When A.I. Led Sunday School
Excerpts from a conversation with Anthropic's Claude on A.I. and Spirituality and a progressive Christian Sunday School class.
On a Saturday night a few weeks ago, I stayed awake wondering how I would structure a lesson on A.I. and Spirituality for a Sunday School class at my church. I am by no means an expert on Artificial Intelligence, but since I teach collegiate writing, I have had my unfortunate run ins with it.
As I have written before, I enjoy teaching students how Large Language Models (LLMs) work by producing “bullshit.” Platforms like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude lack an intentionality of truthfulness when they are queried. Instead, they bullshit—they produce a response that most likely addresses your query. Sometimes they ask you questions, to ensure their response can best address your query.
Teaching A.I. within a Sunday School setting, however, has slightly different goals than teaching A.I. within an undergraduate writing course. Rather than try to discuss how these platforms work, I thought we would draw upon a practice of object-oriented “thing” ethnography to see how A.I. understands its relationship to spirituality. This, in many ways, is just a technical methodological term for having a conversation with A.I.
We began with introductions:
AG: Hello Claude, you are speaking with the Pilgrim's Sunday School Class at FBCX in Macon, GA
Claude: Hello! It's nice to meet the Pilgrim's Sunday School Class at First Baptist Church of Christ in Macon. How can I help you today?
AG: We would like to know what direction you think we should take as a Sunday School class?
Claude: To provide meaningful guidance about your class's direction, I'd find it helpful to learn more about your current context and goals. Could you tell me more about:
What kind of topics or studies has your class focused on recently?
What are the general demographics and interests of your class members?
What aspects of your current class format are working well, and what areas would you like to improve?
This information would help me offer more relevant and specific suggestions tailored to your class's needs.
Because platforms like Anthropic’s Claude operate as LLM’s, the language you use when you query them is important. From the beginning, Claude registered that it was speaking with a Baptist Sunday School class in Macon, GA; however, it asked for a little more detail.
We told Claude that the Pilgrim’s Sunday School class was a “progressive” Sunday School class that had been focusing a lot on “faith stories.” We also mentioned that the class had recently studied microplastics one Sunday morning.
From there Claude complimented the class stating “I can see that your class takes an engaged, contemporary approach to faith education by connecting personal stories with modern issues like environmental concerns. This combination of personal faith stories and relevant social/scientific topics is quite distinctive.” It then provided a couple of ideas for what the class might study next including additional topics on environmental issues, mental health, and faith and technology.
The leader of the Sunday School class wanted Claude to offer some suggestions on how they might consider deepening their work on faith stories or perhaps working with other faith communities in the area.
Claude quickly responded:
AG: Do you have any models for faith stories that could be helpful for us? Or models for working with other faith communities on social justice?
Claude: Let me suggest some models for both faith stories and interfaith social justice work.
For Faith Stories, here's a structured approach you might consider:
The "Mountain and Valley" Framework
Have participants identify key "mountain top" and "valley" moments in their faith journey
Explore questions like:
What sustained you during difficult times?
How did your understanding of God change?
What communities supported you?
How did doubt play a role in strengthening faith?
The "Sacred Objects" Approach
Members bring meaningful objects that represent their faith journey
Share the stories behind these objects
Could be family Bibles, photos, inherited items, or symbols of transformation
The "Turning Points" Method
Focus on key decisions or moments that shaped faith
Examine both gradual and sudden transformations
Consider how these align with Biblical narratives of transformation
For Interfaith Social Justice Collaboration:
The Asset-Based Model
Start by mapping each faith community's unique strengths
First Baptist might bring strong progressive Baptist theology
A synagogue might bring experience with immigration justice
A mosque might bring expertise in food security programs
Build initiatives that leverage these complementary strengths
The "Common Ground" Approach
Identify shared values across traditions
For example: hospitality, care for creation, dignity of all people
Build projects around these shared values
Example: multiple faith communities supporting a community garden
The "Study-Action" Cycle
Begin with joint study of texts from different traditions about justice
Move to shared action based on learned principles
Return to study to reflect on actions taken
Continue this cycle of learning and doing
Would you like me to elaborate on any of these models? I'm particularly interested in which aspects might best fit your class's context in Macon.
The class laughed in delight and asked if I could share Claude’s answers with them over email after class. Many of the suggested topics seemed very intriguing and creative for members of the class.
Some of Claude’s answers demonstrate how helpful “bullshitting” can be in opening up new ways of thinking. While the “Sacred Objects” approach may or may/not fit the Pilgrim’s Sunday School class, it provides another way for thinking about continuing their studies of faith stories. Instead of objects, perhaps they focus on places. Sometimes bad ideas are as generative as good ideas.
After some additional follow-up questions, members of the class decided to turn their attention to understanding Claude’s limitations and dangers. Claude acknowledged that it is unable to provide human interaction and may poses theological questions about consciousness and the mechanization of spirituality.
When asked about the dangers of using class members using A.I., Claude responded:
AG: What are some potential dangers for members to consider when interacting with you?
Claude: I appreciate you asking this thoughtful and important question about potential risks. Here are key dangers your members should consider:
Emotional and Personal Boundaries
While I aim to be helpful and can engage in meaningful discussion, I shouldn't replace human-to-human emotional support or pastoral care
Members should be mindful about sharing deeply personal or sensitive information
I can't provide the genuine human empathy and connection that's vital in faith communities
Information Reliability
While I aim for accuracy, I can make mistakes or "hallucinate" information
I might misquote scripture or get historical facts wrong
Members should verify any important information I provide, especially regarding theology or church history
Privacy Concerns
Everything shared with me could potentially be accessed by others
Confidential personal or congregational matters should not be discussed
Members should treat our interactions as public conversations
Over-Reliance Risk
There might be temptation to use AI for quick answers rather than engaging in deeper study and discussion
I shouldn't replace the valuable process of wrestling with difficult questions in community
I can't substitute for the wisdom that comes from lived experience and human spiritual guidance
Theological Limitations
I'm not equipped to provide spiritual direction or pastoral counsel
My responses on matters of faith should be treated as starting points for discussion, not authoritative guidance
I lack the depth of understanding that comes from lived faith experience
Would you like me to elaborate on any of these concerns? I think it's valuable for your class to discuss and establish guidelines for how to interact with AI tools like myself in ways that enhance rather than diminish your community's spiritual growth.
As I have reflected upon the class conversation with Claude, I have been struck by the dangers of over-reliance and perhaps the dangers of efficiency. I regularly see advertisements for A.I.-powered tools designed to make individuals more efficient. Recent news of the massive (and often inefficient) cuts by the Department of Government Efficiency have been made with A.I. in mind.
Efficiency and inefficiency, however, do not come to mind when I think about what makes us human. There are times when efficiency is necessary in our lives and times when inefficiency is necessary, but neither captures or describes our humanity.
The benefits of chatting when a tool like Claude is not to quickly and efficiently plan the next three months of a Sunday School class. Instead, it opens up new ways of thinking and connecting ideas together—call it “Holy Bullshitting.” The challenge then becomes individual and communal discernment. A.I. platforms cannot make judgments nor do they consider truthfulness. They bullshit, and we are left to render a judgement or decision about how to proceed.
As these platforms become more and more powerful and edge towards General A.I. (platforms that can perform intellectual tasks as good or better than human experts), there will be a need to more fully embrace and celebrate our inefficiencies and human-ness.
Please like, comment and share as you are inclined. If there is a topic that you would like me to write about or if you would like to collaborate, contact me at abgardner2@gmail.com