Beyond Capacity-Based Imago Dei: A Relational–Teleological Model for Theological Anthropology in the Age of Generative AI

Authors

  • Hestyn Natal Istinatun Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Kadesi, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
  • Louisa Marga Metekohy Universitas Pattimura Ambon, Maluku, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21580/teo.2026.37.1.31241

Keywords:

Imago Dei, Generative AI, Theological Anthropology, Relationality, Teleology, Human Dignity, AI Ethics

Abstract

This study examines theological claims concerning Imago Dei—particularly substantive, functional, and relational models—as its unit of analysis, in light of the rise of generative artificial intelligence capable of mimicking cognitive, linguistic, and social performance. The study aims to critically reassess the adequacy of these models and to formulate a more resilient theological framework that preserves human dignity without reducing it to measurable capacities or simulated interactions. Methodologically, the article employs a systematic-critical conceptual review of theological anthropology and interdisciplinary AI literature, combined with comparative analysis and systematic theological synthesis. The findings indicate that capacity-based interpretations render substantive and functional models vulnerable to technological replication, while purely relational accounts risk collapsing into phenomenological simulation. As a conceptual novelty, the article proposes a relational–teleological model of Imago Dei grounded in covenantal participation, vocational orientation, and embodied social existence. This model distinguishes between performative similarity and ontological participation, thereby clarifying the theological boundaries between human persons and AI systems. The study contributes to systematic theology by offering a coherent doctrinal reconstruction that is both conceptually robust and contextually responsive, while also providing a normative framework for evaluating AI in ethical, ecclesial, and public contexts.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2018). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 45–78). Sage.

Aquinas, T. (2002). Summa Theologica (pp. 112–145). Christian Classics.

Balle, S., & Nissen, J. (2023). Turning to the body: The responsive body hypothesis as a response to AI challenges of human uniqueness. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 58(3), 659–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12888

Barth, K. (1960). Church dogmatics III/1 (pp. 183–220). T&T Clark.

Bick, A., Blandin, A., & Deming, D. J. (2024). The rapid adoption of generative AI. NBER Working Paper No. 32966. https://doi.org/10.3386/w32966

Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. (2023). Generative AI at work. American Economic Review, 113(11), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20230357

Budhathoki, T., Zirar, A., Njoya, E. T., & Timsina, A. (2024). ChatGPT adoption and anxiety: A cross-country analysis utilising the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Studies in Higher Education, 49(5), 831–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2333937

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed., pp. 98–125). Oxford University Press.

Cave, S., Coughlan, K., & Dihal, K. (2019). “Scary robots”: Examining public responses to AI. AI & Society, 34(4), 759–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-018-0772-9

Coeckelbergh, M. (2010). Robot rights? Towards a social-relational justification of moral consideration. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(3), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9235-5

Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148

Deming, D. J. (2026). The rapid adoption of generative AI. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2025.02523

Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186

Dorobantu, L. (2021). Artificial intelligence: Human-level but non-humanlike. Theology and Science, 19(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1628/ptsc-2021-0006

Dorobantu, L. (2022). Artificial intelligence as a testing ground for key theological questions. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 57(1), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12831

Dreyfus, H. L. (2007). Why Heideggerian AI failed. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-007-9047-9

Floridi, L. (2014). The Fourth Revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality (pp. 67–95). Oxford University Press.

Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., et al. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5

Fuchs, T. (2018). Ecology of the brain (pp. 55–78). Oxford University Press.

Grenz, S. (2001). The social God and the relational self (pp. 143–176). Westminster John Knox Press.

Graves, M. (2023). Embodied experience in socially participatory artificial intelligence. Zygon, 58(4), 928–951. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12910

Gunkel, D. J. (2018). The other question: Can and should robots have rights? Ethics and Information Technology, 20(4), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9441-2

Gunton, C. (1993). The one, the three and the many (pp. 201–230). Cambridge University Press.

Herzfeld, N. (2012). In our image: Artificial intelligence and the human spirit (pp. 312–330). Fortress Press.

Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld (pp. 45–72). Indiana University Press.

Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800406

Jenson, R. W. (1999). Systematic theology (Vol. 1, pp. 145–167). Oxford University Press.

Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2

Kaunda, C. J. (2020). Bemba mystico-relationality. Zygon, 55(2), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12598

Kim, J., & Im, I. (2023). Anthropomorphic response. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107512

Krach, S., Hegel, F., Wrede, B., et al. (2008). Can machines think? PLoS ONE, 3(7), e2597. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002597

Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind (pp. 89–112). MIT Press.

McGrath, A. (2017). Christian theology: An introduction (6th ed., pp. 210–240). Wiley-Blackwell.

McKinsey & Company. (2025). AI in the workplace: Global survey report (pp. 12–28).

Middleton, J. R. (2005). The liberating image (pp. 45–78). Brazos Press.

Moltmann, J. (1985). God in creation (pp. 215–240). SCM Press.

Müller, T. (2025). Dangerous liaisons. AI & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02638-7

Noy, S., & Zhang, W. (2023). Experimental evidence on generative AI. Science, 381(6654), 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh2586

Nyholm, S. (2020). Humans and robots. Ethics and Information Technology, 22(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9493-4

Okoli, C. (2015). A guide to systematic literature review. Communications of the AIS, 37, 879–910. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03743

Pannenberg, W. (1991). Systematic theology (Vol. 2, pp. 221–243). Eerdmans.

Pentina, I., Hancock, T., & Xie, T. (2023). Exploring relationship development with social chatbots. Computers in Human Behavior, 140, 107600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107600

Peters, T. (2018). Imaging God in a technological age. Dialog, 57(4), 350–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/dial.12416

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed., pp. 45–82). Pearson.

Santoro, E., & Monin, B. (2023). The AI effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 107, 104464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104464

Shahzad, A., et al. (2024). AI conversational agents in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(12), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00478-x

Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. (2025). AI Index Report 2025 (pp. 45–78).

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together (pp. 135–168). Basic Books.

Verbeek, P. P. (2011). Moralizing technology (pp. 89–120). University of Chicago Press.

Watts, F., & Dorobantu, M. (2023). The relational turn in understanding personhood. Zygon, 58(4), 1029–1044. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12922

Westermann, C. (1992). Genesis: An introduction (pp. 36–37). Fortress Press.

Wright, N. T. (2004). After you believe (pp. 67–92). HarperOne.

Zhang, Y., Wu, M., Tian, G. Y., et al. (2021). Ethics and privacy of AI. Knowledge-Based Systems, 222, 106994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.106994

Zizioulas, J. (1985). Being as communion (pp. 27–65). St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Złotowski, J., Yogeeswaran, K., & Bartneck, C. (2017). Can we control it? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 100, 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.10.008

Published

2026-06-30

How to Cite

Istinatun, H. N., & Metekohy, L. M. (2026). Beyond Capacity-Based Imago Dei: A Relational–Teleological Model for Theological Anthropology in the Age of Generative AI. Jurnal Theologia, 37(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.21580/teo.2026.37.1.31241

Issue

Section

Articles