This study explores the patterns of Artificial Intelligence (AI) use in information generation among theologians, with a focus on identifying the types of AI tools used, the contexts and purposes of their application, the perceived benefits, as well as the ethical concerns and challenges involved. With the rapid advancement of generative AI and its growing adoption in academic and religious circles, theologians are increasingly integrating AI technologies into their scholarly and ministerial work. The study adopts a scoping literature review method, drawing from peer-reviewed journal articles, books, conference proceedings, and relevant grey literature published between 2015 and 2025. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize findings in alignment with five key objectives. The results reveal that theologians commonly use tools such as ChatGPT, Logos Bible Software, Grammarly, and Otter.ai for tasks like sermon preparation, academic writing, translation, and doctrinal research. These tools are valued for their efficiency, accessibility, and support for multilingual and inclusive theological discourse. However, ethical concerns surrounding authorship, authenticity, doctrinal accuracy, and spiritual integrity remain prominent. In addition, challenges such as limited digital literacy, infrastructural barriers, theological conservatism, and absence of policy guidelines were identified as hindrances to effective AI integration in theology. The study contributes to the emerging scholarship on digital theology and AI ethics by mapping the evolving relationship between AI and faith-based information practices. It concludes by recommending the development of theological frameworks and ethical guidelines to support responsible AI use. Future research should explore lived experiences of theologians using AI in diverse cultural and denominational settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Olatoye et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: