Matt Menger

Tag: ethnodoxology

  • The Ethics of AI and Ethnoarts

    Note: Within SIL, I am working on a similar statement on how we, as an organization, will work with AI and the arts. The following are my own thoughts.

    Introduction

    The emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) represents a massive shift in the world of creative expression and the arts. For me, this technological shift offers opportunities to accelerate progress in some areas, but also new ethical and missiological risks. 

    In my ministry, I  want to use AI in ways that honor people and their communities, not in ways that exclude or hinder flourishing and creativity. I work for SIL, and we are committed to increasing our AI expertise, specifically in non-exploitative approaches, with an emphasis on ethics. Yet this exists in tension with our other priorities, especially our desire to be locally rooted. 

    The Lausanne Movement published an extensive reflection on Christian Faith and Technology that considers the implications of AI and other technologies from various perspectives. Some might consider AI as a tool, and therefore neutral—its value depends on its use. In the Lausanne document, they address this perspective and note that:

    A better way to consider an improved relationship between technology and humans is to recognize that our technologies are value-laden. That is, they exist and are used because of certain values and ways of seeing the world present in the human community that created the technology. These values shape what technologies to develop, the kinds of knowledge and processes used to make them, and the moral framework not just of their end use, but also how they shape and are shaped by the communities they are embedded in.

    In this way of thinking, the relationship between AI and the arts is complex. AI is not neutral; it also reflects the values and “ways of seeing the world” of its creators and the materials on which it was trained.1 The use of AI is not simply a matter of the products it can create, but also of how its use (and the interaction with its products) shapes the community. A foundational guiding statement for me is a quote from a doxology at the end of the Lausanne paper: “Lord, let us always use our technological skills in the loving service of you, and through that service seek the well-being of our neighbors.” Within this concept, how can I use or condone AI in ethnoarts? This document and the following principles outline my thinking on the use of AI in artistic creation within the context of cross-cultural ministry. 

    Seven Principles for AI and Ethnoarts

    1. Intelligent Delegation

    We should use AI to empower humans, not render them unnecessary. Ethnoarts values human authorship. Artistic expressions can be complex congeries of words, emotions, histories, narratives, situations, feelings, ideas, and more. While AI might be able to translate text accurately and usefully in some cases, I believe it cannot generate an artistic expression that carries the accumulated ideas, grief, joy, and history of a specific people group without engaging in a form of mimicry that rings hollow.2

    We must practice intelligent delegation.3  VerifiedHuman™ describes the important distinction of works being “essentially human-authored,” and I strive for the minimum level of VH3 in their Human–AI Collaborative Spectrum. This might mean allowing AI for certain technical tasks while reserving other, more creative tasks for humans. All work involving AI should also be thoroughly checked and tested by humans.

    2. Keeping People First

    People should come first in any application of AI in the arts. My theological foundation is found in Philippians 2:3-8, in the incarnational model of Jesus. Brian Schrag outlines this within the framework of “Be With—Learn From—Work Toward.”4 Any application of AI should be founded in this relational dynamic. The arts are embodied: they are products of community life. AI is a disembodied product, likely introduced from outside the community, and it lacks connection to place and personhood. Important questions to ask are: Who owns an AI-generated artistic product? Who feels proud of it?

    A healthy community values people. If local artists are replaced—or feel replaced—the community suffers. This is a consideration not only for AI but also for electronic musical instruments, such as programmable electronic keyboards, arranger workstations, looping pedals, and other technologies that can replace multiple musicians. I desire to ensure technology amplifies the voices of artists rather than silencing them. 

    3. Prioritizing Transformational Process over Product

    The process of artistic creation is important, not just the final product. Transformation occurs within a community and among its artists as they wrestle with and through the process of artistic creation. The process is not merely a means to an end (a product), but a site for discipleship, identity formation, and transformation. Working with Scripture to express it artistically can be deeply transformative for the artist and, in turn, for those who encounter the resulting artwork. The one experiencing the artwork is not simply consuming content, but empathizing with and participating in the creator’s spiritual engagement. I will continue to make art and encourage others to do the same, even though I could generate products with AI, because I believe art shapes people and culture throughout the process of creating it and interacting with it.

    The value of an artistic expression is linked to the human agency required to produce it. AI-generated artistic expressions risk becoming objects for consumption, bypassing important opportunities for creativity. Automating the creative process with AI overlooks many important elements, such as the transformational dynamics of the creative process, community ownership of the product, and community participation in and affirmation of artistic expressions.

    I measure the impact of the arts on people and communities, not the volume of production.5 AI-generated content might be more affordable or efficient to produce, and the ethics of efficiency and availability versus quality and process are complex. Even as AI can generate new ideas and speed up processes, it can diminish our human ability to imagine and practice intuition. While efficiency or speed may at times be valued by some above human creativity, I believe that when a process is automated, transformation ceases.6

    4. Focusing on Local First

    At present, AI music generation suffers from data bias, and I do not envision this improving significantly for minority communities. AI models are predominantly trained on dominant, readily available Western artistic expressions and struggle to accurately replicate unique local artistic systems. In music, this can mean that microtonal harmonies, vocal timbres, instrument sounds, song forms, complex rhythms, tempo variations, and more are lost or Westernized within a concerning neocolonial dynamic. This reinforces the need for community-centric methodologies, such as Creating Local Arts Together, and other processes that I use.

    My ministry is tied to the flourishing of communities. If I deploy tools that extract data and return synthetic pseudo-culture, I compromise my identity as a trusted partner and advocate. If I use AI to attempt to recreate local artistic styles, particularly within minority communities, the output is usually little more than a dim reflection at best. It is often fundamentally tuned to Western ears and eyes. 

    When a community hears AI music, or an AI musical instrument, they hear, for example, the sound of “a bass,” but not “our kasteh” (a 2-stringed bass instrument from Halmahera, Indonesia). The link to ownership and place is broken, and the local is stripped away as the embodiment of musical creation is removed.

    5. Honoring Community Rights

    In many cases, training of commercial AI models occurs without the informed consent of communities and artists. This is an ongoing debate in the Western world, but it equally applies to any AI model that claims the ability to create local or “ethnic” artistic expressions. I want to position myself as an advocate for and steward of local communities’ data rights. 

    In the case of AI-generated artistic products, ownership is complex. Does the community own their AI creations, does the company that created the AI own them, or can anyone take and reuse them, possibly for commercial purposes? I will never use AI products to generate artistic expressions without these conversations with communities.

    6. Maintaining Transparency

    All AI products must be clearly labeled. Communities, artists, and anyone who interacts with artistic expressions I am involved with should clearly know whether products are human- or AI-generated. I encourage pride in being creative, and applaud initiatives such as VerifiedHuman™, which provides a helpful spectrum for understanding how AI is used in creative ventures and ways for creators to proudly display that their work is essentially human-generated.

    This raises important questions: If we are unwilling to claim ownership of or take pride in AI-generated artistic expressions, should we make them, or encourage their creation? How do communities and end-users feel and respond when they become aware that an artistic expression is either fully or partially AI-generated? How does this impact engagement?

    7. Learning with Humility

    I recognize that technology and AI are rapidly evolving. It is likely that AI models will continue to improve and localize, and may be able to create more appropriately in the future. Many other organizations or people may be utilizing AI for creative endeavors in ways I may find concerning. In partnership, I may find myself in difficult situations as I consider how and whether to collaborate on ventures involving AI and the arts. Beyond the clear ethical issues, my general approach is to preserve space for careful discernment, attentive listening, and learning together. I should never fear to ask, “What if I am wrong?” I will gently work alongside others with different views to improve and educate about the use of AI in the arts, recognizing that their work may not yet fully align with my ideals. Rather than ignore or refuse to collaborate, I choose to encourage them toward what is better.

    Conclusion

    In light of these principles, I affirm the importance of working with communities to discern together how and whether AI should be used in their artistic and spiritual expression. I seek for AI to remain a servant of human creativity, community participation, and local ownership rather than a substitute for them. My calling is not to produce artistic products, but to walk alongside communities as they encounter God’s Word and express it through their own unique artistic voices. While AI may assist and sometimes support human creativity, it must never displace the relational, incarnational, and transformational dynamics at the heart of my work. As technology evolves, I will continue to engage with AI and encourage others to do the same with discernment and faithfulness, always seeking to ensure that people, languages, and communities flourish as active creators in God’s redemptive work.

    Resources

    Cheng, Adam, Aaron Calhoun, and Gabriel Reedy. 2025. “Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Academic Writing: Recommendations for Ethical Use.” Advances in Simulation 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-025-00350-6.

    “Christian Faith and Technology.” n.d. Lausanne Movement. Accessed February 18, 2026. https://lausanne.org/occasional-paper/christian-faith-and-technology.

    COPE. 2023. “Authorship and AI Tools.” Accessed February 13, 2026. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools.

    Crouch, Andy. 2022. The Life We’re Looking For. First Edition. Convergent Books, an imprint of Random House.

    “Ethics of Artificial Intelligence – AI | UNESCO.” 2026. Accessed January 27, 2026. https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics.

    “Ethics Statement | SIL AI & NLP.” 2026. Accessed February 18, 2026. https://ai.sil.org/ethics.

    Kaufman, Gil. 2026. “SZA Feels Like She’s ‘At War Because of AI,’ Slams ‘Weird, Stereotypical Struggle Music’ Being Generated By Artificial Intelligence.” Billboard, March 6. https://www.billboard.com/music/rb-hip-hop/sza-at-war-ai-weird-struggle-music-artificial-intelligence-1236194236/.

    Knöchel, Tim-Dorian, Konrad J. Schweizer, Oguz A. Acar, et al. 2025. “Core Principles of Responsible Generative AI Usage in Research.” AI and Ethics 5 (6): 6371–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00768-8.

    Leo XIV. Magnifica Humanitas [Magnificent Humanity]. Encyclical letter, May 15, 2026. The Holy See. https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html.

    “Protocols for Using First Nations Cultural and Intellectual Property in the Arts | Creative Australia.” 2025. Accessed February 18, 2026. https://creative.gov.au/first-nations-arts/protocols-for-using-first-nations-cultural-and-intellectual-property-in-the-arts.

    Schrag, Brian. 2025. Creating Local Arts Together (Revised and Updated). William Carey Publishing.

    TJC. 2023. “The New Frontier: Artificial Intelligence, Copyright and Indigenous Culture.” Terri-Janke.  Accessed November 30, 2025. https://www.terrijanke.com.au/post/the-new-frontier-artificial-intelligence-copyright-and-indigenous-culture.

    Tomašev, Nenad, Matija Franklin, and Simon Osindero. 2026. “Intelligent AI Delegation.” arXiv:2602.11865. Preprint, arXiv, February 12. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.11865.

    VerifiedHuman. 2026. “VerifiedHuman | Human-Made Content Certification.” Accessed March 10, 2026. https://www.verifiedhuman.info/

    1. See also Magnifica Humanitas by Pope Leo XIV. In Paragraph 92 he writes that “technology is not simply a tool. When it becomes the standard by which everything is judged, it begins to dictate what matters and what can be discarded, reducing creation to an object of exploitation and human beings to mere cogs in a system driven toward ever greater efficiency.” ↩︎
    2. In an interview with Billboard, the singer SZA describes the issue of AI creating “weird, stereotypical struggle music” that she finds offensive. This is one example of AI attempting to speak for a community in way that the community itself may find unacceptable (in this case African-Americans). AI has not experienced their “struggle,” so is it able to speak on their behalf?
      ↩︎
    3. A good rule of thumb for intelligent delegation is to be able to describe what you’ve delegated to AI and who is accountable for it in one sentence. ↩︎
    4.  Schrag, Brian. 2025. Creating Local Arts Together (Revised and Updated). William Carey Publishing. Page 26. ↩︎
    5. In his book The Life We’re Looking For, Andy Crouch notes: “Human beings may well benefit, for example, by having access to unlimited amounts of recorded music from all over the world and from the whole history of recorded music. Sure enough, technology is glad to provide that—at an economic profit to the owners of streaming services, although not in a way that sustains more than a handful of actual working human musicians. But human beings also benefit enormously from making music, which requires deep communal instruction, personal attention, and years of practice and preparation. This, alas, is a kind of benefit technology cannot readily provide—at least not profitably—so technology does not particularly “want” to help. So we end up with the world we have, where more music is consumed than ever and less music is created, especially by ordinary people in economically sustainable ways, than ever” (emphasis added). ↩︎
    6. In paragraph 140 of  Magnifica Humanitas, Pope Leo XIV notes, “Educating people about the use of AI, then, involves teaching them to decide when and for what purpose it ought not to be used. The speed and ease with which answers or summaries can be obtained risk extinguishing the desire to ask questions, which is a process that bears fruit only over time.” ↩︎

  • Thoughts on Christian Research

    As long as I have known him, Brian Schrag has quipped that research is ministry is love. That statement captures something essential, true, and profoundly biblical. In the hecticness of our work, where projects and goals dictate our rhythms, it is easy to rush past the sacred moments that make research meaningful—that make research into ministry. As Christian researchers, we strive to capture more than just data, and we are motivated by more than knowledge of the world—we aim to understand deeply, uncover beauty, and see lives transformed.

    Creating Local Arts Together explores a relational dynamic based on the life of Jesus and found in Philippians 2: be with–learn from–work toward (Schrag 2013, xxii). Just as Jesus did, we spend time with people and learn from them. Together, we work toward a better future, a flourishing community, and transformed lives. More recently, I listened to an episode of The Discerning Leader Podcast featuring photographer and videographer Amy Murgatroyd (Macchia and Murgatroyd 2021). I was captivated by how intensely she thinks about her work, capturing glimpses of the lives of families in images. As I listened, I reflected on how connected her approach is to how I think about research.

    In this paradigm, research begins with slowing down. In a frantic world, pausing to observe, listen, and learn is an act of resistance. We stop, step back from assumptions, and try to see and know what is before us. Christian researchers do not simply collect data; they enter into relationships with people, noticing the small, beautiful, ordinary, and profound. They are co-creating with the community, knowing and being known. This relationality reveals something more significant about the human condition, the Kingdom of Heaven, and the need for Good News.

    Christian researchers should be humble. Much like Amy Murgatroyd frames an image to center on the subject and their story rather than herself and her story, the researcher diminishes themselves to foreground those they learn from. The best research does not impose meaning; it invites the observer to ask: What is being revealed here? What story is unfolding? And as Christians: What is God doing? Understanding others’ lives and experiences requires intellectual curiosity and profound love. We seek not to impose our own narrative but to uncover truth, goodness, and beauty. Empathy points us toward that deep human longing for knowing and being known.

    Researchers, like photographers, try to capture and share what they see. Good research does not manufacture but reveals: It honors the participants by allowing them to speak. Our work is about helping communities flourish. People long to be noticed, understood, and known. Research from a Christian perspective is not merely about collecting data or proving something; it is about relationships. As researchers, our work is an act of love—paying attention, listening well, and creating space for the beauty of God’s creation to be revealed as lives are transformed.

    References

    Macchia, Steve, and Amy Murgatroyd. 2021. “Capturing Emotive Images | Discerning God Emotionally and Relationally Episode 04 – Leadership Transformations.” The Discerning Leader Podcast. Accessed November 22, 2024. [https://www.leadershiptransformations.org/podcast/2021/10/14/capturing-emotive-images-discerning-god-emotionally-and-relationally-episode-04/.]

    Schrag, Brian. 2013. Creating Local Arts Together: A Manual to Help Communities to Reach Their Kingdom Goals. Edited by James Krabill. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

  • When Words Fall Short

    A few weeks ago at South Main Baptist Church, I heard an Advent sermon on songs in Luke—I had never pieced it together before I heard it said this way. Four times in the events surrounding the birth of Jesus, singing breaks out. God reveals himself, and the response to that revelation is a song. I’m struck by how, when overwhelmed by the glory and greatness of God, the response is artistic. Here, creative expression is the only proper response to God’s revelation.

    The first we encounter is Mary’s song:

    And Mary said:

    “My soul glorifies the Lord

    and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

    for he has been mindful

    of the humble state of his servant.

    From now on all generations will call me blessed,

    for the Mighty One has done great things for me—

    holy is his name.

    His mercy extends to those who fear him,

    from generation to generation.

    He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;

    he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.

    He has brought down rulers from their thrones

    but has lifted up the humble.

    He has filled the hungry with good things

    but has sent the rich away empty.

    He has helped his servant Israel,

    remembering to be merciful

    to Abraham and his descendants forever,

    just as he promised our ancestors.

    The New International Version Lk 1:46–55.

    The narrative of Luke has been moving along quickly. In just a few verses, Mary hears from the angel Gabriel that she will have a baby (the Messiah), and she sets off to visit Elizabeth. But then, Luke’s narrative pauses for us to hear and ponder with Mary what all this means—to hear her response in song, praising God and telling us why. There is beauty in this artistic form, packed as it is with parallels and juxtaposed related lines, stretching and expanding the meaning of the words. Her song is her response to the miraculous, a proclamation of the good news: that the new life growing within her is God’s plan for salvation in motion. Mary celebrates the action of God toward humans—God is fulfilling his covenant.

    Next, Zechariah’s voice is restored as he names his son John. The first sound from his lips is a song:

    His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied:

    “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,

    because he has come to his people and redeemed them.

    He has raised up a horn of salvation for us

    in the house of his servant David

    (as he said through his holy prophets of long ago),

    salvation from our enemies

    and from the hand of all who hate us—

    to show mercy to our ancestors

    and to remember his holy covenant,

    the oath he swore to our father Abraham:

    to rescue us from the hand of our enemies,

    and to enable us to serve him without fear

    in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.

    And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High;

    for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him,

    to give his people the knowledge of salvation

    through the forgiveness of their sins,

    because of the tender mercy of our God,

    by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven

    to shine on those living in darkness

    and in the shadow of death,

    to guide our feet into the path of peace.”

    The New International Version Lk 1:67–79.

    Yet again, Luke’s narrative momentum stops for a song. He asks his readers to pause and reflect on all that is happening and what it might mean. Through the Holy Spirit, Zechariah communicates the significance of all that has happened thus far from God’s point of view. He responds to what God has done and is about to do: God has come (v. 68), and God will come again (v. 78). Zechariah reminds us that we are rescued so that we can respond in service (v. 74).

    The third song is shorter and divine in origin: the angels burst forth in praise after the good news is told to the shepherds:

    Glory to God in the highest heaven,

    and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.

    The New International Version Lk 2:14.

    This song is cosmic worship, and though the story of salvation isn’t finished yet, enough is clear about what God is doing that responses of joy and praise erupt from the angelic host. The angels join the chorus of voices already lifted in God’s honor, offering a heavenly perspective on the birth of the Messiah. They push the universal significance of these events into more explicit focus: hints of salvation for both Jew and Gentile have already appeared, and now the divine messengers declare that good news is meant “for all the people” (v. 10) and that peace has arrived “on earth” (v. 14).

    Finally we hear from Simeon. Like Zechariah, he is a righteous man associated by Luke with the temple, and he too responds in song through the Holy Spirit:

    Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,

     you may now dismiss your servant in peace.

    For my eyes have seen your salvation,

    which you have prepared in the sight of all nations:

    a light for revelation to the Gentiles,

    and the glory of your people Israel.

    The New International Version Lk 2:29–32.

    Also like Mary, he praises God and then expounds on why. Simeon sees salvation at hand and God’s promises coming to fulfillment.

    I marvel that all four of these responses are sung. Words alone would not suffice, and artistic expression completed the message. Luke and these four songs remind us that artistic expression is a natural and powerful response to God’s revelation. These songs are not mere embellishments to Luke’s narrative; he pauses the story to allow us to reflect, worship, and proclaim the good news. When words alone fall short, the creative arts enable us to stop and respond to God with the beauty that His revelation demands.

    A note: Some people wonder whether these four passages were songs or just spoken. I believe they are songs because many respected, recent commentaries call them that, and those theologians are more knowledgeable than me about these things. Also, there are some interesting ideas that these were collective songs, and the reason they are preserved in such clear poetic form for Luke to document is because many people knew the songs and could quote them easily to him. If they just “said” the words, I don’t think their speech would have included all the artistic features they do and that Luke would have set them apart the way he did. And we memorize songs a lot easier than speeches or even poetry. At the very least, even if we can’t say they were sung, we can safely say they are artistic expressions—communication set apart from everyday speech. These are special kinds of communication. We can’t know for sure, but singing is the more reasonable answer based on what we know about that culture and how they communicated.