5 Shifts Toward Engaging the AI Brain with the Gospel
image credit: pixabay
In my last post, I addressed a present challenge to evangelism: cognitive offloading and cognitive surrender with the rise of AI. People often do not question their beliefs when confronted by an apologist. Though some will enter into engaging conversations and will consider the claims of Christ, confrontation makes one feel uncomfortable. And, especially if you are Muslim in a predominately Muslim context, like what my student, Walter, encountered, you are likely wanting to avoid conflict and not question your beliefs.
Enter AI to save the day.
Now, there is an authoritative source that will think for you and correctly respond to all questions and theological conundrums (according to the Muslim way). It will even serve as your personal apologist, rebutting biblical claims and posing difficult questions to the evangelist.
AI and the Mind
Michael Gerlich conducted surveys and interviews with 666 participants and found “a significant negative correlation between frequent AI tool usage and critical thinking abilities” (Michael Gerlich. 2025. "AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking." Societies 15, no. 6: 1). Younger participants in his study displayed a higher dependence on AI and lower critical thinking scores than older participants (Gerlich, 2025, 1). His conclusion was those using AI tools are more likely to allow them to serve as decision makers and thus reduce a person’s engagement in critical thinking processes (Gerlich, 2025, 23).
Chunpeng Zhai, Santoso Wibowo, and Lilly D. Li observed, “although AI tools can aid decision-making and improve efficiency, they often lead to reduced critical and analytical thinking skills, especially when students become overly dependent on AI-generated content” (C. Zhai, S. Wibowo, and L. D. Li. 2024. “The Effects of Over-Reliance on AI Dialogue Systems on Students’ Cognitive Abilities: A Systematic Review.” SmartLearningEnvironments, 11, Article No. 28. 2024, 15). Mohammed Zeinu Hassen summarized the views of many scholars when he wrote there is a “fine line between using AI as a tool for inquiry and succumbing to it as an oracle” (Mohammed Zeinu Hassen. 2025. "The Impact of AI on Students' Reading, Critical Thinking, and Problem-Solving Skills." American Journal of Education and Information Technology 9, no. 2:, 85).
A New Apologetic Method
Walter and I think there is a way forward in this new world, and we provide our suggestions below in this post. While there is a place for traditional apologetics, appeals to heart issues and honor, reviving Bible storying, and avoiding engagement with the machine may become parts of a new method. Getting an individual to question their epistemology (nothing new), in this case AI (something new), and setting aside the machine, may allow for missionaries to return to traditional methods that engage mental faculties.
Shift Toward the Longings of the Heart
It may be worthwhile to rethink how to share the gospel in ways that shift the initial focus from refuting beliefs to fulfilling people’s longings through Christ. It requires far less critical thinking for people to recognize their desire to be forgiven and loved than it does for the Muslim to understand the theological implications of Trinitarian theology or for an atheist to comprehend Thomas Aquinas’ classical cosmological argument for God’s existence. Jesus says to the hungry that He is the bread of life; to the thirsty, He provides living water; and to the weary and heavy laden, He offers rest (Matt 11:28-30, John 4:10; John 6:35). The Church ought to consider whether a rational defense of the faith should serve as the initial method of engagement.
Shift Toward (More) Storying
This is nothing new. However, in view of AI and its cognitive effects, missionaries ought to recognize the longings of the heart and focus on exalting the excellencies of God rather than a refutation of religion. They ought to spend more time studying the needs of the people and understanding how the gospel and specific stories in Scripture may be applied to them in their challenges.
Shift Toward Getting the Authority to Question the Authority
Just as traditional apologetics attempt to lead a person to question his or her epistemology, in a similar fashion, missionaries need to learn how to lead others to question their AI epistemology. And AI itself may be the solution to this problem.
For example, the missionary may type into ChatGPT a prompt asking AI to highlight the importance and benefits of human discussion regarding faith matters while also asking AI to articulate its limitations as a tool. Specifically, having AI explain the importance of interpersonal dialogue may serve as a helpful tool because many individuals view AI as a source of authority for truth in their lives. If such authority pointed people toward human dialogue, it would aid the missionary in having the attention of the individuals with whom they are communicating and, consequently, aid in sharing the gospel.
Walter shares his experience from the field:
Two of my teammates were sharing the gospel with their unbelieving friend over a cup of coffee. During this conversation, as they began to push against the traditional beliefs of Islam as they discussed the death and resurrection of Jesus, their friend began asking ChatGPT to refute what they were articulating about Christ…. My teammates were able to navigate the conversation and responses of their friend and AI in such a manner that caused their friend to question the reliability of artificial intelligence in religious discussions, resulting in their friend declaring that he was “not satisfied” with the responses of artificial intelligence.
Shift Toward Honor and Shame Conversations
Is it more honorable to have a conversation with a real person, or for you to default to AI? Like with judo where one controls his or her opponent, this question leverages the weight and momentum of the honor/shame context. The individual is placed at a cultural crossroads and faced with congnative dissonance: Will I do the honorable thing (which I’m supposed to do) with this human at this moment?
It is worth considering how AI may respond to his or her concern about human interaction. Consider Copilot’s response when asked: “Which is more honorable, to allow AI to speak for me in a conversation with another person about religion or actually engaging with the other person in a true conversation?”
If by “honorable” you mean showing respect for another person and for the truth you are discussing, then I would generally say that actually engaging in a real conversation yourself is more honorable than letting AI speak in your place.
Shift Away from Engaging the Machine
Getting AI to question its authority and point to honorable human interaction is not the same as using AI in the conversation. A missionary may consider inviting AI into the discussion with another person. However, this would be an unwise practice. In studying the effects of using large language models for information gathering, Nikhil Sharma, Q. Vera Liao, and Ziang Xiao concluded that “LLM-powered conversational search could lead to increased selective exposure and opinion polarization…suggesting the risk of ‘generative echo chambers’” (Nikhil Sharma, Liao Q. Vera, and Ziang Xiao. 2024. "Generative Echo Chamber? Effects of LLM-Powered Search Systems on Diverse Information Seeking," 15).
Practically, this means AI is designed to affirm what it considers to be the more encouraging and supportive responses based on one’s views. Walter illustrates from his observations and experience:
“AI often provides responses that align with each person’s previously held beliefs. Therefore, missionaries should refrain from seeking to navigate their unbelieving friend’s ChatGPT in such a manner that will result in it supporting Christianity. LLMs create echo chambers in which individuals will receive prompts that align with their worldview rather than ones that contradict their beliefs. A Muslim will likely receive messages in support of Islam, while a Christian will receive messages in support of Christianity.”
Final Thoughts
Churches and mission agencies are not prepared for this new reality. Most have not considered this matter. In fact, for most of you, this is your initial exposure to these challenges.
This is not the future; this is present reality. There is no time to wait a few years to research and develop a practical response. A new apologetic method is needed. New training is needed now.
As AI usage increases, cognitive offloading and cognitive surrender are likely to occur and result in decreased critical thinking skills. Missionaries should become familiar with evangelistic methods and conversational styles that rely less on critical thinking while learning how to navigate LLMs in such a way that leads the conversation to more interpersonal dialogue.