As technology use grows in the Christian church since the COVID-19 pandemic, Artificial Intelligence (AI) emerges as another tool for advancement. For Faith & Media Initiative fellow Elonda Clay, the church must exercise discernment when navigating these tools.
AI isn’t inherently evil. In fact, it has beneficial uses as helping people navigate mentoring needs or assistance in their work. Yet, overuse of the tool results in turning cities into what Clay calls “sacrifice zones”. Specifically harming those living in rural Ohio, Memphis, Tennessee, and even underserved areas in Los Angeles.
Resolute Magazine spoke with Clay about the beneficial and harmful uses of AI and about how the church can be a leader in discerning the tool moving forward.
Tell me about yourself. What set you on this path?
I started in library school right around the time when the internet started popping. While I was there, I was really involved in church. I said Wow, we need a church website. That’s how it started. We needed a church website. I started doing technology ministry.
That really set me on a particular path to look at things like technologies for ministry and, specifically, the impact that it was having on religious communities or spiritual communities. Especially when those communities started going online. And then, post-COVID, when there was this really big pivot to be online. It really had a significant impact on the ways that communities are approaching [technology] from then on.
One example, post-COVID, many more people are tuning into worship in hybrid environments, rather than just in-person or just online. Now that we’re five years out from COVID, we’re having another pivot, which is the after AI pivot.
That’s what got me on this path.
Why did you join the Faith and Media Initiative as a fellow? How does this partnership help your award-winning work move forward?
I joined for several reasons. First, I genuinely wanted to contribute to a collective effort to represent people of faith in more positive and authentic ways, beyond the stereotypes of extremism or scandal. Second, as a Fellow, I can interact with media professionals from various fields and faiths, which expands the scale of positive change I can help create through these partnerships.
Finally, being selected as a Faith and Media Initiative Fellow has inspired me not only to become a better communicator but also to recognize the powerful role that media plays in shaping our perception of religious life and belief.
Your work has an environmental and ecological basis. What does it look like, knowing environmental stewardship is biblical, for the biblically literate believer to connect that with scripture?
It comes out in our everyday practices a lot of times. For me, it comes out in very African diasporic and indigenous ways because those two lines are my heritage. So, I grew up with a grandmother who always had a backyard garden. I thought this is how things normally go. But actually, she had reclaimed a vacant lot next to her house!
So, in that sense, she taught me that the Earth has a lot of what we need to heal ourselves. We just really have to know what we need… I think we’ve lost that knowledge in a way, lost that tie to the Earth. And of course, in the biblical sense, we are caregivers for the Earth. Part of that caregiving is not just to go about our daily lives, but also to care about our water, to care about the land. To take action in that sense.
I feel like there’s a form of spiritual activism around the Earth where people can tie into the justice issues. For example, how do we deal with waste? Waste that certainly has an impact on other people around the world. The United States sends its waste around the world. I feel like people of faith need to be aware of that. It’s not just their location that is impacted by the things that they do when it comes to caring for the Earth or not caring for it. To see the interconnectedness of life. And, also, to recognize that as believers we need to have respect for creation itself.
In your own words, what does respect for creation look like regarding the propelling of generative AI over the last few years?
Respect for creation in the age of generative AI means making practical commitments to address both the growing environmental costs of artificial intelligence and data centers (massive energy use, high water consumption, and air pollution) and the negative social impacts, such as massive unemployment and job displacement, and mental health risks, apparent in the current trajectory of AI development.
First, we must treat environmental ethics about AI as an urgent concern, not as a far-off eventual goal. The climate and environmental harms that come with the unregulated growth of AI, including the sacrifice zones that are forming around data centers, will require community organizing and activism. Second, faith leaders need to contribute to public debates on AI and help reimagine AI governance that prioritizes human and animal flourishing. Lastly, respect for creation requires honesty about the limitations of AI, being clear with ourselves about what humans can and cannot accomplish with AI, and perhaps more importantly, what it should and should not be used for.
What are some trends you’ve noticed in us getting away from that? For example, the data centers across the U.S. are affecting people’s quality of water. Yes, that’s more AI. But what are trends that you’ve noticed where it’s clear we have the tools, yet we’re going in a direction away from those tools that’s dangerous?
I’ll always begin by saying, environmental racism is not just the environmental burden that’s put on certain communities that are viewed as disposable. It’s also the advantage that’s given to those communities that don’t have to deal with that burden. We have to look at it from the perspective of how we disrupt this very clear pattern of one group getting the burden and the other group not getting the burden.
In the case of data centers… well, let’s just talk about generative AI.
On the one hand, generative AI has amazing potential benefits for a lot of people. I was joking with my friend about how Black women, Black women in tech in particular, have found that they can use generative AI to assist them in a number of ways. Like, what can I cook with what’s in my refrigerator and on my shelf? I’ve known people who have used it for many things, like mentoring or assistance that they may ot ordinarily get as Black women. So, on the one hand, you have that.
On the other hand, you have the environmental impacts of AI. Data centers are often built on the old patterns of environmental racism. For example, when you look at Elon Musk and the huge data center they’ve built in Memphis, Tennessee, for his supercomputer colossus. He has that data center run by generators that output large amounts of methane gas. So, in effect, it’s polluting the air in a neighborhood, primarily African American, that’s already been exposed to environmental toxins.
I also feel that the pattern of data centers are not just going to follow the old patterns of environmental racism; they’ll also be what I call rural AI sacrifice zones. Big tech is building in rural areas as well. They will also have these types of experiences as zones that are designated to have their resources siphoned off to a data center.
What are some AI trends that you see negatively impacting the church today that go against our mandate of ecological and environmental stewardship?
Well, actually, I see trends that both have to do with the environment but also have to do with the wellness of… the theological wellness of the church. For example, on the theological wellness side, a lot of pastors are using ChatGPT or other chatbots to write sermons. And that in particular, I’m not saying that’s bad in and of itself, but when you don’t critically approach something that has been written by a chatbot, one of the things that happens is it gives you generic theology. And that generic theology is not really coherent for certain audiences.
If you are a tradition that leans strongly on resistance, then it’s going to give you a theology that’s less resistant. That’s less critical of the political environment. That being said, I’m not saying that people shouldn’t use it, but that they need to be more critical of the use in that particular situation. As far as the environment is concerned, really, churches are going to be part of the communities that are impacted by these data centers. And they’re certainly places that would help the community in having activism and advocacy towards holding these companies accountable.
With any person, you really need to ask yourself: Is this technology really needed for this particular task? Furthermore, how do churches lead with their values? It shouldn’t be that the technology is leading the church. It should be that the church starts with their values. What are our values? And, then, how do we want to create and shape community? Then, say, does this technology support that or not?
… I’m not squashing that enthusiasm. I’m really excited that people are finding ways to make it useful to their lives. But I think a heavy reliance on AI cuts into our decision-making and discernment. And as people of faith, we don’t need to be handing our discernment and decision-making to it.
What do you think it looks like for people of faith to stand firm in their decision-making and discernment without handing it to AI?
This is the critical question, because if we hand most of our decision-making over to AI, we risk an overwhelming dehumanizing effect on human dignity. Sure, generative AI is great at predictive text, pattern recognition, and mimicking human conversation, but artificial intelligence cannot serve as a shortcut for human spiritual discernment or guarantee wise or fair outcomes.
People of faith need to lead morally in the use of AI by first identifying the values that will guide whether and how they automate a task or project. Those values are going to come from your faith tradition, not the companies that created ChatGPT, Gemini, or CoPilot.
Second, much of what is currently said about AI is either hype or speculation. People of faith are tasked with cutting through this noise to understand how AI will truly impact their families, congregations, and communities, so they can make better-informed choices.
Finally, people of faith need to reflect on when it is appropriate to opt out of, resist, or reject AI, and when it is appropriate to apply and integrate AI. This is the work of discernment: through prayer, reading sacred texts, seeking counsel from trusted people with tech experience, and reflecting on both your experiences with AI and the positive and negative "fruits" you observe from AI’s use and ongoing development.
That leads into something you brought up in your piece with The Columbus Dispatch, where you said, “faith communities can be leaders in the move for inclusive and ethical tech.” You say this because of the connection and community value embedded in faith communities, of “decades of experience fostering trust, compassion, and collective purpose.” Is there anything you’ve noticed on a larger scale when it comes to that, considering that your piece focused on Columbus, Ohio? That larger scale being the United States.
Yes. A group led by Fallon Wilson that is organizing churches for digital equity. That’s one of the ways that I’ve seen. I’m not sure how many coalitions I’ve seen churches come together around issues of digital equity and things like broadband access and so on. That’s one example of how things can be done. Another way that I’ve seen is… I know a lot of faith leaders that are part of larger groups that do public interest tech as well as other issues like access. Whether it’s providing access in the form of technology hubs in communities or having classes, offering digital literacy classes in the church. I’ve even seen intergenerational programs where you pair up an older person with a younger person so that older people can get over their hesitations toward technology.
There are a lot of different levels that I think faith organizations can contribute to change, can address some of the inequalities that are part of the digital divide, and also part of what is becoming real differences with AI use and integration.
Those are the type of activities that I’ve seen happen that support that. One of the things that I haven’t seen that I hope churches will consider is really how to be inclusive around people with developmental needs and older people. There’s an assumption that if we have this technology, everybody knows how to use it and has access to it. That it will overall help people in worship. Sometimes that’s not the case. That always, I think, needs to be more prominent in the minds of leaders.
A term you brought up in your bio was “sustainable digital future.” How would you define a sustainable digital future?
The first part about it is right now communities are not really included in the planning and the design of technologies. Technologies are made strictly for profit. The group of people who design and bring technologies to market doesn’t include a lot of diversity in it. So, I think that’s the first thing.
Also, we need to take into consideration: How do we reduce the amount of energy and natural resources that go into keeping supercomputers going? Right now, we’re reopening coal plants so that we can have the power for things like cryptocurrency and AI. We’re moving towards using nuclear power more, so they’re opening up nuclear power plants again. With this rise in the sheer amount of energy, if we can come up with green energy to offset that, or if we can talk about how do we opt out of using AI for everything. Right now, you can pull up a Google search or a Bing search, it’ll pull up a lot of things. I might just wanna know the price of pizza down the street, it’s going to start telling me about how pizza is made and all of these things.
So, what are the ways that people can opt out of always being forced to use AI in situations where they really don’t want to use it or don’t need to. Another way that we can move toward sustainable futures with AI is to consider how do we make it more community-oriented. How do we start with community needs? Rather than how much advertising something can get. How do we maximize engagement?
I think a different starting place. Certainly, the environmental aspect of it. And, also, not overusing it. Those are three ways, I think.
Another term you’ve brought up in your work is “digital religion.” How would you define “digital religion”? Because it kind of sounds like watching digital church or attending church “bedside Baptist.”
That is digital religion in some ways. When churches first started going online, it was a we gotta get a website. It was just getting a presence. Then they moved from presence to social media. Once we moved to social media, some people started forming entire online spiritual communities that no longer met in person. And then you also have people who participate in different communities. In person, it would’ve been I’m going to so-and-so’s church next Sunday. Now, it’s like, which of these online pastors do I want to dedicate my time to next Sunday? That’s a part of digital religion, just the community part. There are also spiritual influencers. And I would say those are people who are not pastors, but they still have a big influence.
For me, it’s the comedians. Every week, they have content, and their content has something to say specifically to people of faith. And that content has weight on the ways that people think about it. So, in some sense, they have become a type of religious authority. That’s also a part of digital religion.
I gave some examples, but basically, it’s the ways in which people interact with online content and religious practice.
With your upcoming book “Artificial Intelligence, Real Faith: AI Ethics for Churches”, what is the main thing that you want churches to take away from this body of work, considering today’s AI landscape, and where do you notice that AI in churches is headed?
Part of it is just to explain what generative AI is. Why it’s different? Why it’s not the Terminator. In other words, separating the fact from the fiction of it. Not to say that there aren’t risks because there certainly are risks. So, really my aim is to help people first get a clear idea of what it is, how it is an arrival technology, which means it will permeate society in different ways. Then, to say, as people of faith, how do we need to respond to it? And, as I said, my imperative is that we start with our values. We start with what matters to us, not the fact that the technology is there. We start with how do we make sure we include people and the life of the church? And, the things that we do. So, not to stop doing those things.
And, then, to talk about now that we’re doing that: what does this mean for spiritual formation? If we use this technology, is it a help or a threat to spiritual formation? I’ll give you an example. So two to three weeks ago pray.com, which is a for-profit company, came out with what they call the AI Bible. The AI Bible for me is kind of like Marvel meets some biblical verses, but the degree to which all of the characters are not people of color. Let me just put it like that. So, my question for that product would be, is this something we should use or not? We should always use our spiritual discernment when we’re considering uses of AI. If it’s not helpful for our spiritual growth, then we just don’t need it. In that sense.
There’s the other part about it where there’s not a lot of critical evaluation going on around the adoption of AI. How do we begin to have these conversations about when is a use a proper use and when is it not? For example, let’s say you were using AI to do counseling work. There are real privacy issues around using AI for counseling work. That’s an example.
How should we work through that and have ethics around that, have boundaries around it? So that we don’t jeopardize somebody’s privacy.
Those are the type of things that I want to talk about in the book.