AI in the Pulpit: Where Churches Draw the Line in 2026

By Bobby Macintosh · Updated October 2026

For two years, most of what you could read about AI and preaching was advice from individuals: try this prompt, avoid that one. This month something changed. Church bodies and senior voices began writing rules, and they don’t agree.

This isn’t another how-to. If you want practical help, our complete guide to ChatGPT for sermon preparation and measured approach to expository preparation are the places to start. This is a map: six positions in the news this October, each in its own words, and the one question that divides them.

Six positions at a glance

No AI at all, for now: a proposal in Western Oregon

The strictest line comes from a resolution put to the 138th Annual Meeting of the Episcopal Church in Western Oregon, held on 23–24 October. I want to be careful here. As of 26 October, the diocese’s annual meeting page still lists it under “Proposed Resolutions of Policy”, and I could find no published result. It’s a proposal, not a decision.

Its final text, submitted by Kieran Cannistra of St David of Wales, Portland, and endorsed by several clergy and lay people, calls preaching “a sacramental act” and says the use of generative AI in sermon preparation “is antithetical to the integrity of this sacred vocation”. Its operative line is sweeping: preachers “must not use genAI to create the content of any part of a sermon or homily, whether for the purposes of research, writing, or editing until such ethical guidelines are established.” It also asks the bishop and staff to write those guidelines.

Note the word research. That’s the line almost everyone else draws in a different place.

Human hands: Fort Worth

The Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth already has a binding policy, in force since April. Our church AI policy starter kit quotes its homily rule in full, so I won’t repeat it. What’s new this month is Bishop Michael Olson explaining it. In an EWTN News report on the US bishops’ new AI task force, of which he is a member, he said: “AI must remain a tool in human hands. It can assist human judgment, but it must never replace it, least of all in the care of souls.” And: “Homilies and pastoral counsel must come from a priest’s own prayer and discernment” (NCRegister, 19 October).

The policy itself leaves a small door open: AI “may be used only for limited administrative or research support” with any required approvals. This is one diocese’s rule, not a statement of the US bishops’ conference.

“Ever so sparingly”: Mike Bullmore

Mike Bullmore, who served 25 years as a senior pastor in Wisconsin and is a founding member of The Gospel Coalition, wrote under the title “AI Makes Sermon Prep Effortless. That’s the Problem” (TGC, 15 October). His argument is about what preparation does to the preacher. He leans on Paul’s charge to Timothy, which in the WEB reads: “Give diligence to present yourself approved by God, a workman who doesn’t need to be ashamed, properly handling the Word of Truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, WEB).

He stops short of a ban: “I can’t go so far as to say there’s absolutely no use to which AI can be put safely and without loss.” But his appeal is clear: “use it ever so sparingly and briefly, perhaps for some small bit of research.” He borrows a question from Christopher Watkin that every preacher could pin above the desk: “Which tasks are doing irreplaceable work in me while I do them?”

Researcher and editor: Jeff Reed and the Oxford guidelines

At the other end, Jeff Reed of theChurch.digital writes for the pastor of a church of sixty who has “no research assistant and no editor” (theChurch.digital, 20 October). He gives AI jobs: “It can be a researcher” and “It can be an editor”, and it can “argue with you like a skeptic in the back row.” But it “cannot do the one thing a sermon is for, which is to bring a word to these particular people.”

His firmest rule is about the Bible itself: “Never ask a model to produce a Bible verse for you and then trust what comes out.” Our citations test shows why. And his summary is worth keeping: “AI can prepare a relationship. It cannot be one.”

In the UK, AI Guidelines for Christian Ministry, written by Chris Goswami for the AI Christian Partnership and published on the Diocese of Oxford’s website, takes a similar line. Its rule for critical work is: “use AI only as a secondary tool, or not at all.” It treats preparing a sermon as critical for most of us. Research is allowed, but “scriptural interpretation and pastoral application are Primary and (we suggest) remain the responsibility of the preacher.” The document says it was trialled from February to April 2026 by ten church leaders or leadership teams from four denominations.

A Lutheran voice: vocation

Gene Veith, writing on Patheos on 20 October, frames it as a matter of calling. “A pastor might use AI for research and tracking down information,” he writes. “But God has called the pastor—not AI—to preach, catechize, and give pastoral care to his people.” His shortest line says it all: “AI does not have a vocation” (Patheos). That’s one Lutheran writer, not a synod ruling. Our starter kit covers the LCMS’s own documents.

The real disagreement: is research part of the sermon?

Line them up and the split is narrow. Nobody here wants a machine to write the sermon. The question is whether the reading, background-checking and wrestling that come before writing belong to the sermon too.

Western Oregon’s proposal says yes, all of it, at least until guidelines exist. Bullmore says nearly all of it, because the work forms the preacher. Fort Worth, Reed, Oxford and Veith allow research, with checking and oversight, and draw the line at interpretation, application and the words themselves.

Neither side is careless. One fears what shortcuts do to the preacher’s soul; the other sees a pastor alone at the kitchen table. Both are pastoral concerns.

What most of these positions share

• The preacher answers for the sermon. Not the tool and not the vendor.
• Scripture is checked against a real Bible. No one trusts a model to quote it.
• The congregation is real. The Oregon text, quoting An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, says the sermon “must engage the faith and understanding of the one who preaches and the ones who hear”; Reed speaks of bringing “a word to these particular people”.
• Prayer can’t be delegated. Olson’s “prayer and discernment” and Bullmore’s “prolonged, earnest prayer” are the same conviction in different traditions.

If your church is deciding where its own line falls, our church AI policy starter kit gives you wording to adapt, and AI-generated sermons: a blessing or a blasphemy? explores the deeper question.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has the Episcopal Church in Western Oregon banned AI in sermons?
Not as far as I can tell. A resolution was proposed for its 23–24 October 2026 meeting, but as of 26 October no result had been published.

Is Fort Worth’s AI policy the US bishops’ policy?
No. It’s the Diocese of Fort Worth’s own policy. Bishop Olson also sits on the US bishops’ AI task force, but as of 26 October the task force hadn’t issued a sermon rule.

Can a pastor use AI for sermon research?
Most of the voices here say yes, with checking. Western Oregon’s proposal says no until guidelines are written, and Bullmore urges using it “ever so sparingly”.

Should I let AI quote Bible verses in a sermon?
No. Look every verse up in a printed or trusted digital Bible, in the translation you preach from.

Preach the word

Paul’s charge was simple: “preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2, WEB). Patience and teaching take time, and time with the text is where God shapes the one who speaks. Wherever your church draws the line, may it be drawn there, around the hours that make a preacher.

Sources and Further Reading

• Episcopal Church in Western Oregon, “Regulating the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Sermon Preparation and Preaching (Final – No Amendment)“, proposed resolution; annual meeting page (checked 26 October 2026).
• Amira Abuzeid, “US Bishops Name Members of AI Task Force“, EWTN News via National Catholic Register (19 October 2026).
• Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth, AI Use Policy (effective 1 April 2026).
• Mike Bullmore, “AI Makes Sermon Prep Effortless. That’s the Problem.“, The Gospel Coalition (15 October 2026).
• Jeff Reed, “Where Does the Machine Stop and Your Sermon Begin?“, theChurch.digital (20 October 2026).
• Chris Goswami, AI Christian Partnership, AI Guidelines for Christian Ministry (Diocese of Oxford website).
• Gene Veith, “When to Use AI and When Not To“, Patheos (20 October 2026).

Scripture quotations are from the World English Bible (WEB), which is in the public domain.

Keep reading on AI Prompt Theory: Using ChatGPT for Sermon Preparation: A Complete, Theologically Careful Guide (2026) · AI and Expository Preaching: A Measured Approach to Sermon Preparation · Ethical AI: Navigating ChatGPT in Sermon Writing · Can AI Write Sermons? Exploring Generative Models in Homiletics