaman is CEO of Barna Group. Since 1995 he has directed interviews with more than two million individuals and overseen thousands of research studies. He is the author of unChristian, You Lost Me, Good Faith, and Faith For Exiles.