• AI Ethics Questions for Preachers

    Picture of robotic hand reaching out to a human hand like the image of God and Adam reaching towards one another in the Sistine Chapel

    The first time that I encountered ChatGPT was three years ago when I was staying in a seminary in the USA. It was a place dedicated to teaching theology and particularly to training Episcopal clergy.
    The ChatGPT preview release was let loose on the world on 30 November 2022, so I must have discovered it very early on. AI has moved on significantly since then but at the time one could use it to render a piece of text in the voice of someone well-known. The entertainment at mealtimes was to give it a well-known piece of the Bible such as Psalm 23 and get it to rewrite the text in the voice of a well-known American politician.

    The Lord is my shepherd — a truly incredible shepherd, by the way, the best. Nobody shepherds like He does!
    I’m not going to want; I’ve got everything I need. Believe me!

    This seemed very entertaining to the students though I suspect that the joke may not be quite so entertaining these days.

    ChatGPT seemed an incredible plaything. A novelty. A curiosity. A wonderful new internet gewgaw.

    Three years on and a lot of development later, AI has changed a lot even if people haven’t yet moved on quite so much and many are still using it primarily as a novelty. You can still ask ChatGPT to translate bits of the Bible into the voice of someone else. It still seems remarkable to many that a machine can write anything at all.

    The primary thing that people think of when they think of text-based AI is still the creation of written material in response to some kind of prompt though there are vastly more interesting things that one can do with AI than you could back in the olden days of December 2022.

    There have been a number of surveys released this year which focus on the use of AI by preachers and I thought that it might be interesting to mull over a few questions in order to think about the ethics of using AI in sermon generation.

    The obvious question is perhaps the least interesting though I’m not 100% sure that it has a clear answer.

    Is it ethical to preach a sermon generated by AI rather than something that you’ve thought up yourself?

    I think many people might initially answer this question in the negative and be fairly sure that this isn’t OK. However, I find myself remembering being trained by clerics when I was first ordained and clearly remember being told – “If you find you don’t have a sermon of your own, then preach someone else’s”. In the intervening years, the internet has come of age and that has complicated this question. There are sites dedicated to providing sermons for particular Sundays. I sometimes read a few sermons by other people on a particular text before settling myself down to write one of my own. I suspect most people would think that was absolutely fine ethically – indeed it falls well within the learning and study that clerics are all supposed to pursue.

    Would I lift an idea from someone else’s sermon?

    Yes, absolutely.

    You get to know the preachers who inspire you. I would pay particular tribute to the preaching of Fr Grant Gallup who, when he was alive preached audacious sermons. I think it is a positive good to catch hold of things that inspire you and let them inform your own thinking.

    But would I lift a paragraph from someone else’s sermon?

    No, I don’t think I would, though I have come across people who do. (And I’ve known people do it with things I’ve written).

    I remember once assessing someone for a job and looking at some of the sermons that he had been preaching. Something didn’t seem quite right about them. A little clever googling revealed that he was simply lifting sermons wholesale from one particular preacher from the other side of the world and preaching them as though they were his own. “And that reminds me of something that happened to me this week…” falls a little flat when you know that the same thing happened word for word to someone else three years ago in the lectionary cycle.

    I never outed him as stealing ideas from someone else. But there was no chance of him getting the job.

    I’m not convinced that it is ethical to preach someone else’s words verbatim in a sermon.

    AI raises whole new questions beyond that though.

    It is more or less ethical to lift a paragraph from a sermon that no human being ever wrote?

    I think that’s a complicated question and is made even more complicated for me by my knowing that some AI engines have been trained on my own sermons.

    Indeed, one of my tests when looking at a new AI tool is sometimes to ask it to write a sermon in the voice and style of Kelvin Holdsworth on the Bible passages for a particular set of Bible readings. This test, which I have to acknowledge I’m rather pleased with myself for devising certainly sorts out the AI sheep from the AI goats.

    I did it recently with one engine and it produced this paragraph:

    “It reminds me of the week before my mother-in-law comes to visit. You know the drill. It doesn’t matter if the house is generally tidy; you go into a state of panic. You’re not just cleaning the surfaces; you’re clearing the cupboards and organising the spice rack. Why? Because you’re trying to create a perfect space for a very important guest. You want the place to look like your best self, a version of reality that lasts exactly as long as the visit.”

    Now there’s no risk in my stealing anything from this at all. It doesn’t sound like my spoken style and anyone who has ever shared an office with me knows that tidiness isn’t necessarily next to provostness. The really exciting thing, I thought, was the appearance of a mother-in-law. I rather like the idea that in some alternative cyberspace I’m tidy, happily married and have a well-organised spice rack.

    Here, in the real world alas, things are different.

    However, I asked another AI engine to come up with a sermon in my style and the more I read, the more I realised that it had been trained on my own sermons, most of which have been freely available online for the last 25 years or so. Here’s a fragment that I asked it to generate for a sermon in my voice for Midnight Mass.

    “And so we come here at midnight—a time for secrets, hushed voices, and the honest acknowledgement that the world is not always as we wish it to be. Midnight is truthful. It exposes our longings. It meets us without the polite veneer we put on during the day. Midnight Mass is the Church daring to say: God meets us in the dark.”

    It isn’t better than me and the middle sentences are a bit vapid. But there’s an idea in there at the end that I could have come up with and could have preached. And maybe, who knows yet, maybe I will.

    So it is ethical to preach a sermon that is generated from an AI engine that has been trained on one’s own voice?

    That’s a really complicated question and worth a good deal of pondering. And it is a very different question from those facing authors who make a living from their work.

    As I try to think about the ethics of where the words come from there will always be people who tell me that nothing ethical comes from AI because of the world’s resources of power and water that are consumed in their production. I get it. But people have frequently taken to social media to make that point to me without acknowledging the irony of doing so. We are living beyond our means environmentally in so many areas of life. Yes, AI contributes negatively to this. But I don’t think that fact is going to put it back in its box.

    At the moment I’ve never read a sermon from an AI engine that I think is better than any that I could have written. However, I suspect that in a year’s time I won’t be able to make that claim.

    So, is it AI generated sermons from me from now on?

    No actually. But primarily because I enjoy the writing. Wrestling with the ideas, thinking about the scripture and pondering where the world is at gives me life and I suspect that ultimately those listening to sermons can tell whether there’s life and spirit in them. And being a preacher who does grapple with the text is part of who I think I am and part of what I think the church has formed me to do.

    Are there easy ethical answers to AI related questions for preachers? I don’t think so. And I think that’s what makes those questions so very interesting.


    Photo by cottonbro studio: https://www.pexels.com/photo/hand-of-a-person-and-a-bionic-hand-6153343/

17 responses to “Praying for the Powerful”

  1. Robin Avatar
    Robin

    Those Scottish Episcopalians during the Penal Times who refused to pray for the Hanoverian monarchs did so not because they thought the Hanoverian monarchs were people too bad to be prayed for, but because they thought that they weren’t monarchs at all, but usurpers. The parallel in the case of Trump would be if Trump had fraudulently acquired the Presidency in some manner contrary to the US Constitution, and so was not, properly speaking, President at all. I suppose the nearest comparison would be if a citizen of one of the Confederate states in 1861-65 had refused to pray publicly for Jefferson Davis as President because she believed that Davis was a usurper and the constitutional President of the whole United States was Abraham Lincoln.

    BTW if you want to see snuff-taking and sneezing at the prayers for the Sovereign, come to the Royal Martyr Church Union celebration next Thursday at 11.30 in St Mary’s Cathedral, Palmerston Place, Edinburgh . . .

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      One of the two things that I remember from Fr Gian’s teaching on the Eucharist in my TISEC days was his enthusiastic snuff habit.

    2. Grace Burson Avatar
      Grace Burson

      Well, given that Trump “won” only by the skin of his teeth and likely because of foreign interference and partisan meddling by the head of the FBI, the parallel may be pretty close, after all.

  2. Whit Johnstone Avatar
    Whit Johnstone

    Kelvin, my objection is not to the continued tradition of the post-inaugural prayer service, but to the Cathedral Choir’s willingness to be part of the entertainment at the inauguration itself. Many entertainers have chosen to boycott the inauguration because they disapprove of the President-Elect. Many opponents of the President Elect have decided to boycott any performer who performs at the inauguration. Indeed, acts who perform at the inauguration may be subject to a no-platforming campaign. This was the threat that forced Andrea Botichelli to withdraw from Trump’s inauguration. Therefore, performing at the inauguration will be construed as a partisan gesture of support for President Trump. Of course, refusing to perform would have been construed as a partisan gesture of opposition to President Trump. And since the Trump inaguration team approached the Cathedral about performing, the Cathedral had to say yes or no. There was no neutral, nonpartisan answer. The National Cathedral seeks to be neutral and nonpartisan, and since it had been perceieved as a Democratic institution while Fr. Gary Hall was dean, I understand why Dean Hollerith felt he had to say yes, to say to Republicans, “yes you are still welcome in TEC”. But that welcome will come at the price of making opponents of Trump feel distinctly unwelcome in the National Cathedral for as long as Fr. Hollerith is dean. Yes, he’s between a rock and a hard place on this one.

  3. Meg Rosenfeld Avatar
    Meg Rosenfeld

    Generally we say “Amen.” Speaking only for a small parish in San Francisco, depending on the celebrant’s choice of which prayer to use, we include in our petition, after mentioning the President of the US and the Governor of California, “all in civil authority” or “all leaders in the Bay Area.”

    And why not? We are, after all, praying that those who have some responsibility for our well-being will be properly disposed to behave in a just and compassionate manner; their behavior has a great effect on all our lives. And this is wrong because–?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      I agree with you Meg – that’s exactly how I think of praying for those in authority.

      I also think the BCP collect that I quoted is a very good collect for praying for a president with whom one disagrees.

      1. Meg Rosenfeld Avatar
        Meg Rosenfeld

        Absolutely! And that’s just what we’ll be doing for a few years now . . . .

  4. Gillian Barr Avatar
    Gillian Barr

    You are, along w/ many others, conflating the prayer service at the Cathedral on the day after the inauguration with the choir singing in the prelude to the inauguration ceremony itself. Few are objecting to the former, though some are disappointed that the PEOTUS’s team was allowed to declare that there would not be a sermon in the service. No one is objecting to praying for Trump, either in the service or in our weekly parish services. Almost all the objections are to the performance by the choirs in the inauguration. The prelude has almost nothing to do w/ prayer, at least in the eyes of those who will witness the inauguration. They see it as a performance, not a sung prayer.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Actually, I’ve seen a number of people complaining about praying for Trump in weekly parish services chatting about it on facebook.

      I do see that the inauguration is different to the service in the cathedral. However, I can still see this from both sides.

  5. Ronnie Smith Avatar

    Dear Father Kerlvin,

    We do, indeed, all need prayer, with the bible advising that we should pray for our enemies as well as our friends. My heart goes out to you in Glasgow, when the conservative minority criticizes you for cooperating with the Muslim community in your city. Mistakes can be made with the content of prayers offered and statements made in God’s house; but God must by now be used to our mistakes and allows for them: “Where charity and love are, there is God”
    Agape, Father Ron Smith, ACANZP

  6. Robin Avatar
    Robin

    On the Sunday after the Dunblane massacre in the church I then attended, the intercessions included a prayer for the repose of the soul of Thomas Hamilton, the gunman. To my horror and incredulity, one person vociferously objected to this. If you accept the propriety of offering prayers for the dead, surely it’s hard to imagine someone who needed them more than Thomas Hamilton?

  7. Eamonn Avatar

    Perhaps the most appropriate prayer might be, ‘…ne POTUS noceat’.

  8. Ann Avatar

    I can see both sides of this – but the hinge is where we have been praying by name for Barack and now won’t say Donald — a pick and choose – reminds me of a priest who when happy with you would press the wafer into your hand and say your name – but when mad would drop the wafer from about a foot over your hand and not say your name.
    And the US Constitution says “Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” — different nuance from separation of church and state.

  9. Martha Underwood. Avatar

    You get an Amen from this American Episcopalian.

  10. John-Julian. OJN Avatar
    John-Julian. OJN

    At the root of all this discussion is the unasked and unanswered question:”What does ‘praying for someone’ do for her or him?” I mean, do these people think our praying for (or against!) Trump will affect him in any way? Will he be happier, healthier, stronger, louder, less mean, less nasty if prayed for than if not prayed for? What is gained (or lost) by either praying for him or omitting prayers for him?
    It seems to me that the issue here is not the actual prayers but our feeling ABOUT those prayers (or absence of them).
    If we use Aquinas’s definition of love as “willing the good for the other” and apply it to prayer—it seems that we are unquestionably bidden to “will good” for our neighbor and so it seems that it doesn’t matter if we like her or him, we have a mandate to love—and intercessory prayer could surely be said to be a branch on the tree of love! Praying for Trump is not going to affect him at all—but it will definitely affect us who pray……..for the better.
    (I quickly add that I believe Trump is a monster—but a monster who happens to be our neighbor!)

    1. Ann Avatar

      Yes– keeps me centered and less reactive. Part of respecting the dignity of every human being (Baptismal Covenant – BCP) — hard as that is. Michelle Obama – they go low — we go high.

      1. Kelvin Avatar

        Yes, I can understand that, even though we don’t have a baptismal covenant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • We are not stewards

    A long time ago, back in the mists of nearly twenty years ago, I started to think that it was important that there was a liturgical celebration of creation. I thought long and hard about it and decided that instead of celebrating that modern invention the Harvest Festival, we would celebrate Creation instead, rolling a…

  • Listening to the Quiet Revival

    This Quiet Revival thing is real you know. At least, it feels real around here. For a number of years, I’ve been aware that young adults now seem to have different attitudes to religion to young adults of perhaps 20 years ago. Specifically, young adults of today do not seem as negative towards religion, and…

  • Sermon preached on 17 August 2025. (But should it have a content warning?)

    I wonder whether you have heard of a place called Edinburgh. It is a place about 50 miles away from here. And it is a wonderful diverse, international city…for at least three weeks a year. Now the East of Scotland and the West of Scotland are different one from another. Amongst other things, religion is…

  • “Issues” is no more

    Earlier today, the General Synod of the Church of England took a hugely significant step. It removed a document called “Issues in Human Sexuality” from the discernment process for people being assessed for clerical vocations in the Church of England. Oh, I can hear you yawning from here. But it really is important and this…