AI-Powered Preaching: How Much Should Silicon Valley Impact Sermon Prep?
“Using his normal means of research, the pastor of Madison Baptist Church…had trouble narrowing down the ways the 12 apostles died. So he opened ChatGPT and asked the artificial intelligence (AI) application.” - Lifeway
- 218 views
If the intent of the title question is “how much should AI impact sermon prep?” the answer is probably “none at all.” Pastors should know how to use Bible dictionaries, Bible encyclopedias, church history reference tools, etc.
And you also don’t need an AI to Google “how did the apostles die?” And get all sorts of leads for further research.
What Google’s “generative AI” option in Google search (same thing as Bard?) gives you at the moment is this…
Generative AI is experimental. Info quality may vary.
The apostles were persecuted almost immediately after Jesus’s ascension. Some of the apostles died in the following ways:
- James: Herod killed James, the brother of John and one of the original twelve apostles.
- Luke: The physician who wrote Luke and The Acts was hanged on an olive tree.
- Matthias: The disciple who replaced Judas was stoned and beheaded in Jerusalem.
- Paul: The apostle who wrote half of the New Testament was beheaded by Emperor Nero in Rome.
- Simon: Jacobus Voragine wrote in 1275 that Simon was martyred in Persia by being sawed in half.
- Matthew: The king ordered his bodyguard to kill Matthew while he stood at the altar.
According to the 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon, early Christians believed that only Peter, Paul, and James were martyred.
This is followed by a link to Wikipedia.
So, it’s a kind of aggregated version of regular Google search, in this case.
Bing Chat AI does a bit better… [I’ve removed all the links]
The Bible does not provide information on how each apostle died. It only records the death of two apostles: James, the son of Zebedee, who was executed by Herod about 44 AD 1, and Judas, who betrayed Jesus and then went out and hanged himself 1. Therefore, we must depend upon historical information for the other apostles in order to answer the question. Most of what we know about the other apostles’ deaths come from ancient Christian writers and church tradition, and there are often multiple accounts of where and how they died 2. Here is a list of the apostles as presented in three of the gospels and the book of Acts:
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Peter Philip James Andrew Bartholomew Thaddaeus James Thomas Simon John Matthew Judas It should be noted that these men were part of Jesus’ inner group 3. Matthias is the most obscure apostle, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that we can’t be very sure what he did or how he died. Some traditions claim he was stoned at the end of his ministry to cannibals in Aethiopia (Georgia) 2.
I hope this helps!
Learn more:
1. christianity.com 2. overviewbible.com 3. neverthirsty.org
But shouldn’t pastors already have standard, go-to tools for finding information like that? I’m skeptical that our current “AI” tools have much value other than as an occasional research shortcut. So I guess that’s usefulness >0 but not very much > 0.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
But shouldn’t pastors already have standard, go-to tools for finding information like that?
Not a huge fan of AI yet, but why is looking it up in some resources acceptable but looking it up in other resources not acceptable? Or to put it differently, if I post a question on SI, it is okay, but if I post on AI, it isn’t? Why can I ask Aaron, Tom, Dave, or Larry, or Don, or whoever, but I can’t ask Bard or GPT? Or why can I “ask” a Bible dictionary but can’t ask AI? Or if you use a Bible dictionary that uses X resource, why is it bad to use AI that uses X resource? Of course it is not yet entirely trustworthy, but that’s true of a lot of resources.
I have listened to a number of podcasts recently on AI for ministry that are interesting. It is around and we had better figure it out.
And perhaps the bigger question is, Why would the death of the apostles be research question for a Bible lesson or message?
I view generative AI (in whatever form) as another ministry tool. If you know how to use it, it can be very helpful. If you don't know how to use it, it can be dangerous.
I use ChatGPT to create application questions for my sermon note handouts. I give ChatGPT the sermon passage and ask it to create five application questions from the text. I then review the questions I receive and throw out any that I find unhelpful or that rely on a questionable interpretation of the passage.
And, it's in the interpretation of the passage where ChatGPT often goes off the rails. There was an earlier article posted here on SI that dealt with how generative AI interprets Scripture. In my experience, it has been a mixed bag. Sometimes when I ask ChatGPT about a passage's interpretation, I get back a fairly decent response. Other times, there is a definite bias expressed. When the bias is identified and questioned, ChatGPT acknowledges it's just one way of viewing the passage and provides an alternative. But, unless you know to question that answer, ChatGPT presents its response as stated fact with no trace of where it received its theological information. Further, I've found that ChatGPT will often spiritualize the text or "metaphorize" the text.
Any tool can be misused though. Someone can spend $$$ on Logos and end up committing exegetical fallacies left and right based on the information available to them in Logos. If you already know the exegetical process and which resources are good and reliable, however, Logos is a powerful tool.
Not a huge fan of AI yet, but why is looking it up in some resources acceptable but looking it up in other resources not acceptable? Or to put it differently, if I post a question on SI, it is okay, but if I post on AI, it isn’t? Why can I ask Aaron, Tom, Dave, or Larry, or Don, or whoever, but I can’t ask Bard or GPT? Or why can I “ask” a Bible dictionary but can’t ask AI? Or if you use a Bible dictionary that uses X resource, why is it bad to use AI that uses X resource? Of course it is not yet entirely trustworthy, but that’s true of a lot of resources.
It depends on the “AI” for sure. The Google version I’m seeing doesn’t do as good a job, so far, of identifying sources. So, I would rate it at “slightly less reliable than Wikipedia.”
But to your question: I wouldn’t personally say there’s anything “unacceptable” about asking a question of anybody, really. I mean, sure, ask the elderly lady who walks her dog by the front of the house. We can always evaluate the trustworthiness of an answer from what we know of a source—and it’s internal qualities, etc.
But if you already have solid sources, why go to one that is a shot in the dark? So I see the AI for sermon prep as of dubious value for anyone who has been reasonably well trained for ministry.
I think it’s going to gain ground as a search tool, though. I’m not sure it’s actually any easier than thinking of good search keywords, but it feels easier sometimes. The downside is that the search results are even more filtered and ‘algorithmed’ than what already get from Google, which is skewed enough. It seems likely that AI search tools will have an even more mysterious process for deciding what to show you… so even less control in the hands of the researcher.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I wouldn’t personally say there’s anything “unacceptable” about asking a question of anybody, really.
Fair enough, but this doesn’t seem what your initial post indicated. AI is not just a glorified search engine, such as “thinking of good search keywords.” It seems more of a “glorified autocomplete” if we are going to attach “glorified” on the front of a computer term. The articles and interviews and I have read/listened to are very interesting. I don’t think the search results are filtered or “algorithmed.” It’s a whole different approach, I believe.
But if you already have solid sources, why go to one that is a shot in the dark?
Because there are other reasons to use it, such as idea generation, wordsmithing, starting points, etc. Or just verifying what we think we know. Or getting a brief overview so that when we do other research we have a foundation from which to start. All kinds of reasons.
So I see the AI for sermon prep as of dubious value for anyone who has been reasonably well trained for ministry.
I tend to agree but perhaps for different reasons. I recently listened to an interview with Sal Khan of Khan Academy about their use of AI in education. Really fascinating. Worth the time. I think it was with Guy Raz on How I Built This (NPR podcast) titled “When AI is your personal tutor.” It’s a strange new world for sure.
Fair enough, but this doesn’t seem what your initial post indicated.
I talked about usefulness, not acceptability or unacceptability. I remain skeptical that it’s very useful for sermon prep to anyone who is well trained.
That’s not to say it won’t be useful eventually. There’s just a whole lot of AI hype right now that, as far as I can tell, doesn’t translate into practical applications.
So right now there seem to be a lot of solutions in search of problems.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion