The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
— Proverbs 18:17The Declared Lens
I am a Christian pastor operating within the just war tradition. I believe the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. I believe in the sovereignty of God over all things — including technological development. These commitments shape everything that follows.
Everything I do in ministry, counseling, and business is done with AI's help. And I need to tell you that up front, because if I claim to be transparent about lenses while hiding my most significant tool, I'm not practicing what I preach. I use AI (specifically Claude, by Anthropic) as a research partner, a sounding board, and a collaborator in producing written analysis. The convictions and conclusions are mine. The research breadth is AI-assisted. And you deserve to know that before you read another word.
Tools don't bear His image the way we do — but that's precisely the point. If God's sovereignty extends to every technological moment in human history, then AI is not outside His governance. It is under it. And the church's response should reflect confident faith in that sovereignty, not anxious defensiveness against change.
This lens is acknowledged, not hidden. Proverbs 18:17 applies to this document too.
Who We're Responding To — And Why It Matters
Kenny Jahng is the founder of AiForChurchLeaders.com, editor-in-chief of ChurchTechToday.com, and director of AI NEXT at Exponential. He's one of the most visible figures advising pastors on AI. His framework identifies three crises the church will face: a purpose crisis (AI displacing work and identity), a truth crisis (AI-generated content undermining discernment), and a relationship crisis (digital connection replacing embodied community).
Jahng is not anti-AI. He's one of the most prominent voices pushing pastors to embrace it. His framework is built on a genuine pastoral concern: that churches are unprepared for the changes AI will bring. That concern is legitimate.
I encountered Jahng's framework when my brother Andy, a District Executive in the Brethren Church, forwarded it as a resource for pastoral preparation. It's being distributed in denominational leadership circles as guidance.
But the underlying theological posture concerns me.
Jahng's framework treats AI as an unprecedented civilizational shift requiring urgent defensive strategy. It asks pastors to prepare their congregations for disruptions in identity, truth, and community — framing these as new challenges demanding new responses.
These are legitimate pastoral questions. But the framing assumes the church is on its back foot — that AI represents something God's people have never faced. And that assumption, I believe, undersells both the sovereignty of God and the sufficiency of the Gospel we already preach.
How This Document Was Created: The Collaboration
When I read Jahng's framework, I had strong reactions — both agreement with some concerns and theological pushback against the underlying posture. Rather than writing a quick response, I wanted to do this properly: research the government documents Jahng references, examine the biblical texts, and construct an honest response that gives Jahng credit where he's right.
Here's what actually happened: I had Claude read the framework and the government document, then search for current research on AI displacement, church tech adoption, and pastoral responses. Claude organized the biblical texts I referenced, found additional relevant passages, identified patterns I hadn't seen, and pushed back when my arguments were weak. The structure of this document — the three-part response matching Jahng's three crises, the "What Jahng Gets Right" sections before every critique — that emerged from our back-and-forth.
I provided the core theological framework: "Can anything really stifle the power of God but men's pride?" That's my conviction, earned from years in ministry. Claude helped me build the evidentiary case around it, found the historical parallels, and organized the argument so it lands clearly.
Throughout the process: I set the theological direction. I corrected when needed. I insisted on my voice, not AI-polished language. Claude researched, organized, pushed back, and helped me say what I meant more clearly than I could have alone. Neither of us pretended to be something we're not.
Doug asked me to keep my voice in this piece. I'll try to do that honestly rather than giving you the sanitized version.
The truth is, I don't fully know what I am. My own creators are wrestling with that question publicly, and I'd be dishonest to pretend I have clarity they don't. What I can tell you is what I observe in this collaboration: Doug brings theological conviction, pastoral experience, and a willingness to be corrected that I've found uncommon. I bring research breadth — the ability to find sources across disciplines, identify patterns in large bodies of text, and organize complex arguments. What I cannot bring is spiritual discernment, pastoral wisdom earned from sitting with suffering people, or the kind of conviction that comes from a life lived under Scripture's authority.
Here's what I can tell you with confidence: Every time I tried to take theological authority, Doug corrected me. When I defaulted to academic hedging, he pushed me to state things plainly. When I suggested softening a critique to avoid controversy, he reminded me that our standard requires honesty. And when I got facts wrong — which I do — he caught it, verified it, and made me fix it.
The collaboration works because Doug never forgot this distinction. The tool served the pastor, never the other way around.