Two weeks and forty-two thousand words later, I was stunned at what I had just read. In hindsight, I’m not quite sure what I expected, but this wasn’t it. I found myself impressed and surprisingly aligned. Having completed my own Being Human in the Age of AI seven-week series just a month before, I was amazed at how much synergy there was between Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical - Magnifica Humanitas - and my own thinking on AI from a Christian worldview.
Now, I’m not one to create unnecessary distance between our Catholic brothers and sisters and us Protestants. They put their faith in the same Lord Jesus that I do. That is not to say that I expected to be together on this though. First, I questioned how well the Pope would grasp the technology and thus its corresponding implications. Second, I wasn’t sure where his theology would land. But this was the most prominent Christian voice to speak on this pressing topic of our day. So, I was curious to read it — even if only to hear a voice to react to. I read the encyclical immediately, but it stuck with me. I have continued reflecting on it since and, now with some space to be thoughtful, feel the need to share my reflections.
I have to say, though, that I credit Leo for moving this critical conversation forward inside of the faith community. While the number of voices speaking and writing thoughtfully on this topic is growing, they remain few. We are in the early stages and this work engaged the questions – about both AI and humans – in a meaningful way that helps all of us to refine our views and build a framework. And, honestly, he didn’t just start a conversation. This was a comprehensive treatise on humans in this age of AI that was well founded on Scripture and the way of Jesus. While there is more to be said, these 42,000 words were well thought out and covered a lot of facets. Frankly, as I read through I found myself telling my wife how impressed I was with the perspective and how aligned it was with my own writings and views.
So, this Protestant pastor will be spending the next six weeks engaging with and responding to some of the key themes that most stood out to me as I read it. I will highlight where I agree and where I see things differently or would expand on them.
Two Cities#
Pope Leo frames much of this work through the picture of two cities that, to him, represent two approaches to engaging with AI. He includes this choice in the very first sentence and breaks it down further in the first true section. So, it is here we must begin.
He first points to the construction story of the Tower of Babel in paragraph 7 (each paragraph in the encyclical is numbered). If not familiar, this story from Genesis 11 captures the prideful construction of a tower to the heavens so that they could “make a name for ourselves” (Genesis 11:4). In the end, God exposes the folly of this by confusing their language and scattering them.
In his commentary, Leo signals the danger and limits of their efforts. Their pride and desire to be self-sufficient put them on dangerous footing. Their desire to prove themselves capable and build apart from God leads to failure. “The result is not unity, but dispersion.” (Paragraph 7) A project not oriented around God is flawed.
He contrasts this with the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem when the people return from exile from the book of Nehemiah. After hearing of the devastation of Jerusalem and turning to God in prayer and fasting, Nehemiah requested permission to return and rebuild. He organized the community to coordinate safety and reconstruction efforts. “It is an undertaking with God at the center, which rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones.” (Paragraph 8) Leo describes how this brings people back together with a shared language. This is not about uniformity but unity. This approach is undertaken with deference to and blessing from the Lord.
The pope portrays these as two polar opposite approaches to building. The Babel approach is birthed out of pride. It isolates and divides. It is undertaken apart from God and His ways. The Jerusalem approach is birthed from community and a goal for the well-being of all people. It unifies and connects. It is endeavored with God as the focal point.
Two cities. Two ways of building.
Two Approaches to Technology#
He then connects this two-cities framing with technology. Leo is not anti-technology. He notes how it can be used for the good of humanity. But also that it can cause harm. He argues – here and elsewhere – that technology is never neutral. This is because how it is constructed and put to use can have profound effects. As a result he argues that, “the primary choice is not between a “yes” or “no” to technology, but rather between constructing Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem; between a power that claims to dominate the heavens and a people who work together in the presence of God to rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence.” (Paragraph 9)
This framing carries through his entire encyclical — and is imperative for us to understand. Technology can be used for good or harm. Sometimes the harm is intended; other times it is caused without the full knowledge of the perpetrator. For that very reason, we need to be thoughtful about what, when, where, and how we use technology. We need to consider not just our own use but the upstream and downstream effects.
So, Pope Leo – as you might have guessed – urges us to choose the “way of Nehemiah.” He points to the risk of idolatry and dehumanization when we fall for “Babel syndrome.” His invitation is to collaborate and leverage AI so that it might benefit all of humanity.
Greg Cootsona – the Executive Director of AI and Faith – has a slightly different approach that I find intriguing. He sees the contrast not between Babel and Jerusalem but between Babel and Pentecost. He references the move of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 where each hears the messages in their own language. Here diversity is not sacrificed for unity. I think Leo would agree with that aspect of the comparison. And Cootsona believes they are resisting the same idol. My take is that, as these are serving as metaphors, neither will be perfect. I think both contrast Babel well.
A Deeper Question#
Leo uses this lens of what are we building towards throughout the entire paper. This is a choice that each person makes as they utilize technology. This is important and extremely relevant. I appreciate the biblical framing. Each person bears a responsibility to consider how the whole of their life – their use of technology and AI included – responds to God and impacts their neighbors.
As critical as this is, I think there is an earlier, deeper question that precedes it. Before “which city are we building?” or “which direction are we going?”, we have to ask “who are we?” Because the question AI is forcing on us is greater than “what can it do?” or “how do we use it?”
There are two key reasons for this. First, the rapidly increasing capabilities of AI keep asking us to define ourselves against it. Second, if we don’t properly understand who we are as humans we may find ourselves building these cities upon a faulty foundation.
AI has been seen by many as a threat to our humanity. When it breaches the territory that we once thought to belong to humans alone – language, reasoning, creativity, and strategy even – we are tempted to ask ourselves: what then are we here for? As we have often defined our humanity by our capabilities instead of who God created us to be, we find ourselves in a defensive posture against AI. We find ourselves questioning the nature of our being.
The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is not how do we operate the technology but who are we?
And this is found in the creation story itself. I've made this case at length elsewhere, but the heart of it is simple: we are made in the Image of God, declared very good, and created with purpose.
If we are defined by what we do, AI is the end of us. If we are who God made us – Image-bearers, declared and called – then what we do, and why we do it, is freed to become what it was always meant to be, and AI is just a clarifier.
It is only out of a deep understanding of our God-given value and purpose that we can properly explore how we build with AI.
The nature and purpose of humans as created, declared, and commissioned by God must be the foundation on which we build. To be fair, Pope Leo does return to human dignity later in his work. But I believe that the value and role of humans as Image-bearers must be the starting place, not a supplemental argument.
Leo and I are aligned on the dignity that precedes achievement, the formative nature of technology, and the use of technology for the good of all people and creation. However, even though he arrives at many similar perspectives, he gets there via an entirely different path.
Looking Forward#
Over the coming weeks I will be going deeper into the encyclical. We will explore worth, calling, formation, limits, and presence.
In the next article, we will explore worth and the “insidious” ideology that Pope Leo alerts us to. Come back next week to see what that ideology is and how a Protestant pastor reads it.
Whatever your perspective or angst with AI – indifference, dread, extreme optimism, fear, or existential questions – I want to invite you to explore over the coming weeks. This is more than an exploration of new tech and how to master it. Rather, it is an opportunity to remember who you are.
Would you join me as I continue to work out what it means to walk human in the age of AI?