61% of pastors now use AI weekly. But 91% of leaders support it while only 6% have policies. Here's the data, what it means, and exactly what to do next.
February 2026Catalyst Ridge Advisory
Research Backbone
This briefing synthesizes findings from Barna Group, Exponential, American Bible Society, Lifeway Research, and Hartford Institute for Religion Research, alongside independent analysis and advisory insight from Catalyst Ridge Advisory.
The Opportunity & the Tension
Your congregation is watching. Some of your staff are already using AI—probably without telling you. Your peers in neighboring churches are experimenting with it for sermons, newsletters, and admin work. And every week, new tools promise to automate what used to take hours.
This could be liberation or a minefield, depending on how you lead it.
The tension is real: AI can genuinely help your ministry run better. Faster bulletin production. Smarter outreach. More time for pastoral presence. But it also introduces risks that feel unfamiliar to church leadership—theological contamination, trust breaches, privacy exposures, and the slow erosion of the human touch that makes church, church.
The good news? The data is clear. Church leaders are asking smart questions. You don't need to become an AI expert. You just need to lead with clarity, set boundaries, and communicate with transparency. And you need to do it soon.
What the Data Actually Says
Here are the six most important findings from our research, verified across independent sources. Each stat includes context so you know exactly what you're looking at.
61%
Pastors Using AI Weekly or Daily
Up from 19% in 2023. This represents 221% growth in three years. AI is no longer experimental—it's routine ministry practice.
91%
Leaders Who Support AI
Up from 8.7% in 2023. The leadership appetite for AI is strong, but governance has not kept pace.
6%
Churches with Formal AI Policies
73% have no policy at all (Exponential 2025). This 85-point gap between enthusiasm and governance is a vulnerability.
64%
Pastors Using AI for Sermon Prep
But only 12% are comfortable with full sermon generation (Barna Group). Pastors are self-imposing wise boundaries.
28%
Congregants Who Feel Hopeful About AI
72% are not hopeful. There's a significant trust gap between pastoral excitement and congregational comfort.
37%
Who'd View Pastor Negatively If AI-Assisted Sermons Were Disclosed
Another 33% are unsure. Transparency is critical—if congregants discover AI use without disclosure, trust breaks.
Data Context & Nuances
This figure comes from the Exponential 2025 survey of 594 church leaders with a ±5% margin of error. The question measured pastors who reported using AI tools (ChatGPT, Grammarly AI, Copilot, etc.) weekly or more. The growth from 19% (2023) to 43% (2024) to 61% (2025) shows acceleration, not just steady adoption. Notably, this does not distinguish between heavy users and occasional users—a pastor who uses AI once weekly counts the same as one who uses it daily. Tech-forward churches may be overrepresented in the sample.
Most churches haven't faced a crisis yet. AI governance feels abstract until something breaks—a pastor uses a tool that retained confidential prayer requests, or a congregant discovers their sermon was partially AI-generated. By then, damage is done. The 85-point gap between leadership support (91%) and formal policies (6%) suggests that enthusiasm has outpaced preparation. Churches are moving fast without guardrails.
The fact that 64% use AI for research/brainstorming but only 12% are comfortable with full generation reveals pastoral wisdom. Pastors understand that a sermon is not just information—it's a spiritual gift. Using AI to surface commentaries, historical context, or illustration ideas is supportive. Generating a full sermon removes the pastor's spiritual authority. This boundary is both theologically sound and practically wise.
Why This Matters for Your Church
The Real Opportunities
AI can genuinely reduce administrative burden, freeing you for discipleship and presence. A newsletter that drafts itself. Scheduling that coordinates itself. Transcripts that auto-generate. Bible cross-references that surface instantly. Time reclaimed for what only you can do.
The risk isn't AI itself. The risk is using it invisibly, theologically carelessly, or in ways that breach trust.
The Real Risks
Here are the four that matter most:
Trust Breach
If congregants discover AI-assisted sermons without disclosure, they experience it as deception. Trust broken is trust hard to restore.
Theological Drift
AI trained on the secular internet reflects materialist, utilitarian assumptions. Without theological review, you risk inconsistency with your doctrine.
Privacy Exposure
If a staff member feeds prayer requests or financial data into a cloud AI tool, you've exposed confidentiality. Many leaders don't realize this is happening.
Depersonalization
Over-reliance on AI for communication replaces incarnational presence with algorithmic efficiency. The human touch is irreplaceable in ministry.
The Gen Z Discipleship Gap
57% of Gen Z Christians want guidance on AI in personal decisions (Barna Group). But only 14% of pastors see this as important (Barna Group). Your younger members are asking for wisdom you haven't yet prioritized. This is a discipleship opportunity, not a tech problem.
Where Do You Fit?
You've read the data. You know the risks. Now find out where your church stands on AI adoption readiness. Take a free assessment and see what your church needs to focus on first.
Exponential 2025 Surveyn=594 church leaders, ±5% margin of error. Used for: 61% weekly/daily adoption, 91% leadership support, 64% sermon prep use, 73% lack policies, 87% willing to train.
Cross-Verification Sources
American Bible Society (State of the Bible 2024)Peer-reviewed research. Used for: 28% congregant hopefulness, 37% negative reaction to AI-assisted sermons.
Barna GroupProtestant pastor surveys with rigorous methodology. Used for: historical comparison on adoption rates.
Lifeway ResearchSouthern Baptist research arm. Used for: verification of policy gaps and leadership sentiment.
Christian Post, Faithwire, CBN NewsIndependent religious journalism. Used for: contextual reporting on adoption trends.
MIT Technology Review, Hartford InternationalAcademic sources. Used for: theological and ethical framing.
