By Rev. Kevin T. Taylor, Contributing Writer
n “ChatGPT and the Church,” I argue that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer optional for the Church. It’s here. It’s powerful, and it can either amplify our blind spots or free us to focus on what matters most. But what if we dared to let AI help us with one of the most painstaking, time-consuming, and consequential tasks we face every four years – revising The Doctrine and Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopal Church?
At every General Conference, the Revisions Committee works tirelessly to read, debate, and vote on hundreds of pieces of legislation. The 2024 session produced at least 359 proposals. After a close analysis, AI tools like ChatGPT showed that 321 of those bills (nearly 90%) could be classified into just seven thematic categories:
- Governance & Accountability (138 bills)
- Finance & Stewardship (54 bills)
- Clergy & Leadership Development (47 bills)
- Worship, Ritual & Doctrine (30 bills)
- Inclusivity, Justice & Social Witness (2 bills)
- Organizational Development & Global Mission (26 bills)
- Administrative & Procedural Updates (15 bills)
And here’s a sobering data point: none of the Connectional Lay Organization’s carefully drafted proposals became law in 2024. Not one.
What if, rather than debating each item one at a time, we began by grouping legislation by these seven categories? What if the CLO – and every sponsoring body – were encouraged to incorporate the language of similar and supportive bills into a single comprehensive measure? Imagine presenting a unified “Finance & Stewardship” package that already integrates the best thinking from across the Connection, and imagine that being debated and voted upon as one cohesive block.
What if the Rules Committee authorized these thematic “summation votes,” allowing delegates to focus their energy on the truly novel, complex, or controversial measures? We could spend less time arguing over commas, syntax, and re-reading familiar language and more time on worship, vision-casting, and strategic conversations about the future of the Connectional Church.
AI is not a threat to our polity. It is a tool that could enhance it. Natural language processing can cluster similar proposals, identify duplicate intent, and even flag where one measure conflicts with another, long before we step foot in the ballroom in Kansas City. By arriving at the 53rd Quadrennial Session with clean, consolidated, and clearly categorized legislation, we could devote more hours to prayer, preaching, and planning how to spread the Gospel and strengthen our witness in the world.
What if we dared to reimagine the process itself – not just the content – of our sacred book? The Doctrine and Discipline has guided us since the days of Richard Allen, and its periodic revision is one of our most important acts of stewardship. By letting AI streamline the labor, we might just reclaim the time and spiritual energy to be the Church that our founders dreamed of – prophetic, powerful, and focused on mission.
Of course, reforms like these cannot be implemented by one pastor or one article alone. They require the collaboration of the CLO, the Council of Bishops, and the General Conference, among others. Yet this vision shows that AI and the AME Church can work together in a powerful, symbiotic way that honors our polity while freeing us to focus on the mission to which we are called.
