As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes embedded in corporate operations and decision-making, boards of directors are navigating uncharted legal territory. The integration of AI into corporate governance introduces not only strategic opportunities, but also complex legal implications.
Church boards have a fiduciary duty to act with care, loyalty, and good faith. As AI becomes a material part of church business operations, directors may increasingly be expected to understand how these systems work—at least at a conceptual level.
While not yet established as a law, courts may expect that directors exhibit a “duty of tech competence”, particularly in overseeing high-risk technologies. A lack of understanding or oversight could be construed as negligence, especially if an AI-related failure leads to harm or financial loss.
Artificial intelligence used in the board room may make or influence decisions that have significant impact. If these systems produce flawed recommendations or discriminatory outcomes, liability could fall on the church and its leadership.
Church leaders must ensure that AI tools are transparent, explainable, and regularly checked. Surrendering leadership decisions to AI does not release directors of their fiduciary responsibility. AI may not be used as a scapegoat for decisions that have gone awry or has caused harm.
Artificial intelligence absorbs massive amounts of data, some of which may include personal, financial, or proprietary information. Improper handling of this data could violate privacy laws.
Boards must verify that AI systems adhere to data privacy laws and that vendors have clear data governance policies. Directors should ask: Where does our AI get its data? How is it stored? Who has access?
Boards must ensure that HR-related AI tools are audited for bias and comply with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance. Oversight mechanisms should be in place to document AI’s role in people decisions.
AI-generated content or decisions may raise questions about intellectual property ownership. Courts have not settled the question of who owns insights or inventions created with the aid of AI. Boards should consult legal counsel to clarify the church’s rights and responsibilities regarding AI-created assets.
When using third-party AI providers, churches should carefully manage contractual risks. Church leaders must weigh if liability limits are in place. Churches should look for indemnities or warranties in contracts. Church legal teams should determine if recourse is available if the AI system fails.
Boards should direct their legal teams to conduct thorough vendor due diligence and negotiate AI-specific clauses in contracts to protect the church from operational or reputational fallout.
Church boards may get lulled into a false sense of security when it comes to AI. This happens when leaders begin to defer too much to AI insights, undervaluing human intuition, experience, or dissenting views. Groupthink, blind spots, or ethical considerations may be overlooked in favor of “data-driven” but contextually flawed decisions.
Church Boards must stay ahead of evolving regulations and ensure the church has a legal framework in place for AI governance, including policies for transparency, accountability, and human oversight.
Artificial intelligence can enhance boardroom and ministry governance—but only if its risks are managed with human intelligence. Church leaders must treat AI oversight as a core governance role, not just an IT issue. By understanding the legal landscape, church directors can ensure their institutions lead responsibly in the age of intelligent machines.