Evangelicals and AI: A Guide to the NAE's 2026 Resolution
TL;DR: The NAE's landmark October 2026 resolution on AI establishes a biblical framework for engaging with technology, prioritizing human dignity and moral responsibility.
The National Association of Evangelicals' October 2026 resolution on artificial intelligence establishes three core biblical priorities for Christians engaging with technology. It calls on believers and policymakers to champion human dignity over profit , safeguard children from algorithmic harm, and ensure humans retain final moral responsibility in high-stakes decisions.
Key takeaways
The NAE's resolution, adopted on October 5, 2026 , provides a foundational ethical framework for evangelicals on AI policy.
Its central theme is the primacy of human dignity , rooted in the biblical truth that all people are made in the image of God.
The document issues an urgent call to protect children from manipulative and harmful technologies, urging corporate accountability.
It firmly rejects the idea of delegating moral judgment to autonomous systems, especially in areas like justice, security, and healthcare.
The resolution serves as a practical guide for churches, families, and individuals to apply biblical wisdom to their use of technology.
The NAE's 2026 AI Resolution: Key Data
This resolution is a benchmark document. Pastors, Christian journalists, and public policy advocates will likely cite it as the most comprehensive evangelical statement on AI ethics to date. It offers a shared vocabulary and a set of biblical principles for a conversation that is moving incredibly fast.
How to use this data: Use these points to inform church teaching, guide small group discussions, or write to elected officials about technology policy from a principled, faith-based perspective. The three pillars provide a simple, memorable grid for evaluating any new technology.
Attribute · Detail
Issuing Body · National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) Board of Directors
Adoption Date · October 5, 2026
Principle 1 · Prioritize human dignity over corporate profit.
Principle 2 · Safeguard children from online and algorithmic harm.
Principle 3 · Resist removing human moral judgment from high-stakes decisions.
Source Document · Evangelicals and AI: NAE Resolution
What is the NAE's 2026 resolution on artificial intelligence?
The resolution is a formal declaration from the National Association of Evangelicals' Board of Directors that outlines a biblical framework for approaching AI. Adopted on October 5, 2026 , it’s not just an opinion piece; it is an official position meant to guide millions of evangelical Christians and inform public discourse. It establishes clear ethical guardrails grounded in Scripture, focusing on three non-negotiable areas: human dignity, child safety, and moral accountability.
Think of it as a theological anchor in a sea of rapid technological change. As a software builder myself, I see the dizzying speed at which AI is developing. Without a firm foundation, it’s easy for the church to be purely reactive, either dismissing the technology entirely or embracing it without discernment. This resolution provides a wise, proactive starting point for thinking, talking, and acting.
Why did the NAE issue a resolution on AI now?
The timing is intentional and urgent. AI is no longer a futuristic concept; it is embedded in our daily lives, shaping everything from our newsfeeds to our job applications. The NAE recognizes that the church cannot afford to wait until the negative consequences are irreversible. This resolution is a call for Christians to engage thoughtfully now , while the rules of the road are still being written.
It addresses a growing sense that technology is developing faster than our ethical capacity to manage it. Systems are being deployed at massive scale with profit as the primary motive, often with little regard for the spiritual and social costs. The NAE is stating clearly that Christians have a stake in this, and our allegiance is to the kingdom of God, not the bottom line of a tech company.
What does the resolution say about human dignity?
The first and most important pillar of the resolution is the call to prioritize human dignity over corporate profit . This is a direct application of the most fundamental Christian anthropology: that every person is made in the image of God and possesses an intrinsic, God-given worth that transcends their economic utility.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
> Genesis 1:27
The resolution pushes back against a purely utilitarian view of humanity. In a world increasingly run by algorithms, it's easy to reduce people to data points to be optimized. We see this in AI hiring tools that screen out qualified candidates based on biased data, or in gig-economy platforms that manage workers with cold, unforgiving algorithms. These systems can strip away the personal, relational aspects of work and commerce, treating people as means to an end.
By putting dignity first, the NAE insists that technology must serve people, not the other way around. It asks us to judge a new AI not by whether it's efficient or profitable, but by whether it affirms or diminishes the Imago Dei in the people it affects. This is a radical, counter-cultural standard for our tech-saturated age. You can find more analysis on this specific principle in our guide to the NAE's biblical framework for AI policy .
How does the resolution address the impact of AI on children?
The second pillar is a passionate plea to safeguard children from online and algorithmic harm . As a father of two boys, this hits me right where I live. We are the first generation of parents raising children in a world where their primary social inputs might come from a machine. The resolution acknowledges the profound spiritual and developmental risks this poses.
These risks are concrete. They include social media algorithms designed to foster addiction and anxiety, AI-powered 'friends' that offer a counterfeit for real relationships, and the exposure of children to content that is deeply inappropriate. The resolution rightly identifies that these are not neutral tools; they are powerful systems that are actively shaping our children’s hearts and minds, often with goals that are antithetical to a Christian worldview.
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
> Proverbs 22:6
This isn't just about parental vigilance. The NAE is calling for systemic accountability. It's a challenge to the tech industry to redesign its products with the well-being of children as a primary constraint, not an afterthought. And it's a call for policymakers to create and enforce rules that protect the most vulnerable among us. We are stewarding the next generation, and that includes protecting their spiritual and psychological formation from systems designed to exploit their attention. It’s a challenge I’ve written about before, as we navigate a world where my son's new friend might be an algorithm .
What does it mean to resist removing human moral judgment?
The third pillar of the resolution is to resist removing human moral judgment from high-stakes decisions . This is perhaps the most theologically robust point. It affirms that God has entrusted moral agency and accountability to human beings, and we cannot abdicate that responsibility to a machine.
High-stakes decisions include things like criminal sentencing, medical diagnoses, military targeting, and access to social services. The temptation to automate these processes is strong because machines can be faster and, in some narrow ways, more consistent. But they lack the essential qualities necessary for true moral reasoning: wisdom, mercy, compassion, and a conscience.
An AI can process millions of legal precedents, but it cannot understand justice. It can analyze a medical scan with incredible accuracy, but it cannot exercise compassion. Delegating a life-or-death decision to an algorithm is an attempt to escape the burden of moral accountability that God has placed on us. Scripture is clear that we will all answer for our choices.
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
> Romans 14:12
This principle insists on keeping a human in the loop, not just as a rubber stamp, but as the final moral authority. It means that no matter how smart the machine gets, a person must bear the moral weight of the final decision. AI can be a powerful advisor, but it can never be the judge. This is a critical line to hold as we think about the relationship between AI and Christian decision-making .
How does this NAE resolution compare to other Christian statements on AI?
The NAE's statement joins a growing chorus of Christian voices seeking to apply timeless truths to modern technology. While unified in the core belief in human dignity, different traditions often bring unique perspectives. The NAE’s focus is distinctly evangelical, emphasizing biblical authority and personal responsibility.
Other traditions contribute to the conversation in complementary ways. For example, the Catholic Church, building on its long history of social teaching, often emphasizes the common good, solidarity, and the impact of technology on labor and the poor. Mainline Protestant denominations might focus more on social justice implications, asking how AI affects marginalized communities and structures of power. This diversity of thought is healthy and necessary, as you can see in reviews of recent Christian AI summits .
Here’s a simplified look at how these approaches might compare:
Tradition · Core Principle Emphasis · Typical Scriptural Anchor · Primary Concern
Evangelical (NAE) · Human dignity and moral responsibility · Genesis 1:27 (Imago Dei) · Abdication of God-given moral agency
Catholic (Vatican) · The common good and solidarity · Matthew 25 (The least of these) · Dehumanization of labor and the vulnerable
Mainline Protestant · Social justice and liberation · Luke 4:18 (Good news to the poor) · Reinforcement of systemic bias and inequality
What are the practical implications for churches and individual Christians?
A resolution like this is only as good as its application. It’s a call to action, not just a document to be filed away. For pastors and church leaders, this is a mandate to teach on technology with biblical clarity. We need to equip our congregations to think Christianly about their digital lives, moving beyond simple rules about screen time to a deep theology of technology.
For individual Christians and families, the implications are very personal. It means we must become discerning users, not passive consumers. We should ask hard questions about the apps, platforms, and devices we welcome into our homes. We should advocate for policies and products that align with these biblical principles, using our voices and our dollars to support technology that affirms human dignity.
Ultimately, this is a discipleship issue. Forming a biblical view on a complex topic like AI requires being grounded in God's Word. Tools that help us do that, like the Bible study resources we build at FaithGPT , can be a great support. The goal is to let Scripture shape our thinking so we can engage with the world, including its technology, with wisdom and faithfulness.
A Christian's AI Policy Checklist
Based on the NAE's resolution, here are some practical questions to ask when evaluating any new AI tool, platform, or policy. Use this as a guide for your family, church, or workplace.
1. Does it Uphold Human Dignity?
Does this technology treat people as unique individuals made in God's image, or as data points to be optimized?
Does it promote meaningful human connection or replace it with a synthetic substitute?
Who profits from this technology, and who bears the cost? Does it empower the vulnerable or exploit them?
2. Does it Protect Children?
What data is being collected from my child, and how is it being used?
Is the design of this product intended to capture and hold my child's attention for as long as possible?
Does this tool encourage active creativity and learning, or passive consumption?
Does it expose my child to values or content that conflict with our faith?
3. Does it Preserve Moral Responsibility?
In a high-stakes decision, who is ultimately accountable if this AI makes a mistake?
Does this system replace human wisdom, discernment, and compassion, or does it augment them?
Is there a clear and accessible way for a human to override the machine's recommendation?
Does using this tool make me more or less responsible for my choices?
Frequently asked questions
Is the NAE against artificial intelligence?
No. The resolution is not a rejection of technology, but a call for its responsible and ethical development and use. It encourages Christians to engage with AI from a place of biblical wisdom, steering it toward human flourishing rather than allowing it to be driven solely by profit or efficiency.
What is 'human dignity' in a technological context?
In this context, human dignity refers to the intrinsic worth every person has because they are created in the image of God. It means that people should never be treated as mere objects, data sets, or tools. Technology should respect our agency, privacy, and relational nature, rather than reducing us to our utility.
How can I get involved in shaping AI policy?
Start by educating yourself and others in your church or community. You can also contact your elected representatives to let them know that you care about ethical technology policy. Supporting organizations that advocate for human-centered technology is another great way to make a difference.
Does this resolution apply to AI in ministry?
Absolutely. The principles of upholding human dignity, exercising pastoral care (especially for the young), and retaining moral responsibility are just as important, if not more so, in the church. AI can be a useful tool for ministry, but it can never replace the relational work of discipleship, counseling, and community.
Where can I read the full NAE resolution?
The official resolution was approved by the NAE Board of Directors on October 5, 2026 . You can find the organization's formal announcement and related materials on its website. The source document can be accessed here: Evangelicals and AI: NAE Resolution .
What's the difference between AI ethics and Christian AI ethics?
General AI ethics are often based on philosophical frameworks like utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number) or deontology (rule-based duties). Christian AI ethics are grounded in the character and commands of God as revealed in Scripture. This means our starting point is not a human-centered philosophy, but divine revelation, with principles like Imago Dei , stewardship, love for neighbor, and moral accountability before God.
Helpful Scripture resources
Contact & support
Email the FaithGPT team at hello@faithgpt.io or visit the contact page .
Explore FaithGPT
