Pepperdine announces Institute for Wisdom and AI at faith-and-technology gathering

An institute emerges from the gathering

Pepperdine University has announced an Institute for Wisdom and AI, giving its engagement with artificial intelligence and Christian thought a new institutional home. The university's September 29 account of its sixth Human-Centered AI Conference reports that president Jim Gash announced the initiative during the September 25–26 gathering on its Malibu campus. Source: pepperdine.edu

A separate September 25 launch release places the institute in Seaver College, with substantial participation from the School of Public Policy and an intended reach across Pepperdine's schools. Its stated research questions include employment, democratic freedoms, patient-centered care and education that preserves critical thinking and moral formation. Source: pepperdine.edu

The funding language is consequential. Pepperdine says the institute starts with seed gifts; support for faculty and research fellows across several disciplines is described as dependent on full funding. An international gathering in Geneva is planned for later in 2026. These are announced arrangements and ambitions, not a record of completed research or demonstrated public benefit.

This development extends beyond the conference agenda covered in AI Faith Monitor's earlier report. The university announced the launch on September 25 and published its conference recap on September 29. AI Faith Monitor is reporting the development on October 1.

A Christian institution, a religiously diverse conversation

The faith connection is explicit rather than inferred from the institute's name. Pepperdine's mission identifies it as a Christian university, and its affirmation statement connects education with students' dignity, the pursuit of truth and service. That establishes the university's declared educational commitments, not evidence that every use of AI meets them. Source: pepperdine.edu

The conference's religious participation was broader than its host's identity. According to the September 29 recap, the inaugural Global Summit on Faith in AI brought together Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other religious voices. Named speakers included Metropolitan Gerasimos of San Francisco, Rabbi Erez Sherman of Sinai Temple, Father George Kaldas representing the Coptic Orthodox Church and Omar Qudrat of the Muslim Coalition for America. Source: pepperdine.edu

The university quotes Gerasimos warning against surrendering thinking, prayer and friendship to screens. This is an attributed Orthodox Christian concern, not a joint statement signed by every participant. A varied speaker list documents a conversation across traditions; it does not establish agreement about human nature, religious authority or an institute's future recommendations.

Work: an existing distinction the research must preserve

The institute's employment agenda enters a field where exposure and displacement already require careful separation. In its May 20, 2025 research brief, the International Labour Organization estimated that one in four workers worldwide held an occupation with some degree of generative-AI exposure. Its methodology combined task-level information, expert assessments and AI predictions. Source: ilo.org

That estimate is not a count of people who lost jobs. The ILO judged job transformation more likely than wholesale replacement because human input remains necessary. It also called for social dialogue to improve working conditions alongside productivity.

For readers interested in the dignity of work, the distinction narrows the question. Assessing which tasks a system could perform does not, by itself, explain how employers organize work or distribute benefits. The ILO provides prior research context, not an evaluation of Pepperdine's initiative or proof of what it will accomplish.

Education has both a practical and a religious precedent

UNESCO's 2023 guidance on generative AI in education and research supplies a practical comparison for the institute's educational concerns. Its official overview advocates human-centered validation and pedagogical design, while examining possible uses in curricula, teaching, learning and research. It also emphasizes privacy protection and age-appropriate use. These are proposed safeguards and design principles, not evidence that every educational product follows them. Source: unesco.org

The useful distinction is between producing material and supporting learning. An institution needs to identify the educational purpose before it can judge whether an AI application serves that purpose. Faster preparation alone cannot settle a question about students' understanding.

A specifically Christian precedent appears in the Vatican's January 28, 2025 note Antiqua et nova. Paragraphs 77–84 describe education as the formation of the whole person and emphasize the teacher-student relationship. They allow that prudent AI assistance could improve access, personalized support and feedback, while warning about dependence and weakened independent skills. Source: vatican.va

That is Catholic guidance, not Pepperdine policy or an interfaith consensus. Its relevance is the concrete educational distinction it makes: a resource can assist a human relationship without becoming a replacement for it.

An announced institution is not yet an assessed outcome

Technical governance offers another relevant comparison. The US National Institute of Standards and Technology's 2023 AI Risk Management Framework organizes work around governing, mapping, measuring and managing risk. Its core recommends diverse disciplinary perspectives, documented responsibilities and engagement with people outside the team building or deploying a system. The framework is voluntary; the online edition notes that a revision is in progress. Source: airc.nist.gov

Those provisions help explain why bringing disciplines together can matter beyond the symbolism of a conference. A concern raised by an educator or religious leader becomes operational when someone can connect it to a use case, an accountable decision and evidence about effects. NIST's framework supplies a vocabulary for that work; it does not certify this institute or endorse its theological commitments.

For churches and faith-based educators, the immediate news is therefore a new place proposing to connect religious reflection with academic and policy work. The inspected launch materials do not identify a research budget, name an institute director or present completed institute studies. Those limits do not negate the announcement. They define what has been established so far: an institutional commitment with a stated program, rather than tested answers to the questions that program raises.

Christian perspective: wisdom must remain answerable

James 3:13–18 tests claims to wisdom through conduct. Addressing the contrast between humble deeds and rivalry driven by envy or ambition, the passage describes heavenly wisdom as “peace-loving, considerate, submissive” in the NIV. Its concern is the character of a community, not the prestige of its speakers or the sophistication of its tools. James 3:13-18 (NIV)

Applied to an interdisciplinary institute, that suggests a practical meaning for humility: participants must be able to question one another's assumptions, including those of senior leaders and financial supporters. Funding can sustain worthwhile research; it should not place a sponsor's preferred conclusion beyond examination. Peaceable discussion is compatible with substantive disagreement.

This is a Christian application, not evidence of a problem at Pepperdine. The question for any institution claiming wisdom is whether a student, scholar or affected worker can raise a reasoned objection and receive an accountable response.