Ethical Use of AI Generative Tools in Sermon Preparation
Curtis McClane is a friend of the Siburt Institute. He is a minister and fellow scholar who is currently researching ministers’ use of AI in sermon preparation. His particular emphases are ethical guidelines and practices, trying to untangle matters of plagiarism and integrity. He has crafted a survey (see below for the link) and will be writing an article out of this research. We hope you will consider supporting Dr. McClane in his research!
Recently there has been an explosion of concern about the intersection between the homiletical process and the use of generative AI programs. At the core of this concern is the ethic of integrity. To what extent may generative AI tools be appropriately used in the process of sermon preparation? Does this use eliminate the role of the Holy Spirit and the transformative process on the homiletician?
These questions highlight the ethical concern because AI generative tools bring to the forefront, as never before, the issue of plagiarism. How does the homiletician know at what point reliance on AI resources becomes plagiaristic in nature? AI programs (such as ChatGPT) become all the more appealing because of their touted time-saving feature. How does the preacher balance and resolve this tension between time available and inappropriate use of AI? In addition to the time factor, many ministers feel the pressure of providing fresh and creative presentations when speaking before the same audience on a weekly basis.
Having just recently celebrated fifty-one years of preaching, I have seen over the years many forms of homiletical support and research tools. I understand the time-management demands and constraints on a weekly basis. Concurrently, ministers feel compelled to have a captivating message because they are speaking to the same audience week after week. It seems to me that AI generative tools naturally should be viewed like preachers have viewed their libraries over the years. Each book is a “conversation partner” that supplements one’s knowledge and communication, but it does not supplant it. This will be the strength of Ethan Mollick’s model of AI usage (see below): we view all AI tools as humane potential partners in our quest. It is this suggestion of “humanization” that Mollick brings uniquely to the table to help ministers with their craft.[1]
Those of us who have been in the preaching ministry for a long time all know that integrity as a truth-bearer is crucial. Though the larger question of ministerial integrity is not the focus here, the congregants want to know that their minister is coming up with weekly sermons in a way that reflects integrity throughout the entire process. With a tip of the hat to Charles Spurgeon, the congregation wants to see messages steeped, distilled, and delivered by the truth being presented through personality.
The ethical issue of plagiarism in sermon preparation evolved over time in my own experience. When I began preaching, it was a temptation to use sermon outlines created by others. Even at the fledgling stage of my early preaching, I knew it did not seem right to do so. Then, all sorts of magazines and sermon helpers became available in preaching and ministry magazines. Once the internet became universally available, new offerings of plagiarism began to surface. I know of a minister who lost his pulpit and ministry with a congregation because he was copying sermons and publishing them in the paper as his own. A friend of mine was terminated at a congregation because it was discovered he was using pre-made, Internet-available PowerPoint slides for his sermons.
Much of my current thought comes from initial research in the literature, and my own conversations with ministers in their own practice of homiletical preparation. It will be fascinating to see what the empirical data will present from the actual surveys themselves.
After some time, preachers realize that there is no clear biblical model of sermon preparation. How we wished that Paul, Peter, Jude, James—anybody!—would have left us a process. Since it is left up to each homiletician as to how they prepare their sermons, the question looms large: are there any clear ethical guidelines in this modern confusing landscape of online offerings?
Can AI be trusted? There are often spurious resources created and inaccuracies related to bibliographical references that must always be checked out. AI has no way of automatically checking itself for inadequacies and mistakes. It does not take long to realize that the role of the minister cannot be replaced by AI. It is not sentient, self-aware, and poised for self-critique. I recently saw online robots that looked exactly like people, both in form and function. The age of Data from Star Trek is now surely upon us. I can see it now: the church’s budget for next year is to purchase a Data-like person to stand in the pulpit, dressed to the hilt like a preacher, and delivering an AI sermon.
Ethan Mollick, interestingly, does propose an anthropomorphic approach to using AI generative tools. He utilizes the metaphors of coworker, tutor, and coach to suggest how AI can function as “co-intelligence” in our work together. In my research, and in my empirical data analysis, I will look at Mollick’s four operative principles to suggest an ethical framework for the use of AI in sermon preparation, such that AI generative tools become our “conversation partner.” Where the nexus of “co-intelligence” and sermon preparation meet, I hope to propose a helpful way forward with ethical parameters to guide the homiletician in the weekly process of sermon preparation.
The link for the survey is https://forms.gle/5VWTbhvRov2ZeXws8
1. For more on Mollick’s work, see his blog https://www.oneusefulthing.org and his book Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI (New York: Portfolio, 2024).
