Letter from the Rector: Parish Policy Concerning GenAI

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

The following statement is my opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of St. Joseph Anglican Church, other clergy, the parish vestry, other leadership, the REC, or the Diocese to which our congregation belongs. I believe the matter, however, is sufficiently urgent that it requires addressing in this forum. In order for me to conduct my role as rector properly, I believe my position against the use of Generative AI in Kingdom work must be understood and serve as parish policy.

In November 2022, Generative AI emerged on the scene and has become the fixation of the tech industry and woven itself into our lives at an alarming rate. I will refrain from commenting at length on the lack of wisdom of companies adopting at large a technology I do not believe they fully understand, especially as many aspects of it are outside of my own realm of expertise. I will say, however, that I believe we must immediately adopt a stance against the direct use of generative AI in Kingdom Work. We are warned in Psalm 135:18 of idols that “Those who make them will be like them, and so will all who trust in them.” I fear such will be the fate of those who trust in Large Language Models, and we have already seen individuals becoming ensnared in what is referred to as AI-induced delusions. I realize that some elements of this technology are difficult to avoid entirely, as for example search engines have integrated AI as have writing tools such as Grammarly (which I do not utilize). However, it is my conviction that in the promotion of God’s Kingdom, the use of generative AI poses a threat to our duties to the first and second greatest commandments. Reliance upon this technology damages the integrity of our testimony as well as our commitment to discipleship.

First, the love of God must involve our hearts, minds, and souls in a manner which cannot be made consistent with reliance upon GenAI as a means to reflect upon the divine. When we nourish our hearts on the Word of God, we know that God inspired that Word. When we read a book by a fellow Christian we know that that person is made in the image of God. Language produced by an algorithm can never capture our hearts to the Lord in the manner authentic speech and writing from real humans can. Generative AI likewise constitutes a shortcut to knowledge which is inimical to loving the Lord God with our whole minds (bringing to mind for me Revelation 13:15). To quickly demonstrate this, consider how little intellectual effort we put into the memorization of phone numbers once cell phones began to easily store contacts. That power of the mind no longer receives attention because the shortcut makes the use of memory seem obsolete. The thought of our minds growing accustomed to shortcuts as regards meditating on the Word of God day and night should disturb us. Finally, our souls cannot be nourished on the word of God, which longs to be planted in rivers of water, if the soil of our minds have been thinned by negligence of the numerous enriching disciplines which serious Christian contemplation of Scripture, theology, church history, and pastoral care form within us. In short, the promise of Generative AI is entirely alien to the intimate summons to the Christian love of God. 

Second, the love of our neighbors as ourselves likewise cannot be properly pursued through this software. There are many issues one can discuss here, such as the documented case of AI delusions which have emerged since I wrote my first draft of this in 2023, as well as the enormous amount of land, water, and energy AI datacenters consume. I will focus here on pastoral concerns, however: Why should I think my parishioners should listen to a sermon I didn’t bother to write? Why should I trust an algorithm to care for the souls of a flock that God has entrusted to me to serve? If I do not love myself enough to discipline my understanding of the things of God for myself, how can I love my neighbor to the end of discipline in understanding the things of God? Still less can I uphold the duties of the Liturgy of the Sacrament if the Liturgy of the Word has been conducted with such intellectual dishonesty. Certainly, no Large Language Model can conduct the Sacraments themselves because they do not have the Image of God and so cannot have souls which bear the inward dwelling of the Holy Spirit. Because Sacraments are themselves ensconced within the true words which attend their administration, besmirching their liturgical celebrations with Large Language Models undermines the very nature of a Sacrament as an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace.

Here are some of my responses to some common objections to my position:

“Sometimes AI says things I agree with”: The Apostle Paul could not have disagreed with the demon-possessed woman who asserted that he was a servant of the most High God, and yet he cast her demons out. See Acts 16:16-18.

“GenAI is just a tool”: Cain’s descendants were excellent toolmakers. The term tool does not make it ethical. Indeed large language models were produced with copyright infringement and as such are already not ethical. Furthermore, tools enhance human capability whereas Large Language Models replace human capability. Their operation is more like conjuration than application. See Genesis 4:17-24.

“GenAI is neutral; it is how it is used that matters”: This is an extension of the argument that GenAI is another tool like others. However, I am suspicious that “neutral” is a genuine biblical category. Created goodness may exist in a potential form, which can be corrupted to become bad, but nothing in the created order as described in Genesis 1 is neutral. Tools, likewise, are good in potential and may be used to bad ends; conceivably, the structure of the Tower of Babel was a tool, but it was not neutral: it was, by design, an ungodly work. Insofar as GenAI imitates the Image of God by mimicking human thought and confuses the human sensory system by doing so, I see it as complicit in an attempt similar to building a tower to breach the Heavens. See Genesis 11:1-9.

“GenAI provides convenience”: The life of John the Baptist, the prophets, and Christ himself show that Christianity is not about convenience. Proper spiritual formation involves many inconveniences, such as fasting in the wilderness, being swallowed by whales, confessing sins, and getting to church early to make sure the coffee is made. Inconvenience is sanctifying. See James 1:3-4.

“GenAI allows us to keep up with the times/preparation for the real world”: Those killed in the flood were keeping up with the technological times of Cain. Those scattered in the tower of Babel were keeping up with the times in their rebellion. To the objection that we cannot prepare our parishioners for the real world if we do not use the world’s means, I would suggest that part of preparation for the real world involves preparing them to resist the various forms of bullying we encounter, which includes technobullying that suggests a flourishing life cannot be lived without such software. See 1 John 2:15.

“We use other shortcuts”: Such as the index, internet searches, and Blue Letter Bible. First, things being similar does not make them the same. Fornication is similar to sex within marriage, and yet they are not the same. An intentionally prepared resource by other wise Christians is not the same as an unethically sourced algorithm which pulls content together. Second, perhaps recognizing the wrongness of GenAI should indeed push us to stop using other shortcuts we might have gotten used to. For example: If we are in the habit of using phones for Bible studies, we should start pulling out physical Bibles instead. See Acts 17:10-12.

“Everyone is doing it”: First, it is the case that there are many who believe resisting this technology is the appropriate response. Second, the fact that many people are following a broad way is not an argument against the narrow way. See Matthew 7:13-14.

In view of the above, I take the following position: When used in the context of the Great Commission, Generative AI demeans the image of God as described in Genesis 1:26, devalues the nature of language as reflective of our Savior who is the Word made Flesh in John 1, weakens the biblical mandate to stewardship of the earth’s resources as seen in Genesis 1:28, and is complicit in ethical concerns, especially per the eighth and tenth commandments. Clergy and laity, whether in the form of sermons, Sunday School lessons, and other forms of biblical and theological education, including the visual and musical arts, should abstain from use of Generative AI in Kingdom work, and should also promote abstinence from Generative AI in Kingdom work when speaking to others about the matter. 

Use of software which has AI capabilities (Microsoft Word, Facebook, and cellphones) is itself virtually unavoidable, but it is easy for the most part to use such technology without availing oneself of those programs, at least for now. Of course, I also do not endorse Pharisaical judgmentalism towards Christians with different views from mine on this issue. While I would recommend resistance when possible, I understand that bivocational clergy and laity in the workforce may have to use this technology in their secular commitments.  However, such obligations are distinct from the sacred mission of the Church, and so I maintain a policy of abstinence from GenAI usage at St. Joseph Anglican Church.

Let us persist in study of God’s Word, in constant prayer, in holy worship, in the comfort of the Sacraments, and in the preaching of Christ and Him crucified.

Blessings to you in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior,

Fr. Anthony G. Cirilla
Rector
St. Joseph Anglican Church