There is a fascinating article in the journal Practical Theology by Swedish researchers on how some Swedish preachers are using AI in sermon preparation.
If a sermon is 100% AI-generated, then it's basically the same as copying someone else's sermon and preaching it.
But if you're using AI to ask questions about the text (like having a third person interacting with it), to identify blind spots, fix spelling mistakes, or even to find academic papers you can read on the topic—then I think it's fine.
The key is that people need to understand how AI works.
Did you know you can upload a Canva design and ask the AI to give you feedback on graphic design issues?
That's actually amazing—it can give you suggestions on padding, fonts, colors, and more.
I think those results are quite encouraging. Just like any technology AI can be misused but can also be a blessing if used wisely. It could be part of prayerful sermon preparation but not a substitute.
A friend of mine who is an Anglican clergyman was at an ordination service earlier this year and was uneasy with some of the prayers because when it came to confession of sin the prayers seemed to focus only on the horizontal, our relationships with other people, rather than on the vertical and the possibility that sin might be against God. He spoke to the bishop afterwards who admitted that the prayers had been AI generated.
I don't think generating prayers via AI is necessarily a bad thing but not to check them is.
I use it as a search engine. I still write all of my lessons and sermons. But I use ChatGPT to help me find resources and then I go to that resource. It’s better than google search. But I don’t have it write anything for me.
I agree with my fellow birds who welcome using LLMs as productivity tools for identifying sermon resources and creating sermon drafts, yet believe clergy should verify, edit, and finish the sermon, including applying scripture to local needs. I think clergy would welcome allocating saved time to pastoral care and other Christian formation.
I am also curious if any doves (clergy) query and compare initial draft sermons from multiple LLMs. Claude (by Anthropic) seems particularly well-suited for long, deep conversations. Which LLMs do doves prefer? Has using LLMs revealed new perspectives that have deepened or altered one’s understanding of scripture?
An interesting project would be to train an LLM on all Bishop Wright’s works, the Bible, and the writings of persons who have materially influenced Bishop Wright’s interpretation of scripture. Then juxtapose written responses from “Ask N.T. Wright Anything” with those from “Ask AI Wright Anything” and ask Aviary members to identify N.T. Wright.
If a sermon is 100% AI-generated, then it's basically the same as copying someone else's sermon and preaching it.
But if you're using AI to ask questions about the text (like having a third person interacting with it), to identify blind spots, fix spelling mistakes, or even to find academic papers you can read on the topic—then I think it's fine.
The key is that people need to understand how AI works.
Did you know you can upload a Canva design and ask the AI to give you feedback on graphic design issues?
That's actually amazing—it can give you suggestions on padding, fonts, colors, and more.
I think those results are quite encouraging. Just like any technology AI can be misused but can also be a blessing if used wisely. It could be part of prayerful sermon preparation but not a substitute.
A friend of mine who is an Anglican clergyman was at an ordination service earlier this year and was uneasy with some of the prayers because when it came to confession of sin the prayers seemed to focus only on the horizontal, our relationships with other people, rather than on the vertical and the possibility that sin might be against God. He spoke to the bishop afterwards who admitted that the prayers had been AI generated.
I don't think generating prayers via AI is necessarily a bad thing but not to check them is.
An Anglican generating ai prayers! Why? I would think that is like ice and eskimos
Apparently so
It looks like there's a recent episode of Logos Live discussing responsible use of these tools.
I use it as a search engine. I still write all of my lessons and sermons. But I use ChatGPT to help me find resources and then I go to that resource. It’s better than google search. But I don’t have it write anything for me.
I agree with my fellow birds who welcome using LLMs as productivity tools for identifying sermon resources and creating sermon drafts, yet believe clergy should verify, edit, and finish the sermon, including applying scripture to local needs. I think clergy would welcome allocating saved time to pastoral care and other Christian formation.
I am also curious if any doves (clergy) query and compare initial draft sermons from multiple LLMs. Claude (by Anthropic) seems particularly well-suited for long, deep conversations. Which LLMs do doves prefer? Has using LLMs revealed new perspectives that have deepened or altered one’s understanding of scripture?
An interesting project would be to train an LLM on all Bishop Wright’s works, the Bible, and the writings of persons who have materially influenced Bishop Wright’s interpretation of scripture. Then juxtapose written responses from “Ask N.T. Wright Anything” with those from “Ask AI Wright Anything” and ask Aviary members to identify N.T. Wright.