Ask a chatbot about a disputed Bible verse and you may get a tidy answer. Ask America’s pastors about the AI response, and you get a warning: That tidy answer could be a real problem.
The Barna Group recently highlighted findings from two surveys, conducted in partnership with Gloo for the State of the Church initiative, that land on a common concern. Artificial intelligence misinterpreting Scripture is a shared worry for 74% of U.S. adults. Among practicing Christians, the figure climbs to 83%, and for pastors, it reaches 94%. Even 77% of non-practicing Christians say they are concerned.
Agreement on the danger is easy. Agreement on what AI should do about it is not.
When asked what AI should do when it comes to “the areas of theology where interpretations genuinely differ,” 60% of pastors preferred the technology to reveal all major interpretations and explain where they differ while not stating which one is “best.” Only 26% of practicing Christians agree with this approach, with a separate 26% stating they do want AI to highlight which interpretation it finds most accurate.
Additionally, Barna researchers noted, “Christians are about four times as likely as pastors to want AI to show only the most widely agreed-upon interpretation. And roughly one in five Christians—twice the share of pastors—say AI shouldn’t interpret contested passages at all.”
The approach of the pastors “points to using AI as a tool to aid their learning, not to tell them what to think,” according to Daniel Copeland, Barna’s vice president of research. The pastors seem to have a clergy instinct: keep the tool in the study, not on the throne. Lay believers, by contrast, more often seem to want the machine to settle the argument—or at least sand down the edges.
What if the machine itself is unsure?
Anticipating this, Barna researchers found that pastors (42%), practicing Christians (32%), and non-practicing Christians (39%) could all agree on one thing: AI should, by default, show multiple interpretations side by side when there is uncertainty even from within the program.
Ultimately, Barna researchers found that “Christians are meaningfully more inclined than pastors to want AI to resolve theological uncertainty on their behalf, whether by naming the ‘correct’ interpretation or softening a hard answer with a disclaimer. Pastors, far more often, want AI to do the opposite: surface the disagreement, cite where it comes from and leave the interpretive work to the person asking.”
Researchers have emphasized how the gap is not anti-tech versus pro-tech. Pastors already use AI for research, brainstorming, and study. In fact, Barna research already discovered only 13% of pastors claim to not use AI at all, meaning a vast majority are already using it to help with some part of their sermon prep. Yet even within this high percentage comes with at least 71% who remain cautious about AI and another 40% who are “conflicted.”
And the same survey that found the concern over AI misinterpreting Scripture also found at least 48% of practicing Christians trust AI to foster their spiritual growth.
The numbers describe a church that trusts the tool enough to use it and fears it enough to argue about its logistics. The unresolved question is whether AI will become a study “partner” that widens the conversation—or a shortcut that closes it.
Relevant Bible passage to ponder: Proverbs 9:10
