319. Can Christian Creators Use Generative AI to Save Culture?

Gatekeepers everywhere. If they’re not “Big Hollywood” trying to fence out Christian creators, they’re natural barriers like lack of resources. Then along comes the siren call of generative AI. It is said these tools can boost creators’ art powers and help them dodge burly guards at the gates! Of course, these programs also generate quite a ruckus. But apart from disputes over job changes and environmental impacts lies one greater question for us fans—can all these cool tools actually help Christian storytellers make amazing new works that change our world? Episode sponsors Twist of Time by Tricia Goyer and Nathan Goyer Realm Makers 2026 Conference & Expo Author Update from Author Media Iffy Eats Monsters for Breakfast by Bryan Timothy Mitchell Mission update New at Lorehaven: new reviews of The Donor and more Subscribe free to get updates and join the Lorehaven Guild 1. Yes, if we use gen-AI as tools, not minds. Stephen is first to admit some hatred of AI has grown very foolish. Undoubtedly these may include absurdist political activisms. You may have facts/opinions about data centers and water use. And you may want to “beat China,” or else not care about that. But some of us at Lorehaven never first relied on those arguments. If you marry that “spirit of age,” pro– or anti-AI, you’ll be widowed. Instead we asked about the biblical purposes of humans and art. So all we say here needs to be the Scriptural steel-man version. What if tech lords did make AI cheaper? Built in space? Won big? Your support/opposition to any tool should remain the exact same. Stephen prefers one guiding idea: use AI as a “tool,” not “mind.” “…Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can’t see where it keeps its brain?” —Arthur Weasley in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J. K. Rowling 2. Maybe, with biblical human safeguards. In this case, biblical reason supports mastery over tools, not verse. This isn’t just about AI or any technology, but universal to creation. Mankind can abuse anything as an idol or use it for God’s glory. AI is a special case when it is generative, “making” “new” “art.” Creators have different opinions on how/whether to use this. Stephen does refuse to use generative AI in basically all respects. Nothing he writes, at any stage of the process, is AI-generated. However, he will use AI programs as tools for research/tutoring. These programs excel at gathering/repeating public information. When it’s “scraped” from free sources, that seems more ethical. Researchers, however, should know to cite primary sources. Creators can do that may aim closer for biblically ideal creativity. But if creators refuse, and “outsource” their own minds to tools? Well, they’ll get lost in the slop and will reach creative dead ends. 3. No, if we rank ourselves over fan interests. A few activists seem overly bullish on using AI as substitute-minds. They’re the opposite to reflexive (and short-sighted) AI haters. Some even call loudly for Christian-made art, quick, easy, good(?). This seems a strange cope, short-sighted, and reality-challenged. The cope: some creatives have not made it far past previous gates. They do seem to think mechanical tools will solve human problems. Short-sighted: Christians do already use AI to generate “artworks.” Example: Jon Erwin with House of David season 2 and Old Stories. Yet we don’t hear much about these. That may tell us something. Reality-challenged: this is where Stephen may end the debate. Clear aside all talk of ethics, gatekeepers, policies, impacts. Four simple words blow up gen-AI optimism: Thanks, I hate it. That’s all you need to end all this hoopla about gen-AI revolutions. If the people don’t want it, they don’t want it. And that’s that. Right now, people don’t want it. How do we know? We asked AI. Stephen queried three AI programs with this question: Apart from the debates over cost, environmental impact, economy shifts, and all the politics, especially among leaders in big tech and government … what could we say is the public’s general *impression* in response to AI-generated images, movies, music, and other artworks? Is the public’s stated response good, mixed, or negative? Any particular trend-lines to note? Response from ChatGPT (excerpt, more optimistic): Public sentiment is neither uniformly positive nor uniformly negative — it skews positive for convenience, novelty, and clear utility, but is strongly negative or cautious when authenticity, creator rights, trust, or deception are at stake. Response from Gemini (excerpt, mixed-negative) If you strip away the high-level policy debates and economic anxiety, the general public’s stated response to AI-generated art—images, music, movies, and literature—is highly mixed, but leaning increasingly negative and protective of human creativity. While people love playing with the tools as novelties, the moment they switch from being creators to consumers, a distinct psychological shift occurs. Data from major public opinion studies (like Pew Research, Stanford HAI, and various consumer tracking surveys) highlight several fascinating, counterintuitive trend-lines regarding how the public perceives AI art. (bold emphasis in original) Response from Grok (excerpt, mixed-negative) Mixed, with a lean toward negative or skeptical once people know something is AI-generated—particularly for standalone or fully AI-created works—though curiosity and practical utility exist. Public impressions are nuanced: many appreciate the technology as a tool or for novelty/entertainment, but there’s consistent preference for human-created art, emotional depth tied to human experience, and transparency. Pure AI outputs often face backlash as “slop,” lacking authenticity. (bold emphasis in original) If even AI programs reflect this skepticism, that’s big. Even an AI skeptic like Stephen sees its use in aggregate “polls.” Anyone claiming optimism about AI is logically bound to hear this. Apart from AI is anecdotal evidence. Few fans want gen-AI stuff. Right now, fans are praising films with practical, human-made art. They like the indie-horror movies and Project Hail Mary, no AI. And they love the new Spider-Man trailer with suits and shadows! Some makers boast AI will save time and bypass the big gates. But if fans don’t like that “slop,” the maker simply indulges himself. That’s fine for personal enjoyment but not for real service to others. We’ve already seen this with bad Christian human-made stories. If we’re practical, why we intentionally clash with the market? Even if fans want to make AI slop, they do not want others’ AI slop. And if we’re idealistic, why make inhuman slop for human souls? We lose all high ground at claiming to be more virtuous and godly. We would lose all the how-it’s-made stories behind the stories. Remember that whole AI-generated-actress thing? Flash in a pan. But people love the deeply human Tom Holland (who’s wise on AI!). Not only that, we’ll be wildly and foolishly off documented trends. There may be a place for gen-AI content, in memes or political ads. In other words, this stuff is disposable “art.” Yet it will not last. If we want to save today’s culture, gen-AI is certainly no savior. And if we want to grow and train others, AI could become a villain. Com station Top question for listeners As a fan, how do you feel when you learn any “art” is generated? The Adaptation Stationmaster replied to episode 317: It’s actually pretty rare for me to mourn when a good TV show ends. I feel like too many of them go on too long past their peak because they’re popular. It’s kind of nice to see them decide to go out on a high note instead. One Guild hero (and his wife) grieve over Star Wars: My wife and I had just seen the second third Star Wars sequel. I didn’t like it, but she was devastated. Star Wars wasn’t just a story she appreciated. It was part of the tapestry of her life, woven into some of her best memories. She had put so much of her time and love into that galaxy far, far away, and in that moment it felt like it was broken beyond repair, forever. Her restoration started with the books. Star Wars has one of the widest bodies of expanded universe lore, so even she could find something new to dig into. … It’s an odd place. In one sense, the universe is still destroyed. Star Wars has lost its place at the top of the pop culture pyramid, and may not ever take that place again. Through that, it might lack the largesse that allowed it become such an expansive universe in the first place. But, her place still existed. I think that’s where many of us will find ourselves in the coming days: wishing for the grand galaxies of yesterday, but finding only little pockets of warmth among the stars. Next on Fantastical Truth We’re recording this episode before Realm Makers! So once we return, we’ll have a better idea of what topics to cover. But in general, we can say that we’re pleased to have met or re-met so many Lorehaven fans at that expo. Lord willing, we’ll see you again in St. Louis next summer!