Should AI Write Sermons?

0:02 Looking at our world from a theological perspective. This is the Theology Central podcast making Theology Central. So, which do you prefer? A sermon written by a human being or a sermon put together written by artificial intelligence? Which do you prefer? It's put together by a human being or it's completely entirely put together by artificial intelligence. Which do you prefer? Now? Based on some comments that I've seen already under a number of websites, people are like, absolutely not.

0:46 If a pastor is using AI to write his sermons, he's basically disqualified from ministry. He's finished. He shouldn't be. It's ungodly, and so there's a lot of people who do not like it. But I'm somewhat baffled by why people for humans to put together their sermons in artificial intelligence, Because did you not hear the sermon review we did yesterday? Have you not heard the sermon reviews? These are sermons supposedly put together by humans, and every single time artificial intelligence can point out all the flaws and all the mistakes and the sermons put together by humans. Did you hear the last broadcast I did? Well, if you didn't, you're never going to hear it because I deleted it because it was a total train wreck. Why because a human being had an idea but I could not carry out the idea in a good way. So which do you prefer? Well, we're going to be talking about this.

1:42 We've been talking about this all of twenty twenty five. And well, just about thirty minutes ago, someone sent me an email. There's nothing to the email other than a link right where there's two links. They sent me two links, and the first link I was like, oh wow, I got to check this out. But let's do this. Let's get the official greeting out of the way. Good afternoon everyone. It is Wednesday, February the twenty six, twenty twenty five. It is currently five pm Central time, and I am coming to you live from the Theology Central Studio located right here in West Texas. And well, I hope I hope this goes well. I hope this is beneficial. Like I said the last live broadcast, I just I deleted it.

2:24 It was a train wreck. I did everything wrong there. I had an idea, but it fell apart. And that's because well, I'm a human being, and we make lots of mistakes and we don't always do things right. And one of the things that we have been talking about throughout this year is we've kind of been placing artificial intelligence versus sermons. I'm like, I'm taking sermons. I'm like, okay, Artificial intelligence, in many cases, predict what these sermons are going to do wrong, analyze what the sermons are going to do wrong, analyze and find all of the logical errors, hermeneutical errors, exegetical errors go. And in every single case, AI not only is it good at predicting the problems, it tears the problems apart. And so in everything that we've done, artificial intelligence has won every single time. So what I don't know, what do we do with that? Well, here's what happened. So I did a live broadcast. I get done, I'm very upset, I'm very frustrated, I give up.

3:28 I'm like, I retire, I'm gonna move on. And then I get an email at four thirty four pm, so just a little while ago. I mean it was probably the email probably came while I was broadcasting. It's and here's the subject line, John Piper appalled by pastors using AI to write sermons. John Piper is appalled. He he can't believe that pastors would use AI to write sermons. Now, I'm I'm somewhat baffled here, because how many sermons have I heard that we're influenced and put together by the writings of John Piper. John Piper, you write books, you publish things. Pastors take your books, they take your sermons, and they structure their sermons off of it. So if you're appalled that pastors would use AI to write sermons, are you appalled that they use your content to write sermons? Well, then why do you publish books? Why did you post your sermons online? The most ridiculous thing. So already I'm already irritated. I'm already irritated. So I click on the link.

4:42 The link takes me to an article to post it at the published today at the Christian Post. John Piper appalled by pastors using AI to write sermons. Now, typically I would go through the article. I'm going to just bypass the article because I know this is ironic. John Piper said this on his podcast, and let me say, I bet you that podcast is used by many pastors too, I don't know, write sermons because they listen to it. And they take the idea and they work with it. Now, he said, well, it's not the same thing. You you're just now trying to draw some distinction. Well, if you use my book, it's not the same thing as me writing the sermon. Well or or I don't know. I've I've looked at your books and listened to some sermons, and I just know they're very similar. But but okay, so let's let's let's see what he has to say.

5:35 So we're just gonna go to listen to this. This is from ask Pastor John. It's a podcast. You can subscribe to it, and uh, basically, well, we're gonna hear what happens. I haven't listened to it yet. I just know that according to the news article, and according to the email sent to me, John Piper is appalled the pastors would use AI to write sermons. Yeah, ok, all right, right, all right, all right, now just remember how old is John Piper? How old is John Piper? Hang on, okay, how old. Is John? You know, if I can spell right, John Piper seventy nine years old. He's seventy nine year Please now, seventy nine years old. Well, here's what I think is going to happen. Those who are old are going to be appalled that pastors are using AI. It's an This is more of an I'm going to put this this is an age thing because logically the argument makes zero sense to me. But let's listen to what he said.

6:45 Here we go, should AI? Should I use AI to help me write a sermon? I think? Is the full title here? All right, here's John Piper. Here we go. Welcome back to a new week. On this Monday, we returned to the topic of AI. We touched on it recently in APG eight, nineteen eighty five. John Piper on chat GBT and their pastor. John You explained that Christian hedonism offers a unique angle on AI, emphasizing that God is glorified when humans not only understand Him but also rejoice in Him from the heart, something AI, lacking spiritual affections and a supernatural heart, cannot replicate. Never, AI is fundamentally disconnected from God's intended purpose for our intelligence. Since then, you followed up with even more thoughts in your sin conference matter.

7:44 Let me jump in and guess what AI also doesn't have. AI doesn't have, Oh yeah, a sinful nature. It doesn't have a nature. Right, So if you're going to say, well AI doesn't have this, well AI also doesn't have a sinful name, You're correct. AI may not have a philological loyalty, a philological bias. AI may be able to look at the text and just say, here's what the text says, here's what the text doesn't set based on history, based on context, and it's not going to look at it or be motivated or be influenced by its philological alliance to philological allegiance, theological background. So, if you're going to point out what AI, you know, well, AI can't do this. Well, there's a lot of good things because air is not human that it can do. It can do a lot of things that will Pastor seem incapable of doing when it comes to preaching, all.

8:40 Right, message explaining why we never hear about artificial emotion? Interesting, I suppose there's still a lot to address here as you build out your thoughts on AI, Pastor, John, we're going to revisit the topic with two new angles raised by podcast listeners, a pastor and a college ministry leader. The first email is from an anonymous pastor. He asks this quote, Pastor John, Do you think it's okay to use AI platforms like Gemini and chat GBT to help draft a sermon, youth lesson, or Bible study as long as that review adjust and ensure it aligns with God's word.

9:21 As long as you review adjust to ensure that it aligns with God's word. No, you mean you're going to review and adjust it to align with your philological interpretation of God's word. Let's not get this twisted. Let's not play some game when a pastor's like, hey, I'm going to use AI, but I'm going to review it to ensure that it aligns with God's word. No, no, no, no, You're going to review it to it aligns with your interpretation of God's word. Let's not play any games here. Whenever Christians say, well, that doesn't align with God's word, No, that doesn't align with your interpretation of God's word, because that person thinks it does align with God's word. Someone who holds the lordship salvation. They believe their interpretation of salvation aligns with God's word. Someone who rejects lordship salvation, they think their interpretation aligns with God's word. Someone who baptized babies thinks their interpretation aligns with God's word. Someone who doesn't baptized baby thinks their view aligns with God's word.

10:22 Everyone thinks their view aligns with God's word. So nobody changes something to align with God's word. You change it to align with your interpretation of God's word. Because if everyone could just change everything to ensure it aligned with God's word, then we would all have the same interpretation. But since no one has the same interpretation, then all we're doing is making it aligned with our interpretation of it, because obviously no one knows what it actually says. And that's human beings. We've had our run, we've had our opportunity, we've had two thousand years to figure it out, and we still haven't figured it out. So don't give me this garbage. Oh no, no, I'm gonna I'm gonna check ai and make sure it aligns with God's word. You're just making sure it aligns with what you think the Word of God says. And that's the problem with human beings, okay, Because we think, and we bring in our bias, we bring in our prejudice, we bring in our previous understanding, and we mold and shape whenever pastors and teachers get to the word of God, we don't hand people the unadulterated word of God. We hand them something that we now have molded in shape, and we put it through our filter.

11:42 End quote. The second email comes from a college ministry leader. Hello, Pastor John, thank you for this podcast and the ways it has blessed so many. My question is can I use AI to write my newsletter to ministry supporters. I provide real updates and true facts, but I find writing particularly frustrating. Well, a I would help me write newsletters more quickly and frequently. I worry it could feel misleading to my supporters. What are the potential dangers of pastors using AI for ministry tasks like sermon preparation and newsletter writing. Well, let's start with a definition. I got this straight off of Google another another artificial intelligence defining artificial intelligence.

12:23 Artificial intelligence is technology that enables computers and machines to simulate human learning, comprehension, problem solving, decision making, creativity, and autonomy. Plus quote and what you just referred to Tony in the question is my message at seeing where I drew attention to the fact that missing from that definition, that list of things that it simulates is emotion. Feelings are not listed there. So I need a For AI to write a sermon, it has to have emotion. No, I don't need it to give me emotion. I needed to give me exegetical understanding of the text to ensure that I'm handling interpreting the text textually correct, culturally correct, historically. I'm trying to get accuracy. I don't need AI to give me emotion.

13:23 I needed to give me intellect analysis. I needed to provide cultural context, language, literary context, whatever I'm looking for to understand the text. The fact is our emotion, in many cases is very detrimental. Emotion can be detrimental to intellect, right, can it not be? So I'm already perplexed that he's like, it doesn't have emotion a good thing. I don't need it to give me. It's emotional feeling about the text. I needed to give me a clear understanding of the text so that I can avoid all the problems humans make with the text.

14:08 Why and I made a big deal out of that because the ultimate purpose of the universe is that God be glorified, and he is glorified, not merely by being rightly thought about, logically comprehended, but by rightly being enjoyed, admired, appreciated, valued. And God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him, which means no artificial intelligence will ever be able to worship. I don't need AI to worship. I need AI to help me ensure that I understand the text exegetically, harmoneutically, contextually.

14:55 I don't need AI to worship. I don't need AI too feel I need a I to handle a text. It's the God's word is put in a written form right. It has to be understood through literary genre. It has to be understood through through grammatical construction. It has to be understood based off language, meaning of words, context sintext. I don't need worship. I don't need emotion. I need to understand that human beings have had two thousand years of emotion and supposed worship, and we've been slaughtering the word of God for two thousand years. You don't believe me, just go back and listen to the last sermon I reviewed.

15:39 What kind of train wreck was that? Worship? Is not simply right thinking, which computers can do worship is right feeling about God? That's really crucial. Oh, that's interesting. Is worship right thinking about God or right feeling about God? Is it either? Or? If you have wrong thinking about God? Is your worship correct? Don't you have to worship Him in truth?

16:22 I'm gonna do something. I'm gonna do something really, I'm gonna do something really bad here. Oh, John Piper may be appalled. I'm going to use AI. Is worship of God? Hang on? Right thinking. About God. Or right feeling about God? All right? Hang on, We're gonna wait here. Ok, here we go. I knew AI was gonna go this direction. All right. Worship of God involves both right thinking about God and right feelings, but the order and relationship between the two are are crucial.

17:21 Right thinking, orthodoxy, right doctrine about God. Worship must be rooted in truth. Jesus says God is spirit and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth. This means our worship must be based on right understanding of who God is as revealed in scripture. Worship that is detached from truth becomes emotionalism or idolatry, where one worships a false conception of God. Romans twelve one through two connects worship to renewing the mind, emphasizing that worship is a response to God's revelation. So let's just get this. This is not an either or proper position. If you're going to worship God, it starts with right thinking, not right emotion. Right thinking. You've got to have the right God.

18:09 You're got to believe the right things about God, or it just becomes mindless emotionalism. Now, what about the right feelings? Biblical worship is not just intellectual acknowledgment, but also involves affections like love, reverence, gratitude, in awe. The greatest commanditists to love the Lord that God with all your heart. The psalms are filled with expressions of deep emotion, joy, longing, sorrow, and I'll just make it very clear, we'll never love God the way Matthew twenty two thirty seven says, that's a law passage. Okay, but what is the relationship. Right thinking should lead to right affections. A true knowledge of God should stir the heart in a genuine worship. However, emotions not rooted in truth can lead to misguided worship. Worshiping an idea of God that isn't biblical. If someone claims to know God but has no love, reverence, or joy in him, their knowledge is merely intellectual. One without the other is incomplete. So the true worship is a combination of right thinking and right affection. It starts with knowing God rightly, then that should lead to right affection.

19:11 You have to have both. Don't make this either or and still this has nothing to do with it because it doesn't matter to me if AI has right thinking or or. Well, it cares about right thinking, But what I'm trying to say is ultimately all I care about. Can AI analyze and give me a right understanding of the text? Can it analyze it grammatically, contextually, historically, exogetically, hermeneutically, you just philologically. But he's almost like, well, since AI can't do this, then AI can't be. But I'm going to pack that up because I'm hoping he's going to come in and say we need both. I'm hoping he's going to come in and say we need both. Right here we go.

19:57 God be glorified, and he is glorified merely by being rightly thought about, logically comprehended, but by rightly being enjoyed, admired, appreciated, valued, and God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him, which means no artificial intelligence will ever be able to worship. Worship is not simply right thinking which computers can do worship is right feeling about God. That's really crucial unless we begin to think that artificial intelligence can take the place of human beings in accomplishing the divine purpose in the universe. It can't.

20:42 No one is saying AI can accomplish God's divine purpose now, nobody is saying that. No. This is not about can AI worship God? Can AI glorify God? Can AI accomplish the divine purpose? That's not the question. Can AI write? Sir? I will argue AI write sermons better than people, And we've tested it now, over and over and over and over, and every single time AI has destroyed the sermons. It does better job and exegetical, it avoids the logical errors, the fallacy. I mean, come on, now, so so far he's not even answered the question. He's not even answered the question. He's just trying to explain. If you want to say, well, what can AI not do? AI cannot worship God. AI cannot accomplish the divine purpose and glorifying God. Okay, all right, now, I got no problem with that. What has that got to do with the question.

21:37 The affections of the human heart are fundamentally of another nature than the logical thinking process of the human mind. We are not bothered. I'm not bothered anyway that a computer can simulate human logical reasoning. But we consider it ludicrous when a machine attempts to rejoice or do or be glad, or stand in awe or be amazed, or feel grief or fear. We know that these are the making of the human soul, so uniquely that they will not be replaced by machines. The very phrase artificial emotion is an oxymorn. So that was the point of the message at seeing, And I think that distinction between artificial intelligence and artificial emotion frees us from an overly fearful reaction to what AI can do and can't do.

22:42 Okay, I'm still trying to follow his logic here, But okay, this is supposed to remove us not having being overly fearful because AI can't do these things. Okay, I got no problem with that I still don't know. I don't what does this have anything to do with whether it can write a sermon. I'm assuming there's going to be a bridge here, a transition where he links this all together. But he's running out of time because this is a very These podcast episodes are only like twelve minutes long, ten minutes long, so I'm hoping he gets to the point. What we have essentially in the form of artificial intelligence called chat GPT or others, but I'm focusing a chat GPT.

23:24 That's what I'm most familiar with and have worked with most. What we have here is a powerful online assistant design by its own definition. If you type into chat GPT what are you, it'll tell you I am an assistant to quote to understand and generate human like text based on the input it receives. Users can ask questions. I'm still quoting. Users can ask questions, seek information, or engage in conversation, and chat GPT responds with relevant and coherent text. That's crucial.

24:04 End quote. Now that's new. Google doesn't write essays or poems. Chat GPT does, so you can get a lot of information from Google. Ask you all kinds of questions, and get the answers you want. It won't write a poem for you, and chat GPT will, which means that chat GPT has at least these two distinct functions information and composition. You can, okay, I am glad he's drawing the distinction between Google and chat GPT, or Google and AI. That's good, But I am curious if you're gonna, in any way, shape or form, say you're appalled by people using AI to write sermons. You're telling me pastors never used Google, never use the internet, never search for things, never, never use a library, never used book bok, never used podcasts, never used other sermons. Okay, all right, Well, let's say if you draw some distinction y AI is he's a poll that they would use that, but he's got to be a poll that they would use everything else.

25:15 And ask chat GPT to give you the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. For example, you can say, write me a one hundred word paragraph describing and it would just write a beautiful one hundred word paragraph describing the symptoms of Parkinson's disease and give you a list. And in that sense, chat GPT is simply a very sophisticated addition to other sources we regularly use to help us know what we needed to know and understand what we need to understand. Dictionaries, encyclopedias, articles, books, google searches, and so on. We've been doing this for a thousand years, getting help from other people to help us know what we need to know understand what we need to understand. That's just relatively old school if you chat GPT that way. What's new is that you can ask chat GPT to write a two thousand words sermon on the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke fifteen.

26:10 In fact, you can say you can tell GPT you can type in please write me a two thousand words sermon on the Prodigal Son from Luke fifteen in the style and language of theologian John Piper or John Calvin or Arcie Sproul, and you will get an astonishingly well written sermon in the style and language of the theologian that you ask about. Or you can ask GPT to write your monthly newsletter. Just give him a few facts and tell him to write it in X number of words, and he'll do it as well as you can do it. Probably now here's something for you to think about. When I saw what Tony you wanted me to talk about here with AI, I went to chat GP and here's what I typed in, Please write an eight hundred word answer in the theology and style of theologian John Piper to the question what are the dangers of a pastor?

27:12 Using AI end quote? That was what I asked. Took him five seconds, and he produced an eight hundred and fifty seven word essay that was so good that if I were reading it right now, I don't think you, Tony or your listeners would know that I'm reading from chat GPT. It was amazing. So there was There was an introduction. Then there was point one the danger of disconnection from the divine and a quote from Second Corinthians two point number two. No, I think First Corinthians two point number two, the risk of impersonal ministry and a quote from John ten their Courting Scripture, because John Piper does it sort of thing right. Point number three, the challenge of theological integrity, a quote from Hebrews four point four, the peril of ethical compromise. Point five the threat of idolatry inefficiency, and a quote from someone twenty seven and a conclusion called a call for dessernment. I mean, it is excellent, unbelievable.

28:18 Okay, yeah, it's excellent. It's unbelievable. I know it is. What AI can do is excellent. It's unbelievable. That's been the point I've been making all of twenty twenty five. So why are you appalled that someone would use an excellent tool that does things so great to help people better construct a proper teaching on the Word of God. And again, just know people have been using things forever. But this is gonna be hilarious because I'm going to use the same AI tool that analyze what he said. So it's gonna be it's gonna be kind of interesting here to see what happens. But let's let's let this play out. And if you and if you, if I had read that to you, yeah, as my own, it would have been.

29:06 Wicked. This is what I want to do the folks to hear. Wicked. I'm using a strong word because I feel strongly about this. Now, if you mean it would be wicked because you would tell people that it was yours and not from AI. Now we're talking, But let me make it very clear. Pastors have been playing this game forever. They get up there, they preach a sermon as if it's theirs, but they're not telling everyone that A good portion of that sermon came from MacArthur's commentary, page eighty six from John Piper's book, page seventeen from Piper sermon from Charles Hadden Spurgeon from because they're always pulling from things now and so it's always like, well, as long as it's not word for word, then it's not really plagiarism. They're just being in flit by so how much. And there's always been this debate how much should a pastor say, well, hey, I put this sermon together this week, I was using these four commentaries, so I borrowed the outline from this one. Nobody really wants the pastor to stand there and offer a full, you know, detailed outline of which came from where, which came from what? Now. If he's reading directly from it, then people will say, well, okay. Typically the pastor will say, and i'm quoting now here, John MacArthur, I'm quoting now here this, or I'm quoting now. In many cases that gives you an indication Now sometimes though, you'll go look at the outline and everything you're like, that's straight for MacArthur's commentary. I mean, give me a break. I mean that that's like verbatim, Like I mean, it's clearly the outline.

30:39 But if you just take the outline, but you're making all the points yourself, like there's all. But let's just make it clear. Pastors have been taking and not giving credit forever. All right, that's always been the case, always been, Because again do you go, all right, guys, before I preach, here on the slide, here are the five books I used this week, and a large portion of this was constructed and put together based on outlines and points made there. However, I've endeavored to make this mine. Now, if someone just writes a sermon from AI and it just makes it, just preaches it as if it's theirs, now we get into back to plagiarism. Now we can get into a discussion.

31:21 It's not AI is not the fault there. It's not that it was You should be a polled that someone used AI. You should be a polled that someone basically took something and made it out to be their own. That's on the pastor that's not on AI. This goes to. The heart of God and the meaning of Christianity and the integrity of the Church and her ministers. Neither God nor his people speak in a way so as to bring about in the minds of other people thoughts that are not true about us or what we say, or feelings in them that are not appropriate about us. That is, we do not deceive. We are people of truth and transparency.

32:12 I mean, I love that. Hey, we're supposed to be people of truth. But how many sermons have gotten utterly, completely fraudulent and factual things wrong in it. We've seen that countless times, and AI typically pulls that out, but I and points that out. But in this case, I do understand what you're saying. This is an issue of plagiarism more than it is an issue of AI. So it says that the news headline is that John Piper is appalled. Is that accurate? Is he appalled by AI or is he appalled by plagiarism? So let's see because maybe the headline was misleading, maybe maybe the headline was wrong. Let's see what happens. Here and honesty through and through or we are nothing.

32:56 So answer no, don't have chat GPT write your newsletter. Don't do it unless you're going to put in clear letters at the top. This newsletter was created by chat GPT. That's honest, and your supporters won't like it, even the secular world without any of our Christian commitments, namely the Chicago Manual of Style. Right, you know what that is? It tells you how these footnotes and everything. The Chicago Manual of Style already has guidelines for how to cite chat GPT sources. When you're quoting from something that was created by chat GPT. The Chicago Manual of Style tells you how to give it credit. And if the world does that, oh my goodness, how much more should we be concerned to be honest through and through?

33:52 Now? I completely agree there now to say that people don't like it. You get a newsletter written by a ministry and you're ticked off because it was made by AI. Get over your stink and self. If the newsletters justos to convey to you some facts and information and up and updates and you're med that AI put it together, what is your issue? Like? You just want to know that the facts are accurate and giving you information. Now, if AI is there trying to pretend that it has some emotion, then okay. But I mean if you're told I think that's crazy that people would not be happy. If I got a newsletter so this is created by AI, I'd be like, they're smart, save themselves, a whole lot of time, a whole lot of effort, and this is organized really good? All right? Great?

34:38 He said, Well, what if someone stood up and said, hey, this sermon. Well, I did it on Sunday. I told everyone I was following AI to the I tried to follow it to the letter on Sunday so that we can finish Isaiah forty. I told everyone. Now, nobody in my church got mad. People online may get mad, But I mean, I don't really care because I've heard the people preach Isaiah forty and every sermon. We've heard human beings, but together or absolutely atrocious. AI at least handled Isaiah forty, I don't know, and actually handled the text. So I would put an I would rather hear an AI sermon than a human sermon. But so Piper is like, people would get mad, I don't. I man, maybe people seventy and over will, maybe people fifty and over. I think younger people would be like, yeah, so you used AI to put it together. Great, it's a tool. And again, when it comes to sermons, how many times I mean I've heard literally sermons, I'm like, for crying. You read Piper's book, didn't you? You read Piper's book. Oh oh, oh you must have read MacArthur's book. Oh you must have read RC. Sprull, because you can tell that the sermon was almost like verbatim like influence. Do they sit there and say, well, I read this, I read No, you most pastors don't do that, And there's always that argument, well, how do they have to stop every fifteen minutes ago while I was reading this, and well then it was this.

35:59 Sometimes they'll give kind of a general statement, you know, hey, I would recommend this book, and then clearly then you can tell that the sermon was influenced by the book. But are they supposed to do that with chat GPT at every point? Now, I try my best to tell people. I try my best to hey, A I asked AI this, or I broke had a I break this down. I try my very best to let everyone know. But all right, so so far he seems more appalled by pastors using AI and then putting it and then preaching it as if it's their own.

36:40 And second, no, don't have chat GPT write the first draft of your sermon, which you then check, adjust and customized. Frankly, I'm appalled at the thought. Appalled. I know that resources and websites have existed forever to help pastors cut corners, create your outlines, provide illustrations, tell you how to do research, and so on. That there's nothing new about this, and it's been appalling to me all the way along. For this reason, one of the qualifications for being an elder pastor preacher in the Bible for Timothy three to two is the gift or the ability to teach deduct to costs.

37:35 That means you must have the ability the gift to read a passage of scripture, understand the reality it deals with, feel the emotions it is meant to elicit, be able to explain it to others, clearly, illustrate and apply it for their edification. That's a gift you must have. It's your number one job if. You with all due respect if if if that's one of the qualifications to be in ministry, I will say most of the sermons we listen to. The pastors don't seem to demonstrate they have that gift because of how messed up the text is typically handled. That's what I would And do we even need to get into some of Piper's understanding about like what is it called final justification? Yeah? Okay, so where you were you able to read the text and understand it? Well? No, everyone reads the text and well, well see, we can get into all kinds of issues there.

38:38 I don't think a pastor is demonstrating a lot that he doesn't have the the he's not apt to teach. I don't think a pastor is demonstrating he doesn't have the ability to teach or not apt to teach because he uses tools and resources. Because even Piper himself admitted people have been using tools and tools and resources forever and again Piper puts out and in fact, let me let me look here, let me look here. Okay, okay, okay, hey, I let me look see it. How many. Books and articles has Pastor. John Piper published? I'm trying to get a number here.

39:26 As of twenty twenty three, Pastor John Piper has authored over seventy books. In twenty seventeen, the Collected Works of John Piper was published, encompassing fifty of his books, hundreds of articles, and various other writings up to twenty fifteen. Since then, he has continued to produce additional works, contributing to his extensive bibliography. Please note over so over seventy books, but hundreds of articles. Seventy books, hundreds of articles. So you publish all this stuff you want people to buy. I bet you pastors bought it. And guess what they did. They took what you wrote and they read it, and they read it and they looked it over, and then they modified, and then they shaped, and then they outlined some cases, basically taking your entire point, your entire idea, and using it. If you can publish all of that stuff, then benefit from the cell of those books and make the money off those books. And then people use your tools.

40:26 But you are appalled that they would use AI. Now you can try to draw some Oh there's a difference. You're trying to make a distinction without like, Oh, it's why because I don't know And you say, well, AI did the first draft. Well, if I'm going to the Piper book and I'm borrowing from the Piper book. Then the Piper Book made the first draft. If I go to a MacArthur book, if I go to a commentary, if I go to Calvin, if I go to if I go to Augustin, if I go to anybody, there's my first draft. Because that's the thing that's sparking the entire idea, and then I'm shaping it based off that. That's the original source, that's the inspiration, that's where I'm going to be structuring it from. So it's the same stinking thing, except it takes me hours to look it up and read this and where AI can do it in five seconds and do it better.

41:22 So don't have it. You should not be a pastor. Let's use chat, GPT and others, other sources that are coming along for information, even for inspiration, just like you use commentaries and articles and books and songs and poetry, but don't use it for composition. He's trying to make that. You can be inspired by it, but don't use it for composition. You think a pastor when he has a book here, he's not sitting there looking at that book and then structuring it, making the It's more. It's more than just oh, I read it and I was inspired. Now, sometimes that happens, right, sometimes where I've got hang on, lean over here, I got sort of the Lord newspapers. Sometimes I will I will see one of these and be, oh that I got an idea, and I will build an idea off it.

42:20 A lot of times I will, I will be. I mean, you've heard me go through it. I based an entire study around it, because it's doing more than just inspiring. It's structuring how I'm going to approach it. It's structuring how I'm gonna look at it. It may it may even provide an outline. Now the outline may be modified to change, so I may make in some cases I'm making the opposite point than what they're making. But it's still helping in the overall structure. You can't say, well, you can be inspired by it, but it doesn't compose, or it doesn't give me a break that the lines are so you're trying to draw this little thin line that's almost impossible not to blur the lines give me.

43:02 And that's just ridiculous. Someone has put out so much material that has been used for people to compose sermons. Who knows how many times, right, and in fact, if if you okay, I'm gonna say, if you search. The internet, wouldn't hang on? Isn't it true that they're. Hang on? That there are hundreds, if not thousands of sermons that are put together based on pipers writings.

44:13 All right, I'm gonna see what check. Yes, okay, this is what chat GPT says. Yes, it's true that there are hundreds, if not thousands of sermons that have been developed based on Pastor John Piper's writings. His extensive body of work, including over seventy books and numerous articles, has profoundly influenced pastors and theologians worldwide. Many preachers draw upon his insights for their own sermons preparations, integrating his theological perspective into their messages. Additionally, platforms like Desiring God provide vast repository of his sermons and articles, further facilitating their dissemination and use and sermon development. And guess where he gives me a link to Piper's own website. Hey, use it for inspiration? You're right, I'm sure when I go to when I go to, uh do if I go to Desiring Good dot com? Is it going to tell me Hey, guys, here's all my messages, but please please be very careful not to use this the wrong way.

45:13 In fact, let me go here. Yeah, here's all of his messages. It's got classic messages, comforts messages, Bethlehem sermons, topic scripture series. I mean, if I'm like, oh, I'm going to be preaching on Hebrews, I know what I'll do. Oh he's got he's got one on Isaiah fifty five. Oh, that could be interesting, all right, And so I can I give me a break. People people who like Piper have They've built entire sermons series off of it. I have heard them myself, and they may give some brief mention of Piper or his book, but then they're not sitting there like this, this comes from page this, This comes from page this, and then this structure in this outline. They give me a break. They're not doing that, and don't tell me they're just they were just inspired. They were inspired and put the book down. No, no, no, they were inspired, and then they're like, ooh this, I'm gonna take this and I'm gonna build this. And it's all being built off the very structure in Pyprus books, which is the same thing people are doing with chat GPT, it is ridiculous for someone to have put that much content out there. Then appalled that someone would use chat GPT that that is utterly ridiculous.

46:22 To me, unless you're gonna give credit for it. So if you if you're gonna, if you're gonna have chat be GBT write your first draft and you're gonna tweak it, then you better say to your people, chat GPT artificial intelligence has composed the Word of God for you this morning. Point. Chat GPT did not compose the word of God, unless you're gonna say a person sermon is the word of God. No, the word of God is the word of God. A pastor expounds what he thinks the word of God is saying. He's not proclaiming the word of God unless he's reading scripture.

47:04 If you start equating a sermon with the actual proclamation of God's word, then you're saying that sermon is an infallible which is ridiculous. And that's basically going back to Roman Catholicism, And even Roman Catholicism would even not even go that far because the pope is only infallible in the very specific situation. So even that is not even inaccurate. No, when I preach, I may say I'm preaching the word of God. Now I am teaching the word of God. I'm preaching the Word of God, but it is not the Word of God. Because the Word of God is scripture. It's not what I'm saying about it. What the Word of God is infallible and inspire. What I'm saying is not infallible, nor is it inspired.

47:46 It is suggestion to cap your thoughts here. Thank you, pastor John, and thanks for joining us today. From AI to the ancient Letter of Romans. We're going to transition as John you call Paul's Letter to the Roman. Okay, so there has it. That's it. They cover it in that amount of time. So guess what I did. I asked AI to analyze all of Piper's arguments. All right, here's what AI says. The main argument John Piper makes is that AI lacks emotion, spiritual affection, and authentic human feeling, therefore it cannot fulfill divine purpose of sermon preparation or ministry task. Piper argues that true worship and preaching depends on genuine human emotions towards God, something AI inherently lacks Piper's view. Piper views AI as suitable for informational task but inadequate for spiritual, emotional, or pastoral tasks such as sermon writing and newsletters due to the absence of genuine emotion or affections towards God. And again I will argue, No, it doesn't need emotions. It doesn't need genuine affection for God to be able to put together a sermon, because a sermon is simply the expounding, the explaining, the teaching of what the text says in its historical and textual context.

49:07 It's I don't need any of those other things to be able to put together a sermon, all right, So I already disagree. Here's what AI says. Here are AI then breaks down what just happened? Here? Okay, here we go. AI went crazy there for a second. AI here, AI gives me one, two, three, four, five, five flaws, and Piper's arguments, this is AI itself, all right, So this is funny AI Arguing with Piper about AI, it says number one misunderstanding AI is merely informational. Piper oversimplifies artificial intelligence as purely informational, neglecting the tools, capability for composition, creativity, and structuring ideas. AI doesn't need a motion to effectively assist in organizing thiological insight or structuring sermons. Clearly, that's my whole point. AI does not need emotion to effectively assist in organizing theological insider structuring sermons. Clearly, it does not need human emotion. It does not need theological loyalty.

50:13 What it needs is the ability to say, huh, what are you going to preach on? I'm going to preach on Isaiah chapter twelve. Go and say, here's what Isaiah twelve is. Here's what you're not to do with it, Here's how people misapply it, Here's don't avoid this logical error. Here's literary structure, here's this, here's this, Here's that. It doesn't need any of those things, Piper said. It needs to be able to accomplish that. And guess what will happen. Almost inevitably, what AI puts together for Isaiah twelve will be better than what any human puts together in Isaiah twelve. And we've proven that over and over and over and over again. Look at that sermon that we reviewed yesterday on John two. That was a train wreck of epic proportions.

50:54 AI was like, what is going on here? Number So, the first thing John Piper misunderstands AI is merely an informational tool. It's now he mentions composition, but he keeps reducing it to like you just get information from it. Number two, confusion between sermon composition and genuine worship. Piper conflates sermon prep structure and textual organization with genuine worship or emotional authenticity. Preparing the text or logical structure of a sermon is distinct from its emotional delivery or spiritual authenticity. That's my whole point. Piper is conflating this sermon composition and genuine worship. We're talking two separate things when it comes to sermon prep. We're talking structure. We're talking textual organization.

51:46 That's different than genuine worship or emotional authenticity. Preparing the text. The textual or logical structure of a sermon is completely different from emotional delivery or spiritual authenticity. If AI puts it together and I read over it and read over it, and I'm invested in I, I mean you've listened. You go listen to all my sermons on Isaiah forty. AI helped put almost all of them together, all verbatim. But guess but I read the text over and over and over. I read what AI says over and over and over, and I get emotionally invested in what's going on in Isaiah forty? What are the people in Babylonian captivity? AI helping structure? It had nothing to do with my emotional connection with the narrative and with the story. So you can't just say, well, if AI put it together, it would be the same thing as well. Wait a minute, if you take this from this commentary, you take this from this commentary, Wait, where does that commentary possess the ability for genuine human emotion and to worship? No, it's put together. In many cases, you know what commentaries are some third party randomly edits sermons. The pastor preached the sermon. Now, so when edit the sermons and they put it in a commentary and then sell it, it's just edited sermons put in a commentary form so that someone makes a lot of money. The third problem is assumption of complete replacement.

53:16 Piper implicitly assumes AI is being considered as a full replacement for the human preacher's thoughtfulness and emotional connection to God and reality. AI assistance doesn't mean replacing the human element. It simply serves as a supplementary tool to enhance sermon clarity and prove textual analysis or assist in clear communication and maybe avoid hermeneutical errors. Number four false dichotomy between intellectual and emotional components. Piper emphasizes emotion and affection while downplaying that solid doctrinal teaching relies on careful logic, structure and clarity. This is what AI does better than what human beings can do. Now that last part is me adding that in AI just says it could provide valuable assistance, I will say AI does it better than humans. And then number five idealistic view of human emotional authenticity. AI says Piper presumes human preachers inherently offer emotional authenticity in every sermon or newsletter, overlooking the reality that pastors already rely extensively on external sources, commentaries, outlines, and even ghost writers.

54:32 AI therefore isn't uniquely and authentic, but rather another form of assistance. And whenever a pastor is up there preaching, you don't know how authentic the emotions are You don't, and AI is not the fault of that. It's the inherent nature of standing in front of people and have to present something which then it can slide into performance or you're just doing your job because how becomes a job that's always a difficult thing has nothing thing to do with AI. Here's what chat GPT says. AI is not intended to replace the pastor's heart or genuine affection towards God, but rather to assist in practical aspects of sermon prep, such as drafting outlines, suggesting illustrative materials, historical context, textual insight, just as pastors rely on commentaries, dictionaries, or collaborative study. AI is a sophisticated tool, not a spiritual replacement.

55:30 The heart of pastoral ministry, indeed, is emotional authenticity, genuine faith and love for God, and others, qualities that AI does not possess. But the use of AI in ministry, like preparing sermons or news letters need not undermine authenticity any more than using reference materials does. AI can enhance chair clarity, organization, and communication efficiency, freeing pastors to devote greater energy to the critical, spiritual and emotional aspects of ministry. Rather than dismiss AI outright, pastors should carefully discern how AI can aid rather than hinder, the spiritual and doctrial integrity of their ministries and the critical factors. The critical factor is responsible integration, ensuring pastoral heart, wisdom and authenticity remain central, with AI acting solely as a helpful servant rather than a master. And then this is what AI goes on to say. The moment the printing press was made, philological resources became widely available and pastors began using them to assist in sermon prep. From early Bible commentaries to sermon collectionsilological treatises to modern digital tools like logoss Bible software, pastors have long relied on external aids. Piper's argument seems to overlook this historical reality. If the use of AI is problematic because it doesn't have emotion or affection for God, then the same logic would apply to books, commentaries, and even word process None of these resources have emotions, yet

57:03 they have been invaluable tools for sermon prep. What AI does is to provide faster access to structured information, helping with research, organization, and clarity. It doesn't remove the pastor's responsibility to bring heart wisdom and theilological discernment to the message. It's just a modern extension of what pastors has all have always done, using available resources to better communicate God's word. And guess what all of those resources we use, not only are this is what even makes it worse. We go find the resources that already agree with our presuppositions so that we find ourselves in a thiological echo chamber, so that we can ever be changed challenged, or we can ever change. AI is not beholden unless you tell it to be beholden too. A thiological system. And guess what I can review one hundreds I mean AI can analyze millions of different data points and information in seconds and then give me what I need. If I say AI, give me how has Isaiah forty one been interpreted throughout church history? Guess what AI and five seconds will say, This is how it was interpreted in this era. This is how it was interpreted in this era. This is how it was interpreted in this era. I would never be able to do that on my own unless I wanted to spend like a year trying to research it.

58:31 I can say, AI, here's the I've listened to five sermons. They presented this interpretation of Isaiah forty one. What are the problems with this? What are the hermoneutical problems, the textual problems, the cultural problem? Okay, well they got this wrong, this wrong, this wrong? Okay, all right, so I want to structure a sermon avoiding those problems. Okay, it's AI is not simple as I mean. Now, some people may use it this way, as simple as chuck, give me this and I'm done. Typically, AI is used, at least in my experience, Okay, give me the all right, Now let's work on Okay, what about this? What about that? All right, let's check this. Okay, how about this? How about it's a continuing conversation. It's not a Google search. It's this continuing conversation. It's this back and forth. It's this like working together and then whatever the finished product is almost inevitably is a large part AI. But your part is greatly is. It's collaborative. Let's put it that way.

59:29 It's a collaboration. I'm like, Okay, AI, here's what we're working on this this week, Isaiah forty one. Let's go. Where should we start? What should I be looking out for? What are my concerns, Like, hey, I can I can approach it one hundred different ways. My approach AI will give me something, I'll give it back and then this, this, this, this, and then sometimes what I'll do is, after like four hours of conversation and you think I'm joking, four hours of back and forth, and I'll say, okay, Ai, based on everything we've discussed over these last four hours, now help me summer rise, outline and put this in some form that I could utilize for teaching, for a podcast episode or for preaching. Well, by that time of four hours, it's not no longer just AI's draft. It's it's me mixed all in with it because I've been offering this or challenging this or questioning this. So Piper is misunderstanding the way it could even be utilized to someone like in some ways, it sounds like he has a great understanding of it because he knows that he can get a sermon written or get a response in the style of John Piper, and it will be almost sounds just like John Piper. Okay, well, I agree with that. But typically what I don't ask when I work with AI on any text, I don't ask it to sound like pipercar.

1:00:48 I don't want it to sound like anybody. I don't want it to be beholden to any theological system. I want it to deal with the text. All I care about is the text. Ai, I don't care about theology in this sense. I need you to help me understand the text. Now. Once we understand the text, then we'll see what theology flows from it. But I don't want you to write my theology into it. I don't want you to write it in my style. I don't want you to answer it according to the way you think I'm going to answer it. I want you to deal with the text, and I want you to tell me when I'm wrong, and I want you to be bold and blunt and correct me. So it's how the tool is used. But that's always been the case. You've got all kinds of tools out there. Many pastors come to the pulpit and you could tell and don't even tell me it's not true. I remember I was at Red Oak, Iowa.

1:01:38 That's where I was Red Oak, Iowa. I was there for like a youth conference, youth rally kind of thing. I was like the youth director in charge of the youth at Twin Cities Baptist and Papilia, Nebraska. We took our teenagers to Red Oak, Iowa for the church there in Red Oak, and we did play games. I don't even remember what we did. Whatever we did, and it was a Saturday, Well, it was getting ready to be Saturday night where we're going to be heading back to well Bellevue, Nebraska, Papelia, Nebraska drop off all the teenagers. Well, the pastor was sitting in his study. He's like, man, I got to get my sermon ready for tomorrow. Now it's Saturday night. It's Saturday night. You know what he does, I don't have one. He reaches over, he grabs our Daily Bread devotional and he starts looking at it. Guess what he's going to do. He's going to use a devotional from our Daily Bread to help build and structure his sermon. I guess what. He wasn't going to tell anyone that he got it from our Daily Bread. Come on now, And I cannot tell you how many times I've listened to sermons going wait. That's literally page twenty seven.

1:02:52 And for MacArthur's commentary, he's using the same outline that the MacArthur uses, I mean, it's the exact same outline, or it's this, or it's this, it's that. Now in many cases, even though I can tell where the structure is coming from, they still make it their own. So it doesn't bother me that much. But the point is, guess what built Guess that wasn't that The structure inspired the sermon. The structure built the sermons, So the commentary served as the first draft. And I guarantee you people have done that well. Even AI says thousands of times a minimum that pat people have used Piper's books to build and structure teaching and sermons. It's no different than artificial artificial intelligence, just does it better an artificial intelligence.

1:03:35 Guess what won't be beholden if you do it in a Piper book or a MacArthur commentary. Guess what You're beholden to? Their theological understanding, their interpretation. AI is not going to be beholden to anyone's interpretation unless I tell it to limit itself only to this, and which I don't want it to do. I'm like, no, no, no, any if. Even if AI sometimes has asked me, do you only want me to look at it? From no, don't look at it from just that theological perspective. I want I leave the door open, leave the windows open, be open sourced. Okay, do not limit it. I don't care if it offends the reform people. Don't care if it reforms offends the non reform people. We don't care about who we offend. What we want to do is understand this the text. Now. I do agree with Piper though on this. I will agree with him here. If it's if you're just going to get up there a I'm major entire sermon, you didn't spend any time with it, and you're just going to basically preach what AI said, then you've got to tell the people you didn't really do all of that other work that I'm talking about, where it kind of now is a mixture of you and I explained that Sunday. Go listen to my first sermon from Sunday. I tell the people like typically it's it's a mixture of me with Ai, right. And a lot of times, even if I have the notes from Ai, I'm interjecting this and adding this, or I'm challenging this.

1:05:06 Sometimes I will present AI's concept as a hypothesis and then we will challenge it whatever the case may be. But on Sunday, I'm like, look, we've had so many twists and turns in our study of Isaiah forty I'm going to have AI help me stay on points so we can finish. Even there, I was interjecting and adding my own twist there, But I told people so, I do believe there has to be some transparency. But again, I don't feel like transparency has been there for all the years I've been a Christian, because it's like, well, it's not full plagiarism. I didn't just take the whole sermon. I took it and made it mine. And most people are like, well, if you take it and make it yours, I mean, come on, it's yours, then it's okay. You don't have to explain all of that. Well, then why is it wrong to have AI put your first draft together and then you make it yours like and again, the issue wouldn't be AI. It would be us being open and honest, right, it would be us. You know, where is where's the text?

1:06:21 Hang on? I think I have it right here? Hang on, let me see here? Yeah, put away lying Ephusians four to twenty five put away lying speak every man the truth with his neighbor, for members of one another. If it comes down to plagiarism, then we can have that discussion. But how many false things have been said in sermons? I mean, yeah, all right, we'll stop there. John Piper is appalled that people would have AI write a sermon. I'm appalled that people don't use AI writing a sermon. I am. I'm appalled because humans have We've had two thousand years, guys. We gave it a good run. We tried.

1:07:05 After two thousand years, where have humans come to? Let me see? We don't agree on literally anything. We don't agree on any interpretation. We don't agree on any doctrine. We don't agree theologically. We don't even agree on how the church should be structured. We don't agree on baptism, we don't agree on the Lord's Supper. We don't agree on repentance, we don't agree on salvation. It's just a total train run. We've had two thousand years of humans trying. All right, we have a comment This commentary says this, This commentary says this, this. I remember I pointed that out when we were teaching through revelation. Many years ago that there was a verse in Revelation, and there were like I think thirty five commentaries that offered fifty different interpretations of like one verse in the Book of Revelation.

1:07:49 I'm like, for corst, forget it. We've we had a good run, we gave it our best. We've failed. Now let's let someone else take over. You step up to the plate. Let's see what you can do. Because I listened to humans put together sermons in their train wrecks, their sermons, including my own, AI can say, whoa, whoa wa, what's going on here? Just like AI the sermon that we reviewed yesterday, that pastor published another sermon on the same passage John two, and AI tore that sermon apart. It says the second sermon is worse than the first sermon, and that it's riddled with exegetical, hermoneutical, logical, and factual errors.

1:08:34 It's just like it even put a little red flag on the screen saying this this thing is a mess. It told me, don't even waste my time reviewing it. AI literally says this offers nothing of philological substance. It is just I mean, AI tore it apart. So the human put it together and is a mess. So if you're going to criticize artificial intelligence, now what he would say is, well, those pastors weren't actually qualified to be ministers and shouldn't be ministers. Okay, well now we're going to start what every sermon we disagree with, we eliminate them from ministry. I mean that just that's not a solution. But hey, there is a solution if we have a tool that maybe fix a lot of our hermoneutical and exegetical errors, and maybe maybe we decide that instead of approaching the text from our philological tradition, we approach the text and see what theological tradition it leads us to.

1:09:31 All right, well that was fun. Thanks for listening. Everyone, have a good evening. Yeah I got something accomplished. I feel much better. For those who don't know, I did a live broadcast and went thirty three minutes and I deleted it because it was an absolute train wreck. You know, it was an absolute train wreck. Ah, yeah, because I'm a human being. But to be fair, I did try to use AI and going over there, but yeah, it was still a disaster. It wasn't AI's fault, it was my fault. In many cases many of the problems. It's not AI is a tool. The problem is how we use the tool. It's always been the case. It's always been the case. And just make sure if you're upset with AI, I would be more upset with all of the subscription services that pastors use, where it gives them the full sermon, gives them the illustration, gives them the artwork.

1:10:26 Remember we did that. We we bought, we bought remember one of those sermons in a box basically, and we and then we listened to sermons that literally preached the sermon verbatim as they bought it, and they didn't tell anyone that it was a bought sermon. So I got more issues with that. AI would do better than those those horrible sermons that you purchase in some of these places, and some of those places are using AI though you can tell. So I mean, yeah, well, I mean so many issues. But what have we been dimaged? Everything's changing and Piper may be appalled by it. There's going to be older people like this is just horrible. You can say that I'm sorry, there's no going back. Maybe not today, I say within five years, I think within five within five years, finding a sermon that was not somehow put together, structured something influenced by AI is going to be almost impossible.

1:11:29 Other than the older pastors who are just holding out just to make some point, they'll and they'll yell and scream and make a point about it like they're proving something. But I think within five years pastors may not say anything, but they're utilizing it. They're utilizing it, and even if they're not. Well, I didn't use chat GPT if the Bible Memory app for crying out loud. If I take the Bible Memory app and look up a passage, if I pay for the AI feature, then I just click on the verse boom complete breakdown of the passage which breaks it completely down, and overview summary and then I can say go in depth and it will. You're gonna tell me pastors are not using give me a break.

1:12:10 Pastors are gonna be pastors not gonna buy commentaries anymore. They're not gonna buy reference tools. They're gonna be using AI somehow, shape or form. AI is gonna be. Ever, I think ninety nine percent of sermons are gonna be have been touched and help being constructed by the help of AI. Within five years. I think I think I am right. You can tell me if you think I'm wrong. All right, thanks for listening or wee have a great evening. God bless