When the Pastor Asks ChatGPT, Who's Really Preaching?
There is a decent chance the sermon you heard last Sunday was written, in whole or in part, by a machine, and an even better chance nobody told you. That is not speculation. It is now the documented norm in American churches, and it happened in roughly three years with almost no congregational debate.
According to survey data reported by The Christian Post, nearly two-thirds of church leaders who prepare sermons now use AI tools in the writing process. The 2025 State of AI in the Church report, based on responses from 594 pastors and church staff, found that 61 percent of pastors use AI weekly or daily, up from 43 percent just a year earlier, with a quarter using it every single day.
ChatGPT leads the pack. Follow-up research in 2026 shows the sermon number holding steady at about two-thirds, meaning this is not a fad burning itself out. It is the new baseline. CBN and Faithwire both covered the findings, and the survey’s own researchers noted churches are still “grappling with the weighty ethical and practical considerations involved.”
Grappling quietly, apparently. Because the striking feature of this revolution is its silence. The people in the pews were never asked.
Let’s Be Fair About What This Is and Isn’t
Honesty requires distinctions. A pastor who uses AI the way he once used a concordance, to pull cross-references, check historical background, or organize research, has changed his tools, not his calling. Pastors have leaned on commentaries and other men’s outlines for centuries.
If the technology frees a shepherd from administrative drudgery to spend more hours with his flock, some of this is genuinely good. The surveys suggest much of the usage falls into exactly these categories, and that share of the story deserves to be told straight.
But the same surveys show the frontier moving. Nearly one in five pastors say they would use AI to answer congregants’ questions. Sermon “preparation” is an elastic word that stretches from research assistance to wholesale generation, and no one is auditing where any given pastor sits on that spectrum. The direction of travel is unmistakable, and it runs toward delegation of the one task that cannot be delegated.
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. (2 Timothy 4:2)
Paul’s charge to Timothy is personal and unavoidable. Preach the word. Not curate the word, not prompt for the word, not approve the word after a machine drafts it. The sermon is not a content product. It is the overflow of a man’s own wrestling with the text before God, on behalf of a specific flock whose wounds and sins and questions he knows by name. A pastor who has not labored in the passage has nothing to preach, even if he has something polished to read.
The Question of Authority
And consider what sits on the other end of the prompt. These models are trained on the open internet, tuned by Silicon Valley companies, and shaped by worldviews that treat biblical Christianity as one dataset among many, and not a favored one.
When a pastor asks a chatbot what a passage means, he is consulting a system with no fear of God, no indwelling Spirit, and no accountability to any confession. It will produce something fluent, plausible, and subtly formed by assumptions its user cannot see. Fluency is not anointing. Plausibility is not truth.
The path forward is not panic but transparency and boundaries. Congregations should ask their pastors, directly and charitably, how these tools are used, and pastors should answer without embarrassment or evasion.
Research assistance is one thing. Outsourced proclamation is another, and a church that cannot tell the difference will eventually stop noticing that anything is missing. That is the real danger. Not that the machine preaches badly, but that it preaches well enough that nobody asks who is speaking.