Column Title: Communicating Faith in the Cross-Walk of Life
Column Entry: “ChatGPT and the Witness of Preaching”
By Robert Stephen Reid, Professor Emeritus, University of Dubuque
Description: During most of Christendom people lived with some form of a theistic identity. But in our post-Christendom secular society most North American Christians are faced, sometimes explicitly but mostly implicitly, with a daily choice of whether to keep believing in God. Or, believing that, in Christ, God is still seeking to be reconciled with each generation of people in this world. If faith in God is to matter amidst the busy, bustling intersection of cross-purposes and cross-identities of contemporary secular life, my interest is to reflect on the diverse ways people communicate with others about this desire to pursue cross-centered lives of faith.
September 2024 (1) | August 2024 | June-July 2024 | May 2024 |April 2024 | March 2024
In 2012 Rev. Dr. Lucy Lind Hogan of Wesley Theological Seminary and I co-authored a book called The Six Deadly Sins of Preaching: Becoming Responsible for the Faith We
Proclaim.[1] It is a basic ethics of preaching book that makes use of the famous “deadly sins” trope to describe a set of less than ethical preaching practices. We then provide the alternative preaching virtue to be pursued instead. The sins we identified were becoming a Pretender, an Egoist, a Manipulator, a Panderer, a Demagogue, or a Despot in the pulpit. After publication it became clear to both of us that this issue of being inauthentic, of being a Pretender in the pulpit, was the problem of irresponsible practice that provoked them most discussion. Clergy were being fired for plagiarism when parishioners discovered that their pastors were preaching sermons verbatim that they downloaded from the internet. The temptation to re-preach someone else’s sermon can become a habit easy to slip into in our digital age. And the more demands that a congregation places on a pastor’s time, the more tempting it is to preach someone else’s witness.
While writing the book we discovered a paradox regarding the question of what counts as plagiarism in the pulpit. Some clergy were being fired for doing the same thing that other preachers were freely encouraged to do. For example, clergy like pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Community Church and Vineyard Church pastor Steve Sjogren were urging that originality isn’t as important as being effective. Sjogren argued that,
We need to get over the idea that we have to be completely original with our messages, each and every week. In my mind there is a tremendous amount of pride (let’s call it what it is) when we insist on being completely original as communicators. In our desire to give “killer messages” we are dishing out something far less. Think about it for a second: If you really were giving a killer message each week, would your church be the size that it is right now? Maybe you need to be open to doing things a different way.[2]
These church leaders encouraged pastors to let someone else do some of the “heavy lifting” of creating life-changing sermons. Preachers were being encouraged to take outlines freely provided by pastors like Warren and Sjogren (or even full manuscripts found posted on other church websites) and, if they were “killer sermons,” preach them. Of course, they should trade out some illustrations to make the sermon more their own, but getting bogged down by attributing who originated what sermonic idea or words was considered unnecessary in preaching.[3]
Is it ethical to use large portions of someone else’s sermon or their whole message as one’s own work? Whether one uses a Saddleback sermon outline or a message downloaded from an internet lectionary resource, homiletics professor Tom Long suggests that this way of thinking represents a cultural shift to treat all words and ideas with an open-source orientation. Open-source preaching assumes that the one who originated the words has already blessed their free use by others. Long doesn’t buy this argument. “Giving credit to others is not merely a matter of keeping our ethical noses clean,” he suggests. “It is also a part of bearing witness to the gospel.”[4]
So, what does this mean in an era when increasing members of the clergy are turning to ChatGPT and letting it do the work of generating a competent sermon for worship services? Is this a form of plagiarism or something else? Add to this that for increasing numbers of clergy the question is not about delivering a “killer sermon” as much as finding an alternative to the time-consuming and sometimes exhausting expectation to have something brilliant, profound, or even reasonably good to say every week. Why do this when a pastor can simply plug in the desired parameters and let ChatGPT synthesize a helpful message by amalgamating Christian content from the internet. This kind of synthesis of what many thought leaders have said needs no attribution unless using the name of someone who has advocated an idea would be viewed as a plus for listeners (e.g. “Or as C. S. Lewis has said…”).[5]
One pastor, who used a sermon generator for six months admits that, “ChatGPT can generate scripts for newer ministers to follow, aiding us in our ministry and leaving more time for one-on-one pastoral care and visitation.” She notes that during those months of use, she let it come up with a first draft of ideas of what to say about the text. Then she would personalize what it provided to make the message her own since “a 100 percent AI-generated sermon would miss the context of the speaker and the congregation.” [6] She also found other time-saving uses of this resource in ministry; “It can instantly generate a paraphrase of a Scripture passage or write discussion questions for a college student fellowship or a community small group. I could ask ChatGPT to summarize and synthesize various Bible commentaries and content from reference books that I feed it to create a rough research report on a certain theme.”[7]
This preacher learned to use the AI content creator in ways that previous generations used purchased print or collective digital theology-biblical resources. I realized that how she used it to develop small group discussion questions was not very different than how I had previously used The Serendipity Bible’s side of the page study group questions to facilitate Bible study discussions. In fact, unlike existing material, she was able to tailor it more to her immediate audience. It made me think of how often I create an evening meal simply by typing four ingredients I have on hand in my refrigerator and cupboards into a search engine browser to come up with a recipe for dinner. It saves me from having to make a trip to the store to get ingredients that a typical print cookbook would require. ChatGPT is a timesaver and a resource that can get ideas flowing.
But the ethical question still hangs out there: is preaching a ChatGPT sermon the same as sermon plagiarism? Educational institutions have been struggling with student use of this resource. They raise substantive questions about how it affects the development of ethical values of honesty, creativity, critical thinking skills, problem solving, and even “muscle memory” retention in the cognitive work of coming up with what to say or write if all this effort is being “offloaded” into text generator. But these same educators also realize that what is actually called for in the long run is new ways to adapt assignment designs to accommodate the changing digital reality of what makes for originality.[8] When an Associated Press reporter posed the question to the AI content generator whether students should use it to devise the text of their assignments, ChatGPT responded, “As a general rule, it is not appropriate to use ChatGPT or any other automated writing tool for school papers, as it is considered cheating and does not benefit the student in the long run.”[9] As I write, many state legislators are passing laws that include a provision to create educational firewalls to inhibit use of AI-generated content in schools and its problematic use in public forums.[10] Questions abound.
In 2012 Lucy and I wrote that when it comes to sermons, “Excellence engages sources; plagiarism embezzles them.”[11] But AI-generated content is not the same as plagiarism because it synthesizes generally acknowledged ideas found on the internet.[12] In this sense it is more like a speedy extension of the kind of research I did to write and resource the immediately preceding paragraph about student use of ChatGPT in education. I could have let ChatGPT do that research for me. If AI is a process of amalgamating general knowledge, beliefs, and information, that is not plagiarism. The issue in question is originality. Weighed in the balance, Anglican minister Rev. Kate Spelman notes that AI is becoming ubiquitous in all areas of our lives. Thus, turning to a resource like this as a start in sermon preparation “is the most likely role for ChatGPT in the near future: it can be another tool in the savvy preacher’s toolbox—one which, like any tool, can be wielded well or poorly, producing fruitful or fruitless results.”[13]
The challenge in all this ruminating about the utility of this resource is the ethical concern of the question not being asked. What is a sermon? If, as the Webster’s Dictionary would have it, a sermon is “a talk, discourse, speech given as instruction in religion or morals, especially by a priest, minister, or rabbi during a service, using a text from scripture,” that would just reduce this question to something that is a matter of degree in its use—how much is Chat and how much is me—which is the sensibility behind Rev. Spelman’s assessment. Moving beyond Webster, those of us who have taught seminarians the art of preaching would argue that theologically the Christian tradition has always understood preaching a sermon to be an act of giving public witness to God. In the Christian tradition, a witness is a person who cooperates with the Holy Spirit in telling others about Jesus (Acts 1:8). He or she is a person who “testifies to the good news of God’s grace” (Acts 20:24). Christian witnesses give testimony to what they have seen and experienced and express their convictions as to why this testimony matters as witness to God’s truth.[14] Thus, more than just a matter of degree involved in “adding to,” “enhancing,” or “personalizing” a message generated by AI is the question of the preacher’s authenticity as a witness who testifies as an expression of her or his faith in God. This is the virtue that Dr. Hogan and I presented as the alternative to “the Pretender in the pulpit” in our Six Deadly Sins of Preaching.
Choosing to be authentic is a call to be genuine in what one says in the name of faith—an issue of originality. Those who choose to listen to sermons expect to hear the testimony of a person of faith who has wrestled with the text of scripture on their behalf. They want to hear God’s word proclaimed by a preacher who takes the time to fully engage the text to be preached in order to hear in it the truth of God originally communicated to those who first heard these words. They want that preacher to also faithfully communicate how that truth is relevant in the changed circumstances of their lives. Sermons are meant to be testimony because preaching is the holy calling to name who God is and to name God’s grace in the world today. It is gospel proclamation meant to sustain and enrich faith in God among those who hear its witness. Can ChatGPT provide illustrative language to aid in making gospel truth discovered in wrestling with a biblical text meaningful to listeners? In some ways, “Yes.” It is a synthesizing research resource. When it is used like other print and digital resources that preachers have always turned to in order to enhance insight in what others have had to say about a text, it can help. But should what ChatGPT provides be the source of a preacher’s testimony? Can ChatGPT provide its own witness to the grace of God that it sees in the world? “No.” At best, it is a borrowed, amalgamated testimony.
I agree with Rev. Spelman that ChatGPT and sermon generators are here as an available resource preachers can choose to use in coming up with what to say. What we do with them and how we use this resource will be the difference between offering a clear explanations and applications of a biblical content and offering a credible witness to having faith in God. A preacher who shares borrowed testimony characterized by a preponderance of ‘heavy-lifting’ from other sources—be it plagiarized text or AI amalgamated text—is not offering an authentic witness. Authenticity in preaching requires the palpable presence of a preacher’s passions, convictions, interests, struggle, questions, sensibilities, affirmations, and the trusted familiarity of that person’s perspective about why faith in God matters. If we outsource this responsibility, that isn’t taking responsibility to be authentic with God and with God’s people. No preacher wants to become a “pretender” who tries to connect with listeners by way of a borrowed faith and a borrowed witness. No one wants or should want to be a pretender in the pulpit.
* The views of any CCSN columnists are their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of the CCSN. We invite and embrace a wide range of views and critiques on important communication and cultural issues from a Christian perspective. The CCSN is a community of Jesus followers who study communication. We do not support or promote a particular social, political, or denominational agenda.
Notes
[1] Robert Stephen Reid and Lucy Lind Hogan, The Six Deadly Sins of Preaching: Becoming Responsible for the Faith we Proclaim (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2012).
[2] Steve Sjogren, “Don’t be original – be effective!” Rick Warren’s Ministry Toolbox 250 (March 15, 2006). Available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB116355983749723495
[3] Lectionary resources for clergy have always provided resources like this. For example, Kim and Gibson provide a useful resource that identifies the primary theme and key ideas to develop as preaching points for every large block of scripture throughout the Bible; Matthew D. Kim and Scott M. Gibson, eds., The Big Idea Companion for Preaching and Teaching: A Guide from Genesis to Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021).
[4] Thomas G. Long, “Stolen Goods: Tempted to Plagiarize,” Christian Century (April 17, 2007), 19-20.
[5] For examples of simple homilies produced by ChatGBT see three such examples provided by the Episcopal preaching foundation at https://www.preachingfoundation.org/news/chatgpt-sermon-examples/; Jared Stacy, “’Hey ChatGPT, Write My Sermon’: Is Christian Ministry Ready for Chat-Based AI?” The Homeward Dispatch (Dec 05, 2022) online at https://jaredstacy.substack.com/p/hey-chatgpt-write-my-sermon. For a bootcamp explanation of how to use the resource with captured visuals of design parameters see “11 Chat GPT Prompts for Church Leaders: A Prompt Engineering Bootcamp,” Curchtrac Online (by “Matt;” no date) at https://www.churchtrac.com/articles/11-chat-gpt-prompts-for-church-leaders-a-prompt-engineering-bootcamp. En Rui Chua has recently published findings in an on-line Sage Press Journal analyzing the quality of 27 evangelistic sermons generated by ChatGPT. He concludes that “The findings of this study highlight the potential for utilizing AI to automate the sermon preparation process;” En Rui Chua. ChatGPT’s Gospel Preaching Process: A Grounded Theory Study. Advance. March 22, 2024. This online article will be published in an upcoming issue of Theology and Science Journal—a Sage Press print publication.
[6] Yi-Li Lin, “I Used ChatGPT for Six Months to Help My Pastoral Ministry. Here’s What Worked.” Christianity Today (September 1, 2023); https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2023/august-web-only/chatgpt-ai-ministry-pastoral-taiwan.html.
[7] Yi-Li Lin, “I Used ChatGPT for Six Months,” on line.
[8] Cindy Gordon, “How Are Educators Reacting to Chat GPT?” Forbes Magazine (Apr 30, 2023); online at https://www.forbes.com/sites/cindygordon/2023/04/30/how-are-educators-reacting-to-chat-gpt/.
[9] Matt O’Brian, “EXPLAINER: What is ChatGPT and Why Are Schools Blocking It?” Associated Press News online (Jan 6, 2023) at https://apnews.com/article/what-is-chat-gpt-ac4967a4fb41fda31c4d27f015e32660#:~:text=But%20when%20asked%20to%20answer,student%20in%20the%20long%20run.%E2%80%9D.
[10] Paige Gross, “States Strike Out on Their Own with AI, Privacy Regulation,” Ashland Chronicle online (July 20, 20024) at https://theashlandchronicle.com/states-strike-out-on-their-own-with-ai-privacy-regulation/.
[11] Reid and Hogan, The Six Deadly Sins, 24.
[12] Plagiarism is considered to be the act of presenting specific ideas or well worded phrasing as one’s own creation in an uncited manner.
[13] Kate Spelman, “Could ChatGPT Write Your Sermon? Exploring Artificial Intelligence for Sermon Prep,” Kerygma (Summer 2023)—An online Episcopal Preaching Foundation Resource at https://www.preachingfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/202307-Kerygma-Summer-2023-web-1.pdf.
[14] See Thomas G. Long, The Witness of Preaching, 2nd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 45-51.