AI & Typography: A Christian-Theistic Look

Carl Shank • December 10, 2025

AI & Typography: A Christian-Theistic Present Look

Monotype Corporation recently released their 2025 Report concerning Artificial Intelligence and Typography called Re-Vision (See https://bit.ly/4aEUePf). This eReport looks at the various typographical, social and cultural issues surrounding AI and how it affects and impacts the craft and science of typography. A selected summary of the Report is available below.


What I want to do in this brief post is to address three questions that were raised in this Monotype report — What is it that we do that a machine will never be able to do? What is an essentially “human” typographic experience? Can AI be fully commanded, and interrogated, or will technology sanitize our vision and overthrow our own artistic hands?


While AI holds forth some fascinating and interesting scenarios for the future of typography, my own deep dive into the technology, as a pastor/theologian/ typographer has given me both an appreciation for the technology and suitable warnings for our humanity. A couple of seminars I conducted on AI have helped me frame the discussion with God-given “human” insights. The human concerns keep surfacing here — Will AI replace us in some significant way? Will AI even surpass us in its ability to accomplish things that we always thought were unique to human efforts? Will AI eliminate the Picasso’s? Or the Gutenberg’s? Or the Garamond’s? Or the Baskerville’s? Or the many other typographical giants through the centuries? Will AI robotics replace our relationships? How will AI integrate with our typographical and cultural journeys?


The specter of a post-human world where we have an  informational pattern over material existence, and our bodies are an accident of history and unnecessary, where consciousness is merely a secondary result of our evolution, where the body is merely a prosthesis, an artificial part, where human beings can be wedded with intelligent machines, and finally where we are merely a “sum of our parts,” no longer needing divine intervention, guidance or creativity, looms before us in AI.


Christopher S. Penn, Almost Timely News, noted on August 3 of this year that “AI is advancing so rapidly that if your preferred tool or ecosystem doesn’t have a useful feature today that another platform does, there’s a very good chance in 3-6 months that your tool/ecosystem will. Overall, AI’s capabilities, in terms of the complexity of tasks it can handle, doubles roughly every 6 months. A task AI couldn’t do a year ago, it can probably do in some capacity today if the model’s architecture permits it.” 


“The true menace of AI is not so much what it’s capable of doing today, but rather that it doesn’t rest. An AI program can learn, evolve, iterate, and work 24/7. Give it a job and it will toil sleeplessly until the task is complete. That’s a wonderful advantage if the job is, say, parsing cancer research data, but less so if it’s practicing and refining a creative craft that threatens to eventually put thousands of people out of work.” (Re-Vision Report, Monotype, Winter 2025)



As a Christian typographer and thinker, I am reminded of the biblical story of the tower of Babel in Genesis 11 — “This is autonomous self-aggrandizement and bringing God down to us rather than us worshipping him. Babel stood—and still stands today—as a type of the earthly city, in rebellion against God. . . . They name their city Bab-el, Akkadian for “gate of the gods,” but God makes their ambition a byword for babel: a near homonym for the Hebrew word meaning “confusion.” God gives Babel or Babylon a different destiny and meaning and forces his sovereign will on mankind.” (Christopher Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory)


To be made in God’s image means we are not just able to process and display, but we are called to create and express ourselves. This is a wonderful, glorious thing. But when we use that creativity to fashion something to think, speak, and create for us, we start to abdicate our role as Imago Dei and in a sense become less human. By delegating our God-given task to coding, we deny who we are and who God is.


The technology manager of the Seminary I attended noted this — “When the massive flood of AI-generated content drowns out both the well-crafted painting shared on Instagram and the random shower-thought posted to X, we might finally understand that the punishment for the idol maker is true. Our voices will be buried under the rising volume of AI-content, our vision will be blinded by the warping and blending of reality, and our hearing will be deafened by the noise of AI voices speaking AI-generated opinions.” ( Paul Quiram, Mgr. Ed Tech, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, PA)


Campbell goes on to say that “To recreate the work that designers have been doing since the days of illuminated manuscripts and the Gutenberg Bible is no simple feat,” Campbell rightly points out. “At this stage in the evolution of AI tools, the models built on statistical probabilities struggle to recreate the simple beauty of well-designed, meticulously crafted typography.”


What is it that we do that a machine will never be able to do?

What Monotype found out in their reporting about AI now is that the technology is clearly lacking in typographical preciseness and artistic coherence. “But for better or for worse, it turns out that AI is fairly bad at drawing letters. In a recent piece in The Atlantic (a piece that, it should be noted, was sponsored by Google), writer Drew Campbell observed that while AI knows many words and may already know all the words there are to know, it “stumbles” when “creating the literal letterforms that construct each syllable, clause, and paragraph.” (Monotype and see “Typography Reconsidered,” Drew Campbell, The Atlantic at https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/google/typography-reconsidered/3886/)


In my own experimentation with AI tools in typographic design, I asked ChatGPT to give me a typeface in Rotunda rounded Gothic type of the 15th century in the letters, ABCdeg. This is what it came up with. Looks “like” rounded Gothic, but not really. I also asked AI to give me those letters with the typeface of Romaine du Roi, a very carefully crafted typeface of the Enlightenment Period in the 1700s. It came up with these letters, a terrible rendering.


Of course, this does not mean that AI cannot ever duplicate these typographical periods and faces. But it does point to the need for “human” based typographical input and guidance and critique. Monotype’s conclusion — “Whether the work is done by our team or others in the industry, we believe human beings should remain central to typographic ideation.”


Christopher Penn offers four ethical tests or guards to be applied to AI which can easily apply to typographical standards and creations —"Respect — Does our use of AI respect the values we've established? Harm people? Devalue people? Accountability — Who is responsible for AI outputs? Does the AI dodge liability? Fairness — What known biases does any given AI model have? Transparency — The more transparency, interpretability, and explainability there is in any AI system, the safer it is. The more trustworthy it is.” (Almost Timely News: The Ethics of AI by Christopher Penn, August 17, 2025)


“AI should not be feared, but designers are yet to form a consensus. What feels pertinent is that we as design “humans” define the value we bring to our role in ideation and execution. If nothing else, AI has prompted introspection on creative methodologies, a reappraisal of our relationship to technology.” (Monotype Report)


From a Christian ethical point of view, “We must engage these issues, rather than respond after their effects are widely felt. But we don’t have to face today or tomorrow with fear. God is sovereign and his Word is sufficient for every good work, so we are able to walk with confidence as we apply his Word to these challenges with wisdom and guided by his Spirit.” (Jason Thacker, The Age of AI: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity, Zondervan, 2020)


It is only fitting that we should give an AI generated summary of the Re-Vision Report by Monotype. Click on the image for a PDF Summary of that Report.

Successful Layout & Design

King James Bible Typography

By Carl Shank • April 7, 2026
The King James Bible (KJV), commissioned by King James 1 in 1604 and published in 1611, has been a profound Bible translation and masterpiece of beauty through the ages. It has been one of the most influential English translations of the Bible. Its history combines politics, religion, and literary achievement in early modern England. It has an elevated, poetic style that influenced many later writers. It has been prized for its literary beauty, historical continuity and memorability in public reading and worship (ChatGPT).

Responding to AI and Digital Babylon

By Carl Shank • April 6, 2026
Responding to AI and Digital Babylon H. Carl Shank April 4, 2026 Austin Gravley, a former Social Media Manager of The Gospel Coalition, and now the Director of Youth Ministry at Redeemer Christian Church in Amarillo, TX, is writing a book on AI and the digital revolution taking place. He compares this Digital Babylon and its captivity and its exiles to Christians living under the overwhelming influence of an active anti-Christian developing AI. Piecing together his comments with those of many others on the advancing scene of AI on our lives, several themes come to mind. First, AI is not God. While there are some in the Silicon Valley who might wish or see AI as a unifying, ontological force that can shape or rule our lives — the Super Machine —others remind us that this is only technology. And as advanced as AI is and becomes, God is still sovereignly in control of it and our lives. Jason Thacker, professor of philosophy and ethics at Southern Seminary and Boyce College, writes — “We must engage these issues, rather than respond after their effects are widely felt. But we don’t have to face today or tomorrow with fear. God is sovereign and his Word is sufficient for every good work, so we are able to walk with confidence as we apply his Word to these challenges with wisdom and guided by his Spirit.” ( The Age of AI: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity , Zondervan, 2020) A recent storm that darkened my community and scuttled Internet services reminded me of that. Even AI data centers, growing to over 3,000 in 2025 nationwide, are not immune to power disruptions and total blackouts. AI pundits may claim to have control procedures to keep the Internet and AI running cannot promise it to be so. We need to keep this in mind in the Digital Babylon age, as was needed to be kept in mind by Israel in the Babylonian Empire age in biblical times. Babylon went through many iterations, but will be defeated by God at the end of the day, as noted in Revelation. Digital Babylon will experience the same demise. This is not prediction, just Bible truth. We as believers need to hold on to such truth. Second, AI is still technology. Indeed, advanced and advancing technology, but not human. Matthew Schultz in a recent mereorthodoxy.com article notes— “Technology has existed since the Garden and is an integral component of our cultural mandate. We should also remember that one of the core distinctions between the Creator and his creatures is that we never create matter but merely (!) rearrange it. This becomes clear whether we consider an ancient farmer in Mesopotamia irrigating a plot of soil, a medieval peasant in Northumbria weaving a basket from flax, or a young musician in London taking the raw outputs of machine sound, adjusting its pitch, volume, and length, and incorporating it into a DAW loop. While there are all sorts of important distinctions and qualifications between pre- and post-industrial craft, there is no metaphysical distance between the two.” ( Artificial Intelligence Is A Technology , Feb. 26, 2026). AI may be the harbinger of a new Industrial Age, but though changes will be major and sometimes severe, the human side of the equation cannot be discounted or counted out. Part of my retired status as a pastor and theologian is that of a typographer restoring old type faces and doing a deep dive into the history of type. Two historical typographical truths stand out. Although the Renaissance age brought movable type from Gutenberg and others into the machine age, the typographical flair of those ancient scribes with pen-drawn exquisite type remained a stylistic standard. The second note is that with the Industrial Age, while affecting the quantity and speed of type development and printing, master type craftsmen rebelled against machine driven type for more organic typefaces. This was seen, for instance, in the type movement spawned by William Morris (1834–1896). William Morris was an Arts & Crafts designer who founded the Kelmscott Press (1891), reviving hand craftsmanship in printing. His work influenced the twentieth century private press and type revival movements. Lettering became a vehicle for breaking convention. Led by figures such as Morris, there was a decided reaction against industrialization, seeing machine-made goods as dehumanizing and ugly. Handcraftmanship, honesty in materials and utility fused with beauty made up much of what was called the Arts & Crafts Movement. That movement was rooted in medieval guild ideals and morality in design. (For an expanded history of type development, see “Advances in Typography: A Historical Sketch — Three Parts” in the blogs by CARE Typography, www.caretypography.com , Nov. 8, 2025, Nov. 18, 2025 and Nov. 20, 2025) Third, AI affects everyone everywhere. Austin Gravely, a former Social Media Manager of The Gospel Coalition, raises and answers the query — “’So what?’, you may think. ‘I’m not an Internet technician. I’m not a fan of AI. I’m not planning to change how I use the Internet. Why does any of this matter to me?’ To put it bluntly: you are naive if you think these disruptions won’t directly affect you, or indirectly affect you through the effect they will have on others. If the iPhone, social media, and AI have taught us anything, it is that you are impacted by these events regardless of whether you participate in them or not.” ( The State of the Internet: 2026 , mereorthodoxy.com, March 30, 2026) He goes on to say — “A changing Internet will change you. It will change you in ways you can see and in ways you can’t. It will change those you live with, work with, play with, build with, and fight with. It will change what is possible, probable, permissible, and prohibited in your life, your vocation, your church, your neighborhood, and any other physical space the Internet touches.” I recall my 99 year old mother who passed away a couple of years ago in a nursing facility. She was one of those survivors of the Great Depression and World War Two who dismissed the first moon landing and had her flat screen TV removed from her room for fear the government was watching. She lasted for nine years in the same private room in a modern nursing center. She was attended by doctors and nurses and staff who used AI on their computers and other care devices. She even had a modern digital phone removed from her room and refused to learn it. While she personally rebelled against her AI driven machine age, she could not escape those who used such technology for her care. We cannot isolate ourselves from AI and its advancing development, no matter how isolated we try to be. Fourth, AI can be either a blessing or a curse. Again, Matthew Schultz notes — “Our task is not to develop a unique theology of AI but to catechize our members into a people who can wield this technology without becoming captive to its internal logic. Like alcohol, artificial intelligence will become a test of character, a dangerous good that divides the foolish from the wise.” He says “Yet the greatest danger is both more pervasive and less obvious: AI is much more likely to be deployed as a multiplicative layer that allows ever more efficient micro-targeting of digital services and physical products by industries that already profit from compulsive behavior. The advent of hyper-personalized, real-time engagement strategies will require legislative safeguards, especially if AI leads to video advertisements generated in real time for an exhaustively mapped individual profile.” We must seek to “humanize” AI and employ it “humanly.” We must resist the phenomenological bent toward unbelief in AI development and pressures. We must once again learn to think critically and pervasively and biblically about AI. Our young people must be taught prescriptive critical thinking practices, rather than unwittingly and ignorantly giving in to what their phones and computers spit out. Church and ministry pastors must pastor rather than let AI bots plan, prepare and even give their sermons. We must learn to smartly negotiate with the “Magnificent Seven”— Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Nvidia and Tesla — rather than blindly following their lead. Convenience and speed must not be allowed to overtake and overcome careful, sustained and critical thinking and acting. “To give language to this change, we must take the best of Christian thinking regarding the social and political imaginary and apply it to the economic imaginary of life under the glowing shores of Digital Babylon, and that kind of work cannot be done with quick hot takes. It will take slow, deep, and thoughtful meditation to apply the riches of Christian thought to making sense of the companies that got us here and where they are taking us.” (Austin Gravley, The State of The Internet: 2026 ) I am both excited and wary of AI. I have learned to be much more cautious about social media and the videos and photos and information they give. Much of it has been and is being AI produced and tweaked. Spammers use AI technology to wrest thousands of dollars from unsuspecting senior citizens. Schools are requiring students to turn off their cell phones or “bag” them until after school hours because of the insidious nature of AI generated stuff. I value more and more of a face-to-face approach in teaching and learning and mentoring others. And we must adopt a state of “believing is seeing” rather than a non-Christian scientifically sanctioned “seeing is believing” approach to truth and justice.
Show More