AI cannot read and it cannot write because it is not conscious, and thus it has neither will nor discernment. It believes nothing, feels nothing, and knows nothing. It is we human beings, made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27), who read and write because we are conscious agents who desire knowledge and its benefits—at least when we are at our best. AI scans data and produces text. It is a machine. Some of it is impressive and some of it is even true. But we will not let that impress us as writers or replace us as writers.
We refuse it. The machine will not manacle our minds. We will never affix our names to text that we did not write. We will not outsource our personalities to impersonal programs, no matter how efficient or convincing or popular or profitable. We will not bear false witness (Exodus 20:16). We will not trust AI “research” if we cannot verify the source. We will disable or ignore AI suggestions on improving style. We will not let AI “edit” our work, but will rely on editors. We will interact with them on our terms. We will not use AI to “clarify” or to “sound more academic” or to “sound less academic” or to “write at a graduate school level” or for anything. We will not use AI to merge or edit documents. We will do research for ourselves. We will not use AI to save time if in saving time we lose our literary souls to AI.
We will teach others these commitments by precept and by example. As teachers, we will ban AI in the writing of our student’s papers. We will not use AI to grade students papers, since it knows nothing and can write nothing. We will evaluate our students work for ourselves. We yearn to teach students to develop their human potential in humane and personal ways, not to become technocratic text generators. We leave that to those who sell their souls to the Machine, God help them. Read more»Douglas Groothuis | “We Refuse it: A Manifesto on Generative AI Writing” | July 15, 2026
RESOURCES
- Subscribe to The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

One of the problems I have speaking about AI, is that our language makes it difficult to speak about AI accurately without a great deal of circumlocution. Using Alexa as an example, I say “Alexa told me this,” as if there were a person name Alexa who responded to me. But there is no person there. Or I say, “it told me this.” But there is not even an “it” there, in the sense of a single “thing” responding to me.
And if I try to think things out and say what I mean more accurately, I find that I’m tying myself up in linguistic knots, because our language forces me to speak as if I’m assuming something that isn’t really true.
We almost have to use anthropomorphic language, but it’s so easy to forget that’s all it is.
100% agree! I am on a quest to find biblical evidence against AI so that I can give good reason as to why it should not be used, and this helps! AI is totally evil.
Oliver,
FWIW, I wouldn’t say that AI is “totally evil” but we should cautious and, in this case, writers should do their own work.
AI covers a lot of ground. When I ask Siri for this or that (the weather, traffic conditions) I’m using AI. That’s not evil. It’s merely harvesting what’s available on the web.
But turning over writing (and perhaps even editing) to AI is to remove the human from the process of creation.