Imagine that a university's support service wants to respond to students who write late at night, alone facing a question of faith, guidance, or moral distress. Chaplains are not always available. A manager then proposes an assistant based on artificial intelligence (AI), capable of responding in a few seconds.
The idea seems practical. But if the tool misquotes a biblical text, minimizes suffering, or collects an intimate confidence, who is responsible? For the School of Theology, the question is not to reject the tool, but to know where to stop the delegation.
What is it, concretely?
In practice, more and more believers are asking conversational software biblical, moral, or pastoral questions. The tool receives a request, identifies keywords, relies on available texts, and produces a response that seems coherent. This can help prepare a study, summarize an article, compare translations, or find discussion points. The sensitive point arises when the response touches on faith, mourning, guilt, illness, or a life decision. An AI does not pray with a person, does not bear the responsibility of advice, and does not always know the context. When used properly, it remains an assistant, not a digital pastor.
Concrete case: what to do and what not to do
Questions to Ask Before Acting
Does AI prepare the work, or is it starting to replace the pastoral relationship?
Who reviews biblical, theological, or emotionally sensitive responses before dissemination?
Does the person know unequivocally that they are interacting with a machine?
What data is at risk of being sent: health, grief, sexuality, faith, family, finances?
Is there an immediate passage to a human in case of distress, crisis, or grief?
Does the tool respect theological tradition, the language used, and the African cultural context?
Can you publicly explain where AI is allowed, where it is prohibited, and who remains responsible?
UNIVGA Press
French 
English 