US dataswitch to UK
Clergy
praying and promoting spirituality, administering religious rites or ordinances and preparing people for participation in religious ceremonies. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: praying and promoting spirituality is work software can't reach.
What shifts is studying and interpreting religious laws. This page scores what today's tools actually do, not headlines.
Your week, as this page understands it
Conduct religious worship and perform other spiritual functions associated with beliefs and practices of religious faith or denomination. Provide spiritual and moral guidance and assistance to members. The job title says “clergy”. The real job is the part underneath: praying and promoting spirituality. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But clergy is not one task. It is 21 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is praying and promoting spirituality, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 5%
- changing shape
- 5%
- staying human
- 91%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 19 out of 100 (14–26 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 21 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for clergy is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
- 1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
1 taskTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Studying and interpreting religious laws
This is reading one thing and writing another: religious laws in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Study and interpret religious laws, doctrines, or traditions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Religious texts and their commentaries are among the most thoroughly documented material anywhere, and software handles this study and interpretation well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Changing shape
1 taskTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Devising ways in which congregational membership
The software now makes the first pass at ways, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Devise ways in which congregational membership can be expanded.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 57 out of 100 (50–64 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Working out how to grow membership is planning and analysis that software drafts well, using ideas widely shared between congregations.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Staying human
19 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Praying and promoting spirituality
This work happens in the physical world: spirituality, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Pray and promote spirituality.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (1–9 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Prayer and spiritual leadership only mean something when a real person offers them, usually alongside the people involved.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Reading from sacred texts, such as the Bible, Torah or Koran
This work happens in the physical world: sacred texts, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Read from sacred texts, such as the Bible, Torah, or Koran.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Reading scripture in a service is something the gathered community expects a person present in the room to do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Preparing and delivering sermons or other talks
This work happens in the physical world: sermons, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Prepare and deliver sermons or other talks.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (12–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: A sermon can be drafted digitally, but the part that lands depends on a trusted person delivering it to their own congregation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Organizing and leading regular religious services
This work happens in the physical world: regular religious services, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Organize and lead regular religious services.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Leading worship is an in-person role usually reserved for someone ordained, whatever help the planning gets from software.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Instructing people who seek conversion to a particular faith
This work happens in the physical world: people who seek conversion, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Instruct people who seek conversion to a particular faith.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Teaching someone into a faith is a personal relationship over time, though the teaching material can be prepared digitally.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Counseling individuals or groups concerning their spiritual
The value here is that a specific person handles individuals and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Counsel individuals or groups concerning their spiritual, emotional, or personal needs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (0–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Pastoral counselling works because of who is sitting with the person, not because of the words alone.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Sharing information about religious issues by writing articles
This work happens in the physical world: information, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Share information about religious issues by writing articles, giving speeches, or teaching.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Writing articles on religious topics is well suited to software, but speaking and teaching mean showing up in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Preparing people for participation in religious ceremonies
This work happens in the physical world: people, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare people for participation in religious ceremonies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Preparing people for ceremonies is personal teaching, though the study materials and schedules can be drafted automatically.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 11 tasks
Performing administrative duties, such as overseeing building management, ordering supplies
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles administrative duties and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Perform administrative duties, such as overseeing building management, ordering supplies, contracting for services or repairs, or supervising the work of staff members or volunteers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Ordering supplies, arranging repairs and keeping the building running is routine admin that software already handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Referring people to community support services
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles people and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Refer people to community support services, psychologists, or doctors.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Matching someone's need to the right local service is a lookup task software does well, once the conversation has happened.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Collaborating with committees or individuals to address financial or administrative issues pertaining to congregations
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles committees and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Collaborate with committees or individuals to address financial or administrative issues pertaining to congregations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Congregational budgets and admin decisions are made in committee meetings, though software can prepare the figures and options beforehand.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Training leaders of church, community or youth groups
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: leaders of church, community or youth groups, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Train leaders of church, community, or youth groups.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Training group leaders involves in-person practice and feedback, even though curriculum and handouts can be produced digitally.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning or leading religious education programs
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: religious education programs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Plan or lead religious education programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Planning a religious education program is desk work software helps with, but running the sessions means being with the learners.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Organizing or engaging in interfaith
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: interfaith, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Organize or engage in interfaith, community, civic, educational, or recreational activities sponsored by or related to religious programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Organizing community events can be planned digitally, but taking part in them is the point and requires being there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Participating in fundraising activities to support congregational activities or facilities
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: fundraising activities, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Participate in fundraising activities to support congregational activities or facilities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Appeal letters can be drafted automatically, but people give because someone they trust asks them, usually face to face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Responding to requests for assistance during emergencies or crises
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: requests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Respond to requests for assistance during emergencies or crises.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Crisis response means getting to people quickly and being there with them, which is the whole substance of the task.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Visit people in homes, hospitals, or prisons to provide them with comfort and support
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: people, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Visit people in homes, hospitals, or prisons to provide them with comfort and support.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The point of the visit is being physically present with someone in their home, hospital room, or cell.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Administering religious rites or ordinances
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: religious rites, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Administer religious rites or ordinances.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Administering rites such as baptism or communion is a physical act performed by an ordained person present with the people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting special ceremonies, such as weddings, funerals or confirmations
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: special ceremonies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct special ceremonies, such as weddings, funerals, or confirmations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Weddings, funerals and confirmations are ceremonies conducted in person by an ordained officiant in front of the people involved.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $60,810a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 57,200in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: religious laws in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: studying and interpreting religious laws and devising ways in which congregational membership. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where spirituality gets done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Start with what does not change: praying and promoting spirituality is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 5% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 5% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 91% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 21 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Studying and interpreting religious laws is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.
This week: one thing
Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to religious laws, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.
- What you end up holding
- a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
- How long it takes
- ten minutes
If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether sacred texts are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.
Over the next 90 days
Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near devising ways in which congregational membership. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.
Over the next 12 months
On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to clergy (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was directors, religious activities and education: only about 12% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 14.3% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 19/100 here, with only 5% of the task list in the top band, and “pray and promote spirituality” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Directors, Religious Activities and Education
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already plan or lead religious education programs, and their equivalent is to train and supervise religious education instructional staff. Across both published task lists that is about 12% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 12% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: $52,100 against your $60,810, 14.3% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Social and Community Service Managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already perform administrative duties, and their equivalent is to direct activities of professional and technical staff members and volunteers. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Community Health Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already refer people to community support services, psychologists, or doctors, and their equivalent is to refer community members to needed health services. Across both published task lists that is about 1% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 1% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $51,850 against your $60,810, 14.7% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 5% of its task weight, across 21 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like praying and promoting spirituality arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Clergy is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Clergy. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
Why there is no community here
Collab365, who build this site, run paid Spaces for a small number of subjects, and none of them is built for this job. We are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
So the free services listed on this page are the whole answer, and it is the same answer we would give a friend.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for clergy launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Clergy?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 21 official task statements scored for Clergy (United States, SOC 21-2011), 5% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 19 out of 100 (range 14–26, band: minimal). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Clergy” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Study and interpret religious laws, doctrines, or traditions” (83/100, very high); “Devise ways in which congregational membership can be expanded” (57/100, partial); “Perform administrative duties, such as overseeing building management, ordering supplies, contracting for services or repairs, or supervising the work of sta…” (39/100, low). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Clergy” stay human?
- About 91% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Conduct special ceremonies, such as weddings, funerals, or confirmations” (0/100, minimal); “Administer religious rites or ordinances” (0/100, minimal); “Visit people in homes, hospitals, or prisons to provide them with comfort and support” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Clergy” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 5% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 91% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Clergy calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 21 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
About the data on this page
- One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.