





































Ecclesial Futures
2024 – Volume 5 – Issue 1

51
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18743

A R T I C L E

DOI: 10.54195/ef18743

A Missional Church Strategy in an Era 
of Humanlike Chatbots

David Hirome

Abstract
The recent prominence of advanced chatbots that greatly mimic human intelligence 
and conversation appears to have set a new stage in the rapidly developing field of Arti-
ficial Intelligence. Chatbots such as ChatGTP and Bard have risen to global popularity 
among internet users who interface with the chatbots in a nearly humanlike manner 
through a question-and-answer format. But such great technological developments 
also give rise to questions regarding theology and spirituality. Thus, this paper asks: 
what does it mean to be human in an increasingly AI-driven world? How can Christian 
communities around the globe respond to the ongoing developments in the field of AI? 
Based on missional anthropology, this paper argues for an understanding of humans 
as embodied agents of God as central in a missional strategy to respond to the prolifer-
ation of advanced AI chatbots today.

Keywords: Chatbots, Artificial intelligence, Human intelligence, Christian communities, 
Missional anthropology, Embodied agents

Introduction
We are now living in an era where a Christian can simply swipe their smartphone 
and instantly get curated responses to difficult spiritual questions, interpretations of 
the Bible, personalized prayers and written sermons, all with a human touch. This is 
the power of Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), a recent advance 
in Artificial Intelligence that continues to excite and engage internet users across the 
world since its launch in November 2022.
Despite its recent appearance on the technological scene, ChatGPT has already 
made significant inroads among Christians in Southeast Asia. This has been more 
pronounced in South Korea, a global technological powerhouse. ChatGPT-powered 
startups have penetrated the South Korean Christian landscape at an astonishing 



52
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18743

pace (Ko 2023). One of these startups is called Meadow and it can write wonderful 
sermons for pastors. The other is named Biblely and it can have the Bible read to 
you in your pastor’s voice or even in your parent’s voice. Such technological develop-
ments raise pertinent areas of theological and missiological reflection for the Church 
today.

Background
ChatGPT exemplifies the ongoing progress in artificial intelligence (AI) that is revo-
lutionizing human–machine communication online. However, it’s important to note 
that chatbots like ChatGPT rely on distinct artificial intelligence technologies, high-
lighting the need to view AI as a diverse rather than uniform technological system 
(Coghill 2023: 605).
AI chatbots are designed to simulate human conversation and respond to user 
queries in real time. Originally emerging as tools for customer support and online 
assistance, these AI-driven conversational agents have evolved to encompass a wide 
range of applications, from virtual assistants in mobile devices to integrated commu-
nication platforms on websites and social media (Følstad and Skjuve 2019).
AI chatbots continue to impact human communication by altering traditional 
modes of interaction and reshaping the dynamics of interpersonal relationships. 
For instance, unlike conventional communication channels, chatbots operate 24/7, 
providing instantaneous responses and information retrieval. This accessibility has 
transformed the way individuals seek and receive information, fostering a culture of 
immediate gratification and expectation in communication.
The proliferation of AI chatbots is part of a broader trend in the increasing integra-
tion of technology into virtually every facet of contemporary life. From healthcare 
and education to business and entertainment, AI technology has become an omni-
present force, reshaping the way individuals interact with their environments and 
with each other. Chatbots are categoric technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolu-
tion (4IR) and particularly artificial intelligence. The technology of AI has been consid-
ered key for 4IR and thus needful of “serious scrutiny as it will influence humanity 
and the world” (Mdingi, 2020: 2). Advances in AI present challenges to the biblical 
view of humanity and that of the world, a locus of God’s mission. Thus, the relation-
ship between advanced technologies such as AI chatbots, and the Church’s mission, 
is an area that requires sustained scrutiny (McAlpine, 2011: 144).
It is against this background that this article asks: what does it mean to be human 
in an increasingly AI driven world? How can Christian communities around the 
globe respond to the ongoing developments in the field of AI? From a perspective 
of missional anthropology, this article argues for an understanding of humans as 
embodied agents of God as a central tenet in a missional strategy to respond to 
the proliferation of advanced AI chatbots today. In talking about a missional church 



53
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18743

strategy, the aim is not to propose a model or structure but rather spur local Chris-
tian communities to “engage their context, learn to listen and see where God is at 
work in the midst of all the confusion, anxiety, pluralism, and technological trans-
formation” (Roxburgh and Boren 2009: 86).

Purpose of the Article
The primary objective of this article is to propose steps towards a missional church 
strategy in light of the proliferation of humanlike chatbots. This entails an explo-
ration of how the Church, in the face of advancing AI technology, can adapt and 
leverage humanlike chatbots in a manner that enhances its mission. In doing so, this 
article examines the intersection of humanlike chatbot technology and missional 
anthropology with particular emphasis on the Imago Dei.

Importance of the Topic
Humanlike chatbots (HLCs) present significant challenges and opportunities in the 
context of the Church’s missional engagement in the world. The technology of HLCs 
continues to evolve with a goal of producing chatbots whose performance appears 
to erase the distinction between machines and humans. It is thus significant to 
ensure that such technological advancements align with the core values and iden-
tity of the Church. By proactively engaging with these considerations, the Church is 
better placed to harness the positive use of AI while mitigating potential pitfalls in 
its missional engagement in the world. In this way, the people of God are formed for 
mission-shaped lives in an era of humanlike chatbots.

Literature Review
Overview of Humanlike Chatbot Technology
It is evident that theological research today strives to keep up with the rapid advances 
in artificial intelligence as new prototypes of chatbots evolve on a regular basis. What 
is certain is that AI chatbots have emerged as sophisticated tools in the realm of 
digital communication, exhibiting remarkable capabilities in understanding and 
responding to user queries. A chatbot is an AI system “which responds like an intel-
ligent entity when conversed with” (Khanna et al. 2015: 277). Chatbots are diverse 
and oftentimes different AI systems may be identified as chatbots. Thus, a chatbot 
is often synonymous with “the terms ‘conversational agents’ and ‘dialogue systems’ 
and may refer to task-oriented as well as non-task-oriented solutions” (Skjuve et al. 
2021). The history of chatbots stretches way back to 1966 with the earliest example 
of ELIZA (Weizenbaum 1966). More recent examples from the last decade include 
virtual assistance systems such as Google Assistant and Siri. ChatGPT illustrates the 
capability that chatbots have gained today.



54
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18743

The current state of AI chatbot technology reflects advances in the areas of natural 
language processing (NLP) and deep learning (DL) contributing to their widespread 
adoption across various industries. NLP is a key chatbot technology that enables 
algorithms to build and represent human languages (Singh and Mahmood 2021). 
Conversely, DL technology mimics the human brain function to “decode patterns from 
the training data and uses the same patterns to process new information” (Maher, 
Kayte and Nimbhore 2020: 507). Together, NLP and DL enable chatbots to interact 
with users in a nearly humanlike manner. OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, 
have leveraged NLP and DL in a framework known as Generative Pre-training Trans-
former or GPT (Radford et al. 2018). This has enabled ChatGPT to implement “unsu-
pervised pre-training and supervised fine-tuning to generate human-like responses 
to queries and provide responses to topics that resemble that of a human expert” 
(Dwivedi et al. 2023: 3).
Furthermore, the advances in HML chatbots extend beyond text-based interactions 
to include multimodal capabilities. Some chatbots can now interpret and generate 
responses based on images, videos and audio inputs, providing a richer and more 
interactive user experience (Lin et al. 2023). For instance, ChatGPT4, an advanced 
version of OpenAI’s chatbots, can output text in response to a users’ input of an 
image (OpenAI 2023). The incorporation of such multimodal capabilities in HLCs 
further serves to anthropomorphize these machines. This prompts a review of the 
societal impact of these HLCs.

Societal Impact of Humanlike Chatbots
HLCs are becoming influential actors in shaping societal interactions, transforming 
communication patterns, and redefining community dynamics. This means human-
like chatbots pose a significant impact on individuals and communities. Some of the 
ways in which this impact unfolds include: enhanced accessibility, shift in communi-
cation channels, personalised experiences, and human relationships. Ethical issues 
related to chatbot use in society also raise concern.
First, HLCs contribute to enhanced accessibility, providing users with immediate and 
convenient access to information and services. This is particularly evident in sectors 
like customer service, where chatbots offer instant support, reducing response 
times and increasing overall convenience (Xu et al. 2017). The increased access and 
convenience afforded by HML chatbots points to a possible wider deployment of 
these chatbots in virtually all sectors of society.
Second, the increased integration of HLCs has led to a notable shift in communica-
tion channels. Users increasingly engage with organizations and services through 
chat-based interfaces, influencing expectations for real-time and asynchronous 
communication (Li et al. 2021). This shift has implications for traditional forms of 



55
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18743

communication as an increasing number of users interact with HLCs perceiving them 
as similar to humans.
Third, HLCs leverage data analytics and machine learning to personalize user expe-
riences. By analysing user preferences and behaviour, chatbots can tailor responses 
and recommendations, fostering a sense of individualized interaction. This person-
alization can enhance user satisfaction and engagement (Tamara, Tumbuan and 
Gunawan 2023: 168).
Fourth, the prevalence of HLCs raises questions about the impact on human-to-
human social interactions. Some studies suggest that an over-reliance on digital 
communication, facilitated by chatbots, may lead to a decrease in face-to-face inter-
actions, potentially affecting the quality of human-to-human relationships as users 
find it more comfortable to self-disclose to a chatbot than a human (Lee et al. 2020). 
Such developments imply that users may soon perceive HCLs to be real humans. But 
this would also imply an erasure of the distinction between a human and chatbot 
with repercussions for christian theology and its teaching on the uniqueness of 
humans. Hence the need for sustained missional and theological responses to the 
evolving chatbot technology in the world today.
Finally, the societal challenges with HLCs relate to issues of trust and ethical concerns 
regarding the interaction between humans and chabots. For instance, there is a 
direct relationship between the degree of trust that users confer upon chatbots 
and the level of human likeness in the chatbot (Go and Sundar 2019). This means 
the more HLCs are designed to mimic human language and behaviour, the more 
confidence humans will put in these chatbots. Ethical issues have also been raised 
regarding the unidirectional emotional bond that users form with their HLC (Scheutz 
2011). This suggests that the chatbot manufacturers prioritize a user dependence 
on these machines. With all this integration of AI technology in society, Christian 
communities have moved to harness AI for missional purposes.

Missional Approaches amid AI Technological Advancements
The integration of the technologies of 4IR in society has prompted churches to incor-
porate these innovations into their missional approaches. The uptake of technology 
by the Church stretches from the first century, and the manner in which technolog-
ical shifts have aided Christian mission throughout history is variously documented. 
From the technology of writing to the global reach of electronic and digital media, 
mission has always been on a par with the technological innovations of the time. 
But as Hollinghurst notes, digital technology presents “probably the most important 
development facing Christian mission” (Hollinghurst 2020: 75). The evolving digital 
technologies, such as social media, streaming services and mobile apps, provide 
churches with unprecedented opportunities to share their message, connect with a 
global audience, and engage in online evangelism at a scale not equalled in mission 



56
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18743

history. Accompanied to this is the rise of virtual communities facilitated by online 
platforms. This has led to discussions about how these spaces can foster disciple-
ship. Several studies have examined how churches can leverage technology to 
create virtual small groups, Bible studies and discipleship programmes, allowing for 
meaning  ful connections and spiritual growth beyond physical church spaces.
Yet the incorporation of AI technology and particularly chatbots by Christian commu-
nities for missional purposes is not yet widespread. Instances of missional use of 
AI technologies have been identified in the fields of community engagement and 
pastoral care. The Church of England was one of the early adopters of chatbots for 
missional purposes with the use of Amazon’s virtual assistant Alexa to offer prayers 
and answer theological queries for people (Church of England 2018). Following the 
2022 advent of ChatGPT, several Christian innovators created chatbots to reach an 
even more diverse group of people. Chatbots on sites such as Biblemate.io can now 
answer difficult theological questions while biblemate.org provides options for Bible 
study and counselling. Pastors.ai allows churches to customize chatbots using digital 
resources of their local church. These innovations open up the space for a sustained 
missional use of chatbots in the digital space.
But at the sametime, theological frameworks should inform how Christian commu-
nities ought to respond to AI technology. To illustrate, a vast difference exists in the 
fundamental nature of humans and products of AI. Individuality as espoused in AI 
“starts from a substance into personal and, finally, interpersonal. However, humanity 
as a created being is interpersonal from the beginning, both in essence and exist-
ence” (Saragih 2023: 242). Thus the question of human identity is linked with rela-
tionality and forms a point of departure to examine theological perspectives in the 
context of HLCs and missional approaches of Christian communities.

Understanding the Intersection: HLCs and Theology
Theological Perspectives on Humanlike Chatbots
In navigating the intersection of HLCs and missional church, it is crucial to consider 
theological perspectives that shape how technology is understood within the 
context of human interaction. Theological frameworks provide a lens through which 
the church interprets and responds to the advancements of technology. The two 
main questions that arise at the intersection of AI technologies and theology deal 
with issues of ethics and anthropology (Puzio 2023: 35).
Ethical dimensions of human enhancement through AI technology centre on whether 
certain technological advancements such as chatbots align with the theological 
understanding of human nature and the moral responsibilities of humanity. HLCs 
may appear morally superior to humans. As part of the latest in the developments 
in AI, an HLC such as ChatGPT, can be “seen in a form that is purer and less affected 



57
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18743

by defilements than human beings, meaning it is technically in a better position to 
preach, practice, or even reach the final goal of Enlightenment” (Travagnin 2023: 41).
Arguing from the reformed theology of archetype-ectype distinction as regards 
moral agency, Xu notes that artificial moral agents, such as HLCs, are imitations of 
human moral agency (Xu 2023: 644). He considers human moral agency as arche-
type while HLCs are ectype and thus imitate human moral agency. Such imitation 
means that AI moral agency can be described in at least two ways: as an exten-
sion of human morality but also as limited. The extension of human moral agency 
through AI artefacts means that “humans mediate their moral values into these arte-
facts while creating them” (Xu 2023: 644). But this extended human moral agency is 
limited since it is “only related to particular moral issues” (Xu 2023: 644). This demon-
strates that HLCs have no moral agency of their own and instead display extended 
but limited human morality. It is thus suggestive that in spheres that require moral 
agency, HLCs should be approached as replicas rather than replacements for 
humans. For instance, HLCs can be deployed in pastoral care to extend the human 
agency. However, attending to the unique moral matters of those receiving pastoral 
care is presently beyond scope for HLCs and can only be addressed by humans.
Another way in which AI imitates humans is illustrated by the inherent bias that 
surrounds AI systems. Developers of AI often model these systems after them-
selves (Foerst 2005: 67). The result is that the bias in human society is carried on in 
these systems especially in the areas of “race, class, gender and territory” (Coleman 
2023: 350). For instance, Chat GPT-2 was known to produce “racist output even when 
conditioned on non-racial contexts” (Wallace et al. 2021). It is evident that HLCs like 
ChatGPT are trained on millions of internet pages and thus imitate the human culture 
contained in those pages.
The same is reflected in the religious sphere as HLCs often project the bias inherent 
in the data they are trained upon. It was revealed that “there was clearly a sharp and 
distinguishable strain of Evangelical theology in GPT-2” (Reed 2021: 8). This calls for 
attention to the inherent bias in Bible based HLCs such as those running on ChatGPT. 
It is also worth recognizing that this bias is not purely down to data upon which the 
HLCs are trained but to what occurs at “every level of the construction of A.I.” (Reed 
2021: 6). Bias permeates the whole culture that produces the AI. It is in the people, 
data, algorithms and processes.
As regards anthropology, an understanding of how the concept of humanity is 
expressed in technology provides a base “for a theological engagement with AI and 
technology” (Puzio 2023: 35). Theologians have long affirmed the uniqueness of 
humans based on human beings’ creation in the image of God. A theological approach 
to the anthropological debate on the technologies of 4IR has been marked by an 
“interest in what it means to be made in the image of God in an age of robots and AI” 
(Green 2018: 237–8). However, an appeal to the concept of the image of God appears 



58
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18743

to have waned in modern theology. The image of God as understood through power 
of intellect, reason and rationality is no longer unique to human beings but has also 
been interpreted to apply to AI agents. This leaves the relational and functional views 
of imago Dei as the only available points to contrast humans and AI agents (Fourie 
2020: 25–6).
The relational view of imago Dei is particularly relevant since it necessitates embod-
iment. The relationality of humans, such as argued by Karl Barth, is an expression 
of the imago Dei and is displayed in embodied human to human encounters (Barth 
1960: 225–6). But efforts are underway to enhance human to machine encounters 
through embodiment of HLCs, like suggested by OpenAI (Degeurin 2024). Thus, 
a consideration of HLCs and embodied intelligence is vital as churches strategize 
missions in a rapidly evolving AI environment.

Embodied Intelligence
The combined technologies of robotics and AI are geared towards creating machines 
which possess humanlike intelligence in the physical world. This technology is known 
as embodied intelligence. Cangelosi et al. (2015) note that embodied intelligence is a 
foundational term in computer intelligence which refers to:

The computational approach to the design and understanding of intelligent behavior 
in embodied and situated agents through the consideration of the strict coupling 
between the agent and its environment (situatedness), mediated by the constraints of 
the agent’s own body, perceptual and motor system, and brain (embodiment).

The new frontier in embodied intelligence aims to enable HLCs like ChatGPT to 
ground their language into concepts of the physical world. ChatGPT, like other Large 
Language Models (LLMs), possesses vast knowledge of the physical world but lacks 
an experience of the same world (Biggie et al. 2023: 2). Thus, for ChatGPT to ground 
its language implies “associating words with sights, sounds, and actions, in order to 
anchor their meanings in day-to-day life and in communicable expressions” (Oregon 
State University College of Engineering 2024). A typical case is an experiment based 
on the human brain-body system that integrated a robotic arm and three LLMs 
including PaLM 2, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, to successfully perform a task in the real world 
(Bhat et al. 2024). This creates a key avenue for theological reflection.
Embodied intelligence is an important point for a theological critic as regards AI and 
robotics because AI agents are designed to mimic the nature of a human being in 
the physical world. Some theologians have thought positively of embodied intelli-
gence. For example, Hazel notes that “embodied intelligence is a point of contact in 
the dialogue between AI and Christian theology, which affirms the psychosomatic 



59
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18743

unity of the human person” (Heltzel 1998: 22). To Hazel, an AI agent that is designed 
to perform tasks with intellect is a bridge to a human.
But other theologians stress that the issue of embodied intelligence is key in 
 delineating the difference between humans and AI agents, and this is more rele-
vant as LLMs are integrated with robotics. Humans are intellectual embodied beings 
who are dissimilar to embodied AI agents. Herzfeld has this in view when she asks, 
“Does a human-like intelligence require a human-like body?” (Herzfeld 2010: 119). 
She adds that the human experience of the world is unique from other creatures 
such as dogs. This implies that “a different body would mean we would experience 
a different world” (Herzfeld 2010: 120). Thus the experience of embodied AI agents 
as they accomplish human tasks in the real world would differ significantly from the 
human experience. For Haugeland, intelligence in humans is not simply a mental 
occurrence, “it’s in their bodies and, even more, out there in the world” (Haugeland 
1997: 26). In this way, human intelligence takes on a holistic dimension.
Humans are also conceived to dwell holistically with the environment and the overall 
ecosystem. This view is promoted by ecotheologians who “argue for a worldview 
grounded in cosmogenesis – the whole universe story – which decentralizes the 
human as individual and promotes holistic thinking about both the human and its 
broader context in creation” (Green 2018: 29). The holistic view of humans looks 
beyond the “traits associated with the human mind and individual human bodies” 
(Green 2018: 29). A human being is thus understood in consideration to both his 
immediate and distant surroundings. These surroundings include all aspects of crea-
tion whether natural or artificial.
The holistic view confronts “the focus on individuals as the locus of wisdom and 
relationality and expand theological imagination to include all webs of relationship, 
including societies and ecosystems” (Green 2018: 29). On the other hand, AI agents 
are often one-dimensional in their replication of humans. The holistic understanding 
of humans also challenges the focus on individual wisdom that is prevalent in AI 
agents. Thus, humans are able to intelligently function in harmony with others in the 
society and environment. An appreciation of the holistic and relational qualities of 
humans is thus essential in understanding the difference between humans and AI 
agents.

Towards a missional church strategy
Christian Communities as Embodied Agents of God in Humanlike 
Chatbot World
The technologies of AI as shown above particularly in the combined fields of robotics 
and HLCs call for relevant responses from the church. Christian communities need 
theological exposure to the functioning of the technologies of AI chatbots. Fourie 



60
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18743

points to the fact that “the lack of literacy is one of the contributing factors why 
efforts to address the significance and impact in theological terms have been some-
what scattered and disorganised” (Fourie 2020: 13). Intentional effort to acquire 
a knowledge of robotics and LLMs is vital if Christians are to learn how to live as 
embodied agents of God in a world of advancing HLCs.
 Stephanus Joubert notes that “believers must be present in this never-ending drama 
of technological change, culture and human experience without losing their iden-
tity” ( Joubert 2020: 8). The aspect of embodiment is thus an essential guide for 
Christians in the world of HLCs. As shown in the preceding section, the concept of 
embodied intelligence is evolving as LLMs are combined with robots to function in 
a more humanlike manner in the real world. Joubert notes that “the church must 
facilitate immersive, yet provocative performances of the Gospels while simultane-
ously embodying and empowering others with wisdom to traverse this unchartered 
terrain of technological innovation with insight and discernment” ( Joubert 2020: 1). 
Christians are therefore better placed to respond to these technologies by empha-
sizing the relational and holistic qualities that define each member in their commu-
nities as an embodied intelligent being who differs from a combination of LLMs and 
robots. Green’s (2018: 109) reminder is also important for Christian communities, 
“honouring the relational quality of the human also helps underscore differences 
between us and robots. As it stands now, robots and AI are at best superficially rela-
tional, and function independent of social and ecological contexts.”

The above note is important in guiding Christians as embodied agents of God in a 
world of advancing HLCs. An intentional effort at stressing the relational qualities 
of humanity as Christians in a context of embodied HLCs will not only differentiate 
humans from these advanced chatbots. More importantly, it will enable a Chris-
tian to act as an embodied agent of God and bring an authentic human presence to 
others. A Christian’s bodily presence that engages in activities or movements such 
as sports, dance, and work, in person and with others, will emphasise the relational 
and holistic qualities of humanity. This human bodily engagement will, at same time, 
set a clear boundary with HLCs, and ultimately with advancing technologies of LLMs 
and robotics.

Missiological Implications in a World of Humanlike Chatbots
The Great Commission as spelt out in Matthew 28.16–20 demands “Go therefore 
and make disciples of all nations.” This phrase has also been interpreted in missio-
logical circles to include the domain of the cyber world. Christian mission is called 
to “enter into the domains of the cyberspace in order to deliver the minds and souls 
– essentially, the consciousness – of the present generation who are either alienated 
or captured in the cyberspace” (Kim 2019: 64). An undertaking of this nature requires 



61
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18743

several considerations, one of which includes “embracing the essence of the incar-
national model and practicing embodiment principles of integrating mind, body and 
action in all aspects of life, ministry, and mission” (Kim 2019: 64).
A pattern of embodiment of the whole person in the whole Christian life also relates 
to the concepts of “relational and holistic anthropology” (Green 2018: 263). These 
concepts also relate to the contextual and ecological theologies that are relevant to 
mission studies and praxis. This will aid in thinking more missiologically in terms of 
social justice and liberation for the less advantaged in an era of humanlike chatbots.
In relation to social justice and liberation in an age AI, Eugene Baron (2020: 8) notes:

There is a need for missiologists to have their contextual theologies (postcolonial, 
Black Liberation, etc.) in their front pockets. It will be imperative to read the Bible from 
the perspective of the most vulnerable and marginalised in society. Public theology 
of human dignity is crucial to understand our value, contribution and agency in the 
Kingdom of God on earth.

A first missiological implication in a world of humanlike chatbots regards human 
dignity. Human dignity is an important concept in regard to AI agents. It is neces-
sary to ensure that mission is always directed at the embodied human rather than 
humanlike chatbots. A poor human being needs more attention than the most intel-
ligent chatbots.
A second missiological implication regards the necessity of human agency in mission, 
Baron (2020: 4) notes that

The idea that the 4IR will reproduce the human being’s functions and abilities in the 
form of artificial intelligence (AI). Though this would rapidly change the efficiency 
of responsibilities and tasks being carried out in business environments, as well as 
promise various benefits within ecclesial contexts, missiologists should be posing crit-
ical questions on the (non)-agency of human beings.

Chatbots may outperform humans in all fields and this includes church contexts 
where for example a chatbot counsellor would be preferred to a human being. In a 
related way, robots equipped with AI will pose questions of standardisation. Barron 
notes that “it would be imperative … to ask in terms of human agency: whose human 
being standards, actions and patterns would all human beings be standardised?” 
(Barron 2020: 4). Such questions are important when taking into account issues of 
race and class. There are missiological implications for instance in standardising 
robots to white in a South African context that has suffered apartheid.
A third missiological implication in a world of HLCs concerns the authentic  experience 
of humans. Baron notes that “the agency of the world in ‘God’s mission’ (missio Dei) 



62
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18743

will also be tested on the sharing of authentic experiences of God’s creatures” (Baron 
2020: 4). This is particularly important in cases where a victim interfaces with an 
AI agent on behalf on the perpetrator. As illustrated in the context of trauma, the 
use of robotics raises questions about authentic human encounters in the healing 
process. While AI may facilitate interaction, the absence of personal involvement 
from those responsible for the pain poses a challenge to the idea of true reconcilia-
tion and healing (2020: 4).
Thus, a context such a trauma raises questions about the relational and holistic 
attributes of humans, which are deficient in AI agents such as HLCs. Mission in the 
era of humanlike chatbots will therefore need to consider the relational and holistic 
nature of human beings even as engagement is made with attention to the need 
for human dignity, human agency and human experience. Christian communities 
should also consider that “as the bearer of God’s image, it is our duty to direct tech-
nology development for the greatest good. It demands wisdom and care; we should 
never delegate the duty to machines” (Saragih 2023: 243).

Practical Considerations
Some practical concerns related to missional approaches in Christian communities 
in an era of HLCs are reflected in the following five suggestions.
1. Maintain human oversight in AI chatbot interactions, especially for complex 

pastoral care issues. Back this up by training pastoral staff to collaborate with 
chatbots, ensuring a seamless integration of technology with the church’s 
human-centered approach. This will help to balance AI capabilities with human 
oversight and ensure that the church maintains its relational and pastoral focus, 
using technology as a supportive tool rather than a substitute for genuine human 
connections.

2. Not all members may have equal access to technology, leading to a potential digital 
divide within the congregation. Therefore, seek to implement inclusivity meas-
ures such as providing technology resources for those in need, offering offline 
alternatives, and ensuring that AI chatbots complement traditional communica-
tion channels.

3. Privacy concerns may arise as members express concerns about data privacy 
when interacting with AI chatbots. A solution here is make early communication 
about the church’s commitment to privacy, implement robust data protection 
measures, and offer opt-in/opt-out features for individuals to control their level 
of engagement.

4. Aim for community building beyond technology. Emphasize that while tech-
nology enhances community engagement, it does not replace the essence of 
human connection. As such, encourage members to balance digital interactions 



63
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18743

with in-person relationships, reinforcing the importance of face-to-face connec-
tions.

5. Seek transparency and communication. Foster a culture of transparency by 
openly communicating the role and limitations of AI chatbots within the church 
community. Regularly update members on how technology is being used to 
support the church’s mission.

Towards a Missional Church Strategy
The advancements in AI technologies have posed a number of challenges to Chris-
tian communities today. One of the key concerns for Christian communities in an 
era of the humanlike chatbots is how to foster an understanding of a human being 
as an embodied agent of God. It is also crucial for Christian communities to consider 
the avenues of mission in a world increasingly adapting to AI chatbots. Christians 
are therefore better placed to respond to these technologies by emphasising the 
relational and holistic qualities that differentiate humans from embodied chatbots. 
They can help other humans affirm these qualities while also advocating for a defi-
nition of each member in their communities as an embodied intelligent being that 
far surpasses the possibilities of AI technology. A missional church in the era of 
advancing HLCs will therefore need to consider the relational and holistic nature of 
human beings even as engagement is made with attention to the need for human 
dignity, human agency and human experience.

About the Author
David Hirome is a PhD student at ACTS University in South Korea. His interests 
include digital culture, mission theology and world Christianity. He is an ordained 
minister in the Anglican Church of Uganda. Contact: hiromedavid@gmail.com

References
Baron, E. 2020. “The Questions for Post-apartheid South African Missiology in the Context of 

the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 76/2: 1–11.
Barth, Karl. 1960. Church Dogmatics Vol. 3, The Doctrine of Creation. Part 2. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 

374–75.
Bhat, V., A. U. Kaypak, P. Krishnamurthy, R. Karri and F. Khorrami. 2024. “Grounding LLMs 

For Robot Task Planning Using Closed-loop State Feedback”, http://doi.org/10.48550/
arXiv.2402.08546.

Biggie, H., A. N. Mopidevi, D. Woods and C. Heckman. 2023. “Tell me where to go: A compos-
able framework for context-aware embodied robot navigation.” http://doi.org/10.48550/
arXiv.2306.09523.

mailto:hiromedavid@gmail.com
http://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.08546
http://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.08546
http://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.09523
http://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.09523


64
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18743

Cangelosi, A., J. Bongard, M. H. Fischer and S. Nolfi. 2015. “Embodied intelligence.” In Kacprzyk, 
J. and Pedrycz, W. (eds). Springer Handbook of Computational Intelligence. Berlin: Springer, 
697–714.

Church of England. 2018. “The Church of England brings prayers to millions with Alexa”, https://
www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/church-england-
brings-prayers-millions-alexa (accessed 2 Feb. 2024).

Coghill, G. M. 2023. “Artificial Intelligence (and Christianity): Who? What? Where? When? Why? 
and How?” Studies in Christian Ethics 36 (3): 604–19.

Coleman, B. 2023. “Human–Machine Communication, Artificial Intelligence, and Issues of Data 
Colonialism.” In A. L. Guzman, R. McEwen and S. Jones (eds). The Sage Handbook of Human–
Machine Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 350–56.

Degeurin, M. 2024. “OpenAI wants to make a walking, talking humanoid robot smarter.” 
Popular Science February 28, https://www.popsci.com/technology/openai-wants-to-make-
a-walking-talking-humanoid-robot-smarter/ (accessed 30 March 2024).

Dwivedi, Y. K., N. Kshetri, L. Hughes, E. L. Slade, A. Jeyaraj, A. K. Kar, A. M. Baabdullah, A. 
Koohang et al. 2023. “Opinion Paper: ‘So What If ChatGPT Wrote It?’ Multidisciplinary 
Perspectives on Opportunities, Challenges and Implications of Generative Conversational 
AI for Research, Practice and Policy.” International Journal of Information Management 71, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642.

Foerst, A. 2005. God in the Machine: What Robots Teach Us about Humanity and God. New York: 
Plume.

Følstad, A., and M. Skjuve. 2019. “Chatbots for Customer Service: User Experience and Motiva-
tion.” In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces CUI 
’19. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 1, 1–9. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3342775.3342784.

Fourie, L. C. H. 2020. “Technology and Theology: Finding the Real God.” In Van den Berg, J. A. 
(ed.). Engaging the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Perspectives from Theology, Philosophy and 
Education. Bloemfontein: Sun Media, 11–43.

Go, E., and S. S. Sundar. 2019. “Humanizing chatbots: The effects of visual, identity and conver-
sational cues on humanness perceptions.” Computers in Human Behavior 97: 304–16.

Green, E. E. 2018. Robots and AI: The Challenge to Interdisciplinary Theology. PhD thesis. Univer-
sity of St. Michael’s College, https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/93393/1/
Green_Erin_E_201811_Ph D_thesis.pdf (accessed 1 Sep. 2023).

Haugeland, J. 1997. “What is Mind Design?” In J. Haugeland (ed.). Mind Design II: Philosophy, 
Psychology, Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Heltzel, P. 1998. “Cog and the Creativity of God.” Journal of Faith and Science Exchange 2: 21–9.
Herzfeld, N. 2010. “Human and Artificial Intelligence: A Theological Response.” In N. Murphy 

and Knight C. C. (eds). Human Identity at the Intersection of Science, Technology and Religion. 
Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 117–30.

Hollinghurst, S. 2020. “Finding Jesus Online: Digital Evangelism and the Future of Christian 
Mission.” In J. Kulberg and P. M. Philips (eds). Missio Dei in a Digital Age. London: SCM Press, 
75–97.

Joubert, S. J. 2020. “Reclaiming our Humanity: Believers as Sages and Performers of the Gospel 
in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 76 
(2): 1–8.

Khanna, A., B. Pandey, K. Vashishta, K. Kalia, B. Pradeepkumar and T. Das. 2015. “A Study of 
Today’s A.I. through Chatbots and Rediscovery of Machine Intelligence.” International 
Journal of u- and e-Service, Science and Technology 8 (7): 277–84.

https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/church-england-brings-prayers-millions-alexa
https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/church-england-brings-prayers-millions-alexa
https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/church-england-brings-prayers-millions-alexa
https://www.popsci.com/technology/openai-wants-to-make-a-walking-talking-humanoid-robot-smarter/
https://www.popsci.com/technology/openai-wants-to-make-a-walking-talking-humanoid-robot-smarter/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
https://doi.org/10.1145/3342775.3342784
https://doi.org/10.1145/3342775.3342784
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/93393/1/Green_Erin_E_201811_Ph D_thesis.pdf
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/93393/1/Green_Erin_E_201811_Ph D_thesis.pdf


65
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18743

Kim, D. J. 2019. “The Incarnational Missional Paradigm in the Excarnational Era of Cyberspace 
and Virtual Reality.” Theology of Mission, 55: 41–70.

Ko, E. 2023. “Ready for an AI Pastor? Not Too Distant Future in South Korea.” The Korean 
Economic Daily, Global Edition, 15 September, https://www.kedglobal.com/korean_startups/
newsView/ked202309150020 (accessed 10 Feb. 2024).

Lee, Y., N. Yamashita, Y. Huang and W. Fu, W. 2020. “‘I hear you, I feel you’: encouraging deep 
self-disclosure through a chatbot.” In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human 
factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376175.

Li, L., K. Y. Lee, E. Emokpae and S. B. Yang. 2021. “What makes you continuously use chatbot 
services? Evidence from Chinese online travel agencies.” Electronic Markets 31: 577–99.

Lin, H., L. Ruan, W. Xia, P. Liu, J. Wen, Y.Xu, D. Hu, Song, R. et al. 2023. “TikTalk: A Multi-Modal 
Dialogue Dataset for Real-World Chitchat.” https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.05880.

Maher, S., S. Kayte and S. Nimbhore. 2020. “Chatbots & Its Techniques Using AI: A Review.” 
International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology 8 (12): 503–8. 
https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2020.32537.

McAlpine, W. R. 2011. Sacred Space for the Missional Church. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.
Mdingi, H. M. 2020. “The Black Church as the Timeless Witness to Change and Paradigm Shifts 

Posed by the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”‘ HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 76 
(2):1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i2.5985.

OpenAI. 2023. “GPT-4,” https://openai.com/research/gpt-4 (accessed 12 Jan. 2024).
Oregon State University College of Engineering. 2024. “Beyond ChatGPT: Embodied Language 

Understanding”, https://engineering.oregonstate.edu/all-stories/beyond-chatgpt-embodied-
language-understanding (accessed 11 April 2024).

Puzio, A. 2023. “Theology Meets AI: Examining Perspectives, Tasks, and Theses on the Inter-
section of Technology and Religion.” In Puzio, A., N. Kunkel H. and Klinge (eds). Alexa, How 
Do You Feel About Religion? Theological Approaches to Technology and Artificial Intelligence. 
Darmstadt, Germany: WBG Academic, 29–41.

Radford, A., K. Narasimhan, T. Salimans and I. Sutskever. (n.d.) “Improving Language Under-
standing by Generative Pre-Training.” [Preprint], https://cdn.openai.com/research-covers/
language-unsupervised/language_understanding_paper.pdf (accessed 10 Jan. 2024).

Reed, R. 2021. “The theology of GPT-2: Religion and artificial intelligence.” Religion Compass 15 
(11), e12422, https://doi.org/10.1111/rec3.12422.

Roxburgh, A. J., and M. S. Boren. 2009. Introducing the Missional Church: What It Is, Why It Matters, 
How to Become One, Allelon Missional Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Saragih, D. B. 2023. “The Priesthood of All Sentients? The Eclipse of Transcendence in an Age of 
Artificial Intelligence.” Veritas: Jurnal Teologi dan Pelayanan 22 (2): 235–45.

Scheutz, M. 2011. “The Inherent Dangers of Unidirectional Emotional Bonds Between Humans 
and Social Robots.” In P. Lin, K. Abney and G. A. Bekey (eds.). Robot Ethics: The Ethical and 
Social Implications of Robotics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 205–21.

Singh, S., and A. Mahmood. 2021. “The NLP cookbook: modern recipes for transformer based 
deep learning architectures.” https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.10640.

Skjuve, M., A. Følstad, K. I. Fostervold and P. B. Brandtzaeg. 2021. “My chatbot companion: a 
study of human–chatbot relationships.” International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 
149:102601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601.

Tamara, C. A. J., W. J. F. A. Tumbuan and E. M. Gunawan. 2023. “Chatbots in E-Commerce: A 
Study of Gen Z Customer Experience And Engagement: Friend or Foe?” Jurnal EMBA: Jurnal 
Riset Ekonomi, Manajemen, Bisnis Dan Akuntansi 11 (3): 161–75.

https://www.kedglobal.com/korean_startups/newsView/ked202309150020
https://www.kedglobal.com/korean_startups/newsView/ked202309150020
https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376175
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.05880
https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2020.32537
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i2.5985
https://openai.com/research/gpt-4
https://engineering.oregonstate.edu/all-stories/beyond-chatgpt-embodied-language-understanding
https://engineering.oregonstate.edu/all-stories/beyond-chatgpt-embodied-language-understanding
https://cdn.openai.com/research-covers/language-unsupervised/language_understanding_paper.pdf
https://cdn.openai.com/research-covers/language-unsupervised/language_understanding_paper.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1111/rec3.12422
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.10640
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601


66
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18743

Travagnin, S. 2023. “Artificial Intelligence Meets ‘The Three Teachings’: Chinese and Buddhist 
Perspectives.” In H. A. Campbell and P. H. Cheong (eds). Thinking Tools on AI, Religion & Culture. 
Network for New Media, Religion & Digital Culture Studies. https://doi.org/10.21423/
oak/1969.1/198190.

Wallace, E., F. Shi, N. Kandpal, M. Gardner and S. Singh. 2021. “Universal adversarial triggers for 
attacking and analyzing NLP”, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1908.07125.

Weizenbaum, J. 1966. “ELIZA—a Computer Program for the Study of Natural Language Commu-
nication between Man and Machine.” Communications of the ACM 9 (1): 36–45. https://doi.
org/10.1145/365153.365168.

Xu, A., Z. Liu, Y. Guo, V. Sinha and R. Akkiraju. 2017. “A new chatbot for customer service on 
social media.” In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing 
systems. 3506-3510. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025496.

Xu, X. 2023. “A Theological Account of Artificial Moral Agency.” Studies in Christian Ethics, 36 (3), 
642–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/09539468231163002.

https://doi.org/10.21423/oak/1969.1/198190
https://doi.org/10.21423/oak/1969.1/198190
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1908.07125
https://doi.org/10.1145/365153.365168
https://doi.org/10.1145/365153.365168
https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025496
https://doi.org/10.1177/09539468231163002

