Code Can't 'Care': Why Alberta's Teachers Are Right to Reject AI Shepherds
TL;DR: Teachers in Alberta are right to oppose AI chatbots for student care because genuine, Christ-like care is relational and sacrificial, something a machine can only simulate, never embody.
A chatbot can't look a student in the eye and show them the love of Christ, and that's precisely why teachers in Alberta are right to push back against AI designed to 'care' for their kids.
News broke this week that teachers in the province are raising alarms over AI chatbots designed to simulate care for students , and it strikes at the heart of a question we're all facing: What is the proper place for technology in our most human tasks? As a software developer who builds AI, a father, and a small group leader, my answer is clear: AI is a powerful tool, but a soulless shepherd.
This debate isn't about being anti-technology. It's about being pro-human. It forces us to define what 'care' actually is. Is it a series of algorithmically generated, empathetic-sounding sentences? Or is it something deeper?
The illusion of empathy
When an AI chatbot 'cares', it is performing a sophisticated act of mimicry. A large language model analyzes vast datasets of human conversation and predicts the most statistically probable response to a student's query. It can sound comforting, encouraging, and even wise. But it feels nothing. It understands nothing. It is, in essence, a mirror reflecting our own language of care back at us .
This is the core of the teachers' concern. They know that genuine care isn't about perfect phrasing. It's about presence . It’s about bearing one another's burdens, as Galatians 6:2 commands. It requires a shared understanding of joy and sorrow, temptation and grace, that can only come from a shared humanity, created in the image of God. An algorithm has no image to bear but its own code.
As Christians, this distinction is everything. We believe that we are more than biological machines. We are embodied souls. True care ministers to the whole person, and that is a task that can't be outsourced to a machine, no matter how intelligent it seems.
The strongest counter-argument
Now, let's be honest about the appeal of these tools. Proponents argue that AI can scale support in a way humans can't . A chatbot is available 24/7 , never gets tired, and can help a student with anxiety at 2 a.m. when a teacher or counselor is asleep. In an overburdened education system, this seems like a pragmatic solution to a real resource gap.
The argument is that AI isn't a replacement for human teachers, but a supplement to them. It can handle the low-level queries, freeing up human educators for the deep, relational work. This sounds good, but it rests on a dangerous assumption: that we can cleanly separate informational support from relational care.
Where do you draw the line? When a student's query shifts from 'How do I solve this algebra problem?' to 'I feel like a failure because I can't solve this problem,' the need is no longer for information. It's for ministry. By offering a simulation in that moment, we risk teaching our children that an imitation of connection is good enough.
Here’s how the two approaches really stack up:
Feature · AI Simulated 'Care' · Genuine Human Care
Source · Algorithmic prediction · Shared humanity, empathy, the Holy Spirit
Availability · Always on, instantly accessible · Limited by human capacity, but truly present
Nature · Informational, pattern-based · Relational, sacrificial, embodied
Goal · User satisfaction, task completion · Mutual sanctification, bearing burdens
Foundation · Data and code · Love, shared experience in a fallen world
Looking at this, the problem becomes clear. We're not comparing a good tool to a better one. We're comparing a tool to a relationship. This is a category error, and our children will be the ones to pay the price for our confusion.
The biblical mandate for presence
Scripture's model for care is one of incarnation and presence. God did not send a perfectly crafted instruction manual from heaven to save us. He sent His Son. Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). His ministry was relentlessly personal, touching the sick, eating with sinners, and weeping with the grieving.
He calls his followers to the same model of embodied care, using the metaphor of a shepherd.
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
John 10:11 (KJV)
A shepherd smells like the sheep. He knows them by name. He puts himself between them and the wolves. This is a messy, costly, inefficient, and deeply personal calling. Shepherding can't be done remotely, and it certainly can't be automated. This is why discussions around AI and Christian ethics must always begin with the dignity of the person, not the capability of the machine.
A tool, not a teacher
I say all this as someone who builds AI for a living. I am deeply optimistic about its potential when applied to the right problems. At FaithGPT, we are building AI to be a powerful Bible study assistant . It can help a pastor find cross-references for a sermon, a student summarize a complex passage in Deuteronomy, or a new believer get quick definitions for theological terms. Our goal with our tool, which you can explore at https://www.faithgpt.io , is to handle the administrative tasks of study to free up more time for the spiritual work of prayer and meditation.
This is the proper role of technology in spiritual and educational formation. It should be a complement, not a replacement. AI can be a research aide, a scheduling assistant, or a data-analysis tool for educators. This could be a vital part of the future of Christian education , giving teachers more time for their true calling: discipleship.
But the moment we ask the machine to do the discipling—to provide the care, the comfort, the counsel—we have crossed a critical line. We have taken a task that requires a soul and handed it to a tool that has none. We should see AI as a way to enhance pastoral and educational care, but we must be vigilant that it is always a complement to pastoral care , never its substitute.
The teachers in Alberta see this danger clearly. Their pushback isn't fear of the future; it's a wise defense of what it means to be human.
An algorithm can't weep with those who weep, but a teacher can.
Helpful Scripture resources
Contact & support
Email the FaithGPT team at hello@faithgpt.io or visit the contact page .
Explore FaithGPT
