A growing number of young adults are turning to artificial intelligence not just for information or productivity, but for matters of faith. New research from the Barna Group, conducted in partnership with faith technology company Gloo, suggests AI is becoming a significant spiritual conversation partner for Gen Z and Millennials, sometimes rivalling traditional pastoral authority.
According to the study, 40 percent of Gen Z and Millennial respondents say advice from AI is as trustworthy as guidance from a pastor or minister. The finding signals a notable shift in how younger Christians understand spiritual authority, placing digital tools alongside long-established sources such as clergy, Scripture and church community.
The research indicates that engagement with AI goes beyond curiosity. Roughly four in ten practicing Christians reported using AI to assist with prayer or personal spiritual growth, suggesting that chatbots are increasingly functioning as tools for reflection, devotion and moral decision-making.
For many younger believers, AI offers immediacy and privacy. Questions that might feel awkward in a church setting — doubts about faith, ethical dilemmas, or personal struggles — can be asked instantly and anonymously. The accessibility of conversational AI appears to lower barriers to spiritual exploration, particularly among digitally native generations.
Yet the findings also raise questions about how spiritual formation is changing when guidance is mediated through algorithms rather than relationships.
Researchers and social scientists warn that trust in AI differs fundamentally from trust in human spiritual leadership.
“Spirituality and religion have always involved placing trust in forces beyond human understanding,” said Douglas Yeung, a senior behavioural and social scientist at RAND. “But crucially, that trust has been mediated through human institutions: clergy, religious texts, and communities built on centuries of wisdom and accountability.”
That historical accountability, scholars argue, is difficult to replicate in AI systems. While pastors operate within theological traditions, ethical frameworks and communal oversight, AI responses are generated probabilistically, drawing from patterns in data rather than lived faith experience or pastoral responsibility.
The distinction becomes more significant when individuals seek guidance on consequential life decisions, questions such as vocation, relationships or personal crises, where context, emotional nuance and long-term pastoral care matter.
Concerns about reliability are not limited to theology. A recent University of Oxford–led study examining AI chatbots in medical decision-making found users often struggled to reach accurate conclusions when relying on chatbot guidance. Participants performed roughly on par with people using standard internet searches, highlighting the limits of conversational AI as an authority figure.
Researchers noted that problems frequently emerged not because chatbots lacked information, but because users supplied incomplete or unclear details. People often misunderstood responses or ignored advice they disliked, meaning confident-sounding answers could rest on flawed assumptions.
The same dynamics may apply to spiritual questions, where personal context, emotional state and theological background significantly shape interpretation.
Despite potential risks, Barna researchers do not frame AI adoption primarily as a threat to ministry. Instead, they see an emerging discipleship challenge and opportunity.
“Though the majority of practicing Christians remain the most cautious about embracing AI as a spiritual tool, their views are shifting and remain largely uninformed by their pastor,” said Daniel Copeland, Barna’s vice president of research. “There’s a real opportunity here for pastors to disciple their congregants on how to use this technology in a beneficial way, especially as pastors remain among the most trusted guides for integrating faith and technology.”
The study suggests many church leaders may be unaware of how frequently congregants already engage AI for spiritual questions. Rather than replacing clergy, researchers argue, AI may be reshaping expectations around accessibility, responsiveness and personalised guidance.
The rise of AI spiritual guidance reflects broader cultural changes in authority and trust. Younger generations increasingly assemble meaning from multiple sources — online communities, podcasts, social platforms and now conversational AI — rather than relying on a single institutional voice.
For churches, the question may not be whether AI becomes part of spiritual life, but how communities respond. If believers are already asking chatbots theological questions late at night, pastors and faith leaders may need to help shape how those tools are understood and used.
The Barna research ultimately points to a transition rather than a replacement: technology entering spaces once defined exclusively by human relationship. Whether AI becomes a supplement to spiritual formation or a substitute for it may depend less on the technology itself and more on how faith communities engage the moment now unfolding.
