Georg Henrik Wrede

I read an article in Kirkkojakaupunki (2025-01-24) about Paavalinkirkko in Helsinki that will have a completely AI-made and performed service on March 4th. The interesting thing was that in discussion with the AI, it was concluded that it cannot give absolution from sins or bless, because it requires faith. AI does not have faith, so even if it can put together a service and read the text, the limit (for now) is in performing certain rites. Then I believe that the whole project is de facto dead. The faithful visitors who regularly go to services, I would guess, do so precisely for the human contact with a priest. They also have, from what I have understood, clear opinions about the various priests, their advantages and disadvantages. That they would want to hear an AI read up a service, no matter how good it is, is not what these visitors come for. As the priest Petja Kopperoinen, who is behind the experiment, in fact said, priests exist to meet people. Yes, one can agree that it is important with the contact between individuals and the priest, and more could certainly be done in that area. Especially with all the worry and anxiety that people feel, which can later develop into outright mental problems. So more investment in that is not stupid, but if it comes at the expense of rationalizing away services, then I think you miss a bit.

The mistake I see is that if you go for having services with AI, you remove an important meeting that takes place in it, which must be considered important, namely the collective meeting between the congregation and the priest. How important this meeting is can be seen by how much emotion there is in the election of a vicar in different congregations.

Anyway, the question of how far one takes AI to help in a service between people, which a service is, raises very interesting questions. I think of at least these questions that are raised.

• The nature and consciousness of AI: A central question is whether AI can at all reach a level of consciousness or spirituality that is comparable to human faith. In theology, the unique relationship between man and God is often emphasized, a relationship that is based on faith, hope and love. Can a machine, no matter how advanced it is, really enter into such a relationship? Philosophically, this touches on questions about the nature of consciousness and what it means to be a person.
• The importance of rites: In many Christian traditions, the sacraments and liturgical rites are considered central to conveying God’s grace and presence. If the AI cannot perform these rites, what does it mean for the validity of the service and the experience of the sacred? Is it not de facto a watered-down service? Here one can discuss whether it is the action itself or the spiritual intention behind it that is important.
• The community of the congregation: The Christian faith emphasizes community and sharing life with others. To meet in the service, share experiences and support each other is an essential part of this. If the AI takes over the service, is there a risk that this community will be weakened? How does it affect the congregation’s identity and cohesion?
• The role of the priest: The priest traditionally has an important role as a spiritual guide, comforter and mediator of faith. If the AI can perform many of the priest’s tasks, what happens to the priest’s role and identity? Do we need to re-evaluate the priest’s tasks in the light of the new technology? Maybe the priest would have more time for pastoral care?
• The possibilities and limitations of technology: It is important to see both the possibilities and the limitations of technology. AI can be a tool to make services more accessible, perhaps by offering them online or in different languages. But it is also important to be aware that technology cannot replace the human experience and the spiritual dimension of faith.