These aren't evangelicals. I'm long past that. It really is what people say from all over the theological spectrum IME.
I can't say it's been my experience outside of evangelicalism, although I accept that people can use those kind of language in other settings too.
Generally I'd say it's more a figure of speech than anything else.
Rather than say, 'I was reading the Parable of the Sower this morning and it struck me that ...' someone will say, 'God showed me through the Parable of the Sower that ...'
Which implies flashing lights and woo-woo woo-woo.
This might be a matter for another thread but in my neck of the woods the emphasis is on God being 'everywhere and filling all things' rather than stomping down from heaven with a Terry Gilliam style Monty Python foot.
So God is indeed speaking through the scriptures, the liturgy, hymns, sermon, whatever else ... but not in a kind of whizz-bang zap kind of way.
A preacher carefully preparing a sermon doesn't go off into a trance any more than iconography is the pictorial equivalent of 'automatic writing'.
Yet I believe to be 'at work' in and through both.
'In these last days God has spoken to us through his Son.'
Think of it as having a group of people scouring the internet for sermons, and reporting back to you. Researching, not writing the sermon.
I’m afraid that’s not a prospect that strikes me as useful or beneficial. To my mind, scouring the internet for other sermons rather misses the whole point of sermon preparation.
We have different approaches then. From my point of view, if there's really helpful insights about a passage out there, I'd like to know about them so I can share them with the congregation.
That's not mutually exclusive with writing the rest myself.
I also read other people's sermons online sometimes for the same reason, cognizant that they were created for other people in other times and places. (John Chrysostom and Jonathan Edwards have some real bangers ) Others' sermons may have information or insights which I hadn't found elsewhere.
Although with the death of Textweek, my favourite free resource, it's become a lot harder to find decent free online commentaries and sermons.
I came to this site through Desperate Preacher, also now defunct, I think.
Think of it as having a group of people scouring the internet for sermons, and reporting back to you. Researching, not writing the sermon.
I’m afraid that’s not a prospect that strikes me as useful or beneficial. To my mind, scouring the internet for other sermons rather misses the whole point of sermon preparation.
We have different approaches then. From my point of view, if there's really helpful insights about a passage out there, I'd like to know about them so I can share them with the congregation.
Perhaps I should note here that I’m not clergy, and so I don’t preach. (At least I rarely preach. I have been called on to preach a few times over the years. Pity those congregations.)
So I’m speaking from the perspective of one who hears the sermons, not one who prepares and delivers them. And, fwiw, from the perspective of one who grew up in a family full of ministers, so heard lots of opinions about sermons growing up.
I’m speaking from the perspective of my tradition (Reformed/Presbyterian), with a particular eye toward the understanding I mentioned upthread: A sermon is a very time- and place-specific thing—this preacher and this gathered congregation in this place at this time.
Since this particular part of the discussion was prompted by my mentioning the resolution adopted by the PC(USA) ‘s General Assembly this past summer, I should perhaps note that General Assembly is made up of an equal number of ministers and elders. The vote on this particular resolution—which addressed much more than sermon preparation, though the part on sermon preparation generated discussion in committee and on the floor—was 368–88, or around 76%–24%. I think it’s safe to assume from that vote that a majority of ministers, perhaps a strong majority, voted for the recommendation.
I also read other people's sermons online sometimes for the same reason, cognizant that they were created for other people in other times and places. (John Chrysostom and Jonathan Edwards have some real bangers ) Others' sermons may have information or insights which I hadn't found elsewhere.
And I don’t think that’s problematic at all, nor is it discouraged by the resolution I’ve cited. That resolution urges against the use of generative AI—AI that does the preacher’s analysis for them and/or writes for them.
This meaning of "useful" is closely related to the meaning of "productivity" in capitalist economies.
For a start, don’t use just one, use several. Most of it can be rejected, but chances are one or two will come up with something really, really helpful not previously on the radar.
Then edit the good stuff heavily for style.
Think of it as having a group of people scouring the internet for sermons, and reporting back to you. Researching, not writing the sermon.
Except it's not a group of people scouring the internet and it's not research. Imagining that it is these things is good for business - the business of using vast amounts of electricity to extract profit from the agglomeration of fragments of what started out as human-generated text.
That's not mutually exclusive with writing the rest myself.
If it's good enough for writing some of a sermon, why not train an AI to generate sermons in your style, so you only have to change the bits you don't like?
Slightly tangential... A few months ago a guest minister announced that he had found the script of a sermon delivered long ago by his grandfather - it was so good that he was going to use it again that day. He is a good preacher in his own right: he carefully massaged the old sermon to fit the occasion and it came across very well indeed. A splendid example of intelligent recycling. No doubt a computer somewhere will have digested the recording and will regurgitate it eventually it as anonymous AI.
It is certainly possible to re-use sermons, especially useful given the three-year Anglican Lectionary cycle; but only with care to fit them to the reality that each delivery of a sermon is unique. The same sermon given at 9.30 and 11.00 in two different churches always proves, in fact, not to be the same sermon at all: a sermon is, or should be, the establishment of a relationship between the giver and those particular hearers on that particular day, in that particular place, so can't be repeated.
Preaching is inevitably a sort of performatory act, but with the difference that, as others have said, the preacher's intention is that the hearers' ears are opened not to him/her but to God.
I liken it to holding a door open, so that people can glimpse a place nearer in to God where they can enter, while not myself getting in the way.
And, as others have also said, God gave us minds so presumably intends us to use them. Regurgitating religious platitudes and spiritual tranquilizers doesn't cut it.
That's not mutually exclusive with writing the rest myself.
If it's good enough for writing some of a sermon, why not train an AI to generate sermons in your style, so you only have to change the bits you don't like?
If folk want to continue to prepare sermons in the traditional way, go right ahead.
There is a half way house between that and getting AI to write sermons (not a good idea). I find using AI as a research tool massively improves what I write, giving me ideas I would never have considered. It works really well for a lot of us.
Do people read commentaries and Bible notes in preparation for a sermon? This is the same, only much more effective.
Do people read commentaries and Bible notes in preparation for a sermon? This is the same, only much more effective.
I’d say two things there. First, whether it is “more effective” is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you find it more effective—I take your word for it that you do—doesn’t mean everyone would find it more effective.
And second, it really isn’t the same, and I think any teacher dealing with students writing papers could tell you that. There is an expectation that AI will, as it were, understand it for you, rather than putting in the work to understand it yourself.
And, oh well, I’ll go ahead and say a third thing, piggybacking on this that @pease wrote:
[Except it's not a group of people scouring the internet and it's not research. Imagining that it is these things is good for business - the business of using vast amounts of electricity to extract profit from the agglomeration of fragments of what started out as human-generated text.
I think it’s incumbent on anyone using AI in a church context, and perhaps particularly in the context of sermon preparation, to ask a lot of questions and give a lot of consideration to the ethics and morality involved in that usage. I’m not saying how those questions and considerations should be resolved, but AI usage can involve reliance on the intellectual property of others without permission or compensation, as well as significant use of electricity, with all that is connected to the production of that electricity.
Comments
I can't say it's been my experience outside of evangelicalism, although I accept that people can use those kind of language in other settings too.
Generally I'd say it's more a figure of speech than anything else.
Rather than say, 'I was reading the Parable of the Sower this morning and it struck me that ...' someone will say, 'God showed me through the Parable of the Sower that ...'
Which implies flashing lights and woo-woo woo-woo.
This might be a matter for another thread but in my neck of the woods the emphasis is on God being 'everywhere and filling all things' rather than stomping down from heaven with a Terry Gilliam style Monty Python foot.
So God is indeed speaking through the scriptures, the liturgy, hymns, sermon, whatever else ... but not in a kind of whizz-bang zap kind of way.
A preacher carefully preparing a sermon doesn't go off into a trance any more than iconography is the pictorial equivalent of 'automatic writing'.
Yet I believe to be 'at work' in and through both.
'In these last days God has spoken to us through his Son.'
(Apologies for the male pronoun)
God has spoken to us through Christ.
And that's saying something.
We have different approaches then. From my point of view, if there's really helpful insights about a passage out there, I'd like to know about them so I can share them with the congregation.
That's not mutually exclusive with writing the rest myself.
Although with the death of Textweek, my favourite free resource, it's become a lot harder to find decent free online commentaries and sermons.
I came to this site through Desperate Preacher, also now defunct, I think.
So I’m speaking from the perspective of one who hears the sermons, not one who prepares and delivers them. And, fwiw, from the perspective of one who grew up in a family full of ministers, so heard lots of opinions about sermons growing up.
I’m speaking from the perspective of my tradition (Reformed/Presbyterian), with a particular eye toward the understanding I mentioned upthread: A sermon is a very time- and place-specific thing—this preacher and this gathered congregation in this place at this time.
Since this particular part of the discussion was prompted by my mentioning the resolution adopted by the PC(USA) ‘s General Assembly this past summer, I should perhaps note that General Assembly is made up of an equal number of ministers and elders. The vote on this particular resolution—which addressed much more than sermon preparation, though the part on sermon preparation generated discussion in committee and on the floor—was 368–88, or around 76%–24%. I think it’s safe to assume from that vote that a majority of ministers, perhaps a strong majority, voted for the recommendation.
And I don’t think that’s problematic at all, nor is it discouraged by the resolution I’ve cited. That resolution urges against the use of generative AI—AI that does the preacher’s analysis for them and/or writes for them.
Except it's not a group of people scouring the internet and it's not research. Imagining that it is these things is good for business - the business of using vast amounts of electricity to extract profit from the agglomeration of fragments of what started out as human-generated text.
If it's good enough for writing some of a sermon, why not train an AI to generate sermons in your style, so you only have to change the bits you don't like?
Preaching is inevitably a sort of performatory act, but with the difference that, as others have said, the preacher's intention is that the hearers' ears are opened not to him/her but to God.
I liken it to holding a door open, so that people can glimpse a place nearer in to God where they can enter, while not myself getting in the way.
And, as others have also said, God gave us minds so presumably intends us to use them. Regurgitating religious platitudes and spiritual tranquilizers doesn't cut it.
Might I suggest the second quote answers the first quote question?
If folk want to continue to prepare sermons in the traditional way, go right ahead.
There is a half way house between that and getting AI to write sermons (not a good idea). I find using AI as a research tool massively improves what I write, giving me ideas I would never have considered. It works really well for a lot of us.
Do people read commentaries and Bible notes in preparation for a sermon? This is the same, only much more effective.
And second, it really isn’t the same, and I think any teacher dealing with students writing papers could tell you that. There is an expectation that AI will, as it were, understand it for you, rather than putting in the work to understand it yourself.
And, oh well, I’ll go ahead and say a third thing, piggybacking on this that @pease wrote: I think it’s incumbent on anyone using AI in a church context, and perhaps particularly in the context of sermon preparation, to ask a lot of questions and give a lot of consideration to the ethics and morality involved in that usage. I’m not saying how those questions and considerations should be resolved, but AI usage can involve reliance on the intellectual property of others without permission or compensation, as well as significant use of electricity, with all that is connected to the production of that electricity.