AI Researcher Cheryl Contee on What Mission-Driven Organizations Should Know Now

Cheryl Contee, co-author of *AI for Nonprofits: Putting Artificial Intelligence to Work for Your Cause*, spoke with Religion News Service about the intersection of artificial intelligence and faith-driven work, offering what the outlet reports as a corrective to widespread misunderstandings about the technology and a case for its intentional use by mission-led organizations.

According to Religion News Service, Contee's framing centers on keeping human judgment and values in a directing role, rather than treating AI as either a threat to be avoided or an autonomous force to defer to. Her work addresses nonprofits and similar organizations that may feel uncertain about where to begin with AI tools.

Why This, Why Now

The conversation arrives at a moment when AI tools have moved from specialized technology into everyday workflows, including within churches, charities, and advocacy organizations. Many mission-driven groups operate with limited staff and budgets, making decisions about technology adoption consequential. At the same time, public discourse on AI tends toward either alarm or uncritical enthusiasm, leaving practitioners with little measured guidance. Contee's work, as described by Religion News Service, attempts to occupy that middle ground.

Who Is Affected and What Is at Stake

Faith communities and nonprofits stand to be meaningfully affected by how they engage, or do not engage, with AI. Organizations that adopt these tools thoughtfully may extend their capacity for service, communication, and outreach. Those that adopt them without discernment risk diminishing the relational and ethical quality that distinguishes mission-driven work. Both outcomes are live possibilities, and the choices being made now are likely to shape organizational culture for years.

What Remains Unknown

The Religion News Service feed summary does not reproduce the full interview, and the specific myths Contee addresses, the particular tools she recommends, or the theological framework she brings to the conversation are not detailed in the available source material. Readers wanting the full substance of her argument should consult the original piece directly. It also remains an open question how broadly her recommendations translate across the wide diversity of faith traditions and nonprofit contexts.

---