Issues that AI raises for the Church
From the Revd Andrew Spurr
Sir, — I am grateful for the space that you gave to AI last week. If it did nothing else, it marked a departure point for a more sophisticated theological engagement as our knowledge improves. Professor Beth Singler (“Simulation or inspiration?”) was right that the character of software developers tends to be functionalist. The depths of an AI spiritual interlocutor will be plumbed reasonably quickly, depending on the personality of the programmers and their limited perception of spiritual need. Sooner or later, it will be found to be wanting, just as Japanese love robots can only mimic intimacy, not generate it (so I’m told!).
The medium of machine-generated interaction faces a more decisive limitation, one that goes beyond the caricature of the limited personality profile of a software developer. Our faith is driven by a sense of mortality. Corporeal life, at least, is bookended by birth and death. We are knowingly time-limited. We immerse ourselves in imperfect and sometimes non-literal sacred texts to discern our vocation, destiny and how we live in a matrix which is social, ecological and saturated in Mystery.
At the centre of our faith our Dominical sacraments, in different ways, hover between mortality and potential, the necessity of the first to realise the second. It is the awareness of our mortality which drives our quest, both for meaning and legacy.
Even a set of algorithms which becomes self-generating cannot be driven by the fear of oblivion or the desire for communion, any more than it can feel anxiety or passion. The prospect of a spiritual journey, with all that it costs and enables, will not be an early achievement of AI, if ever.
ANDREW SPURR
Church House, Market Place
Evesham WR11 4RW
From Dr Phillip Rice
Sir, — The threat of artificial stupidity (Artificial Intelligence, 1 September) misses a further worry: what the effect will be on the whole world of grant applications to charities and awards schemes. I have a specific concern that is very much in line with Andrew Brown’s concerns about generative AI, which could extend to “flooding out” project specifications and supporting material that lacks direct ownership by authors or bodies. It is the link to the creative basis and the ethical underpinnings of the funding request which should be present, and be visible as first-hand experience. So, back to specifics, I was amazed, a few months ago, to see how good an artificial one-page grant document, reflecting the above scenario, could be created so quickly. This was from ChatGPT, and from just a brief time to specify the main descriptors and background.
But, stepping back a little, I focus on the Archbishops’ Council in processing grant applications in the brave new world of AI written text in applications. What is required is to take a view on the amount of time and effort that dioceses are putting into producing grant applications for financial support in, say, Strategic Development Funding (SDF), Strategic Transformation Funding, and related requests. Could this be speeded up by AI? Equally, there is the same issue from the viewpoint of the receiving end of the funding proposals. The issue is similar to any marking exercise when what is presented may usefully, or not, have components that are AI-generated material.
I suspect that new sets of skills are going to be required of the Church Commissioners and staff dealing with financial proposals; and this concern extends to the wider charity-trustee world of governance. This looks like a “World, take note” problem at many levels in the charity world: is AI moving the goalposts for material that has to be assessed, and the way in which it is produced? What are the ethics around all of this?
PHILLIP RICE
23 Christchurch Square
London E9 7HU
Time to offer more vigil celebrations
From the Revd John-Francis Friendship
Sir, — Occasionally, for a variety of reasons, I am unable to attend the Sunday-morning eucharist, and so value those churches that enable me to take part in this offering through a vigil mass on Saturday or Sunday. This means, almost invariably, that I take a bus to Rome, as very few Anglican churches offer such a celebration.
Given that our Roman Catholic sisters and brothers began offering such masses more than 50 years ago (and they are often very popular), I have long wondered why Anglicans do not; after all, Sunday mornings are taken up with other commitments for more and more people.
I began offering such a mass at my last church. Because it wasn’t Sunday morning, it was quite different: short, without hymns, and with time given for silence, which was valued by many, even children.
At a time when Sunday attendance has fallen, in some places offering a vigil mass would seem a tried and tested means of enabling more to share in the eucharistic celebration.
JOHN-FRANCIS FRIENDSHIP
22 The Old Fire Station
1 Eaglesfield Road
London SE18 3BT
Is belief at odds with vows in Times poll?
From the Revd Dr Ian Paul
Sir, — The results of the Times survey (News, 1 September), however poorly researched, and the new post-LLF group exploring unity (News, same issue) raise the same question: are clergy still expected to uphold their ordination vows?
When I was ordained, I was asked: “Do you believe the doctrine of the Christian faith as the Church of England has received it, and in your ministry will you expound and teach it?” to which I replied: “I believe it and will so do.” The doctrine of the Church includes Canon B30, that “according to our Lord’s teaching, marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman.”
This doctrine has been confirmed repeatedly in the General Synod in answer to questions to the House of Bishops, and it was confirmed as unchanged in the February Synod vote.
So. how is it that so many clergy now deny that they believe it? Do they no longer believe the vows that they took at ordination? And why are we forming a group to find unity between those who do believe the doctrine of the Church, and live under the vows that they took at ordination, and those who don’t?
IAN PAUL
Member of the General Synod and the Archbishops’ Council
102 Cator Lane, Chilwell
Nottingham NG9 4BB
Photographer misses the thrill of clergy cricket
From Mr Richard Watt
Sir, — It was interesting to read the Revd Robert Stanier’s “clergy cricketers” article (News, 21 July). It certainly has been a tough few years for clergy cricket. As a regular attendant at the annual Church Times Cricket Cup Finals at the Walker Ground, I have found my first Thursdays in September during the past four years, extremely dull, and have missed the excitement of arriving in Southgate at around ten o’clock. This had been my regular assignment for more than three decades: usually on a bright, crisp September morning, I would grab a chair and set up my tripod, cameras, and flask of coffee, ready to photograph the match, which usually started at 1100 hrs, depending on the travelling supporters’ coaches.
Robert’s article spoke of an ad-hoc clergy match at the Falkland Cricket Club, near Newbury, arranged by parishioner, Jane Inglis of St John’s, Southbourne. It sounded like the diocese of Southwark, Winchester, Chichester, and Oxford had cobbled together two decent teams of XI.
Even more intriguing was the father-son pairing of the Revd Tom Moffatt and his son, the Revd Joe Moffatt, who opened the batting for Southwark. The two Moffatts have a combined age of 128 years and scored a tidy 86 runs between them; so I decided to look through my archive of pictures from the many clergy cup final matches that I have covered for the Church Times. I found an old CD with my pictures entitled “1993 CT Cup Final” (the 43rd) and discovered a nail-biter of a cricket match, which was played in the same year as Ian Botham announced his retirement from the game.
The 43rd Final of the Church Times Cricket Cup match was between the Oxford and Liverpool dioceses. Oxford batted first, and Tom Moffatt made a spectacular catch to end Andrew Wingfield-Digby’s innings. Oxford were all out for 168 runs in 49 overs. Moffatt and John Macaulay made a decent 61-run partnership for Liverpool, with the northerners also scoring 168 runs on the last ball (owing to an overthrow) in the 50th over — so taking the cup home to Liverpool. The Man of the Match, unusually, was Peter Winn, Liverpool’s slow bowler, who demolished Oxford’s middle order, taking five wickets, for six runs in only 18 balls.
The cricket journalist and writer the late Stephen Fay, who often covered the cricket finals for the Church Times, would have enjoyed this match for certain, seeing Liverpool win on the last badly thrown ball. The Church Times report stated: “one of the most remarkable finishes in the history of the competition”. Let us pray that, one day, we can revisit the Walker Ground in Southgate, on a crisp September morning, for another memorable cricket final in the not-too-distant future.
RICHARD WATT
Address supplied (Brackley, Northamptonshire)
What ‘In This Sign Conquer’ meant to a chaplain
From the Revd Toddy Hoare
Sir, — Further to Canon Malcolm Guite’s article on his visit to York Minster: the motto of the Royal Army Chaplains’ Department (now more integrated with a tri-service base) is “In This Sign Conquer”, which chimes with his thoughts (Poet’s Corner, 25 August). Yes, I did not see it as an excuse to bash all and sundry, but to help the soldier, often faced with an unenviable task, to conquer his own fears and come to terms with himself, God, and others. As it is, His Majesty’s Forces have a good reputation for winning hearts and minds in whatever theatres of operations they find themselves.
Canon Guite’s thoughts also reminded me that I submitted a maquette for that Constantine statue which mysteriously disappeared. . .
TODDY HOARE
Pond Farm House
Holton, Oxford OX33 1PY
The need for Jesus: Amerindians in Argentina
From Mr Peter Murray
Sir, — I enjoyed reading the Revd Dr Nicholas Buxton’s article “Defining the C of E’s core business” (Comment, 4 August) and the responses (Letters, 11 August) about the challenges that original sin and salvation pose to communicating these truths in our present cultural context .
Belief in the need of Jesus is the start of our Christian faith. It is the Holy Spirit who makes us aware of this need; it could be by the conviction of our sin, but not exclusively, as people’s needs are varied. And God meets us where we are, such as the sick women whose belief in Jesus brought her healing (Mark 6.25-34).
I lived for a time (1995-2002) in northern Argentina, where the Amerindians were an oppressed and marginalised people. Many of them first came to faith through the witness of the love and sacrificial living of SAMS missionaries in the early to mid- 20th century. In that context, the gospel was such good news that it spread quickly over that vast area and continues to flourish.
Yes, those who come to faith unaware of their sin are convicted by the Holy Spirit of sin in their lives, and the Holy Spirit helps them to overcome its power. Our challenge is always to find where people’s need of Jesus is, even where people say “I am a good person.” What and where is the Holy Spirit guiding and leading us today?
PETER MURRAY (Reader)
The Vicarage, Cheltenham Road
Bisley, Gloucestershire GL6 7BJ
Yorkshireman’s exile
From Canon Chris Oxley
Sir, — I have followed with interest your items on the history and origins of the cat-flap (News, 18 August; Letter, 25 August). As a Yorkshireman in exile, I wonder whether anyone is doing similar research on the oldest known flat cap.
CHRIS OXLEY
The Gate House, Lutterworth Road
North Kilworth, Lutterworth LE17 6JE