Pastoral Ministry and Reformed Theology in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

A Biblical and Westminster Critique of the Ten Principles of the Hapdong “AI Ethics and Faith-Use Guidelines”

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has entered the ministry of the Korean church. It is used for sermon research, biblical study, educational materials, administration, translation, and document production. On 16 September 2026 the 111th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Korea (Hapdong) adopted the “AI Ethics and Faith-Use Guidelines,” which set out ten principles grounded in Scripture and Reformed theology.[1] This study evaluates those principles in the light of Scripture and the Westminster Standards (the Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism, and the Shorter Catechism), with reference also to Calvin’s Institutes, on which the guidelines are reported to draw.[2]

Because the Standards do not mention AI, the study does not ask whether Westminster “permits” or “forbids” it. It argues instead that the use of AI belongs to the sphere of Christian prudence ordered by the general rules of the Word (WCF 1.6), and that the Standards’ teaching on Scripture, providence and means, the image of God, the work of the Spirit, the church, and the pastoral office marks the limits of that use. Its central thesis is:

AI may serve as a means of pastoral ministry, but it cannot become the subject of pastoral ministry. AI may perform some of the work of a pastor, but it cannot assume the pastor’s spiritual and ethical responsibility before God.

The argument rests on durable theological grounds (calling, office, and covenantal accountability) rather than on contingent technical limitations such as hallucination, which may diminish over time. The study also proposes a five-level classification of AI use, relates it to the reported prohibition of sermon ghostwriting, and identifies areas that need further development: privacy, verification of sources, crisis care, and spiritual formation.

1. Introduction: AI as a Pastoral and Theological Question

1.1 The situation

Generative AI such as ChatGPT analyzes human language and produces new text, and so it can assist with sermon outlines, Bible-study materials, counseling documents, translations, and administrative tasks. According to the Hapdong Policy Headquarters’ own survey, presented when the guidelines were proposed, 88.7 percent of senior pastors already use generative AI and employ it widely in pastoral and preaching work. Respondents named theological error and inaccurate information (41.3 percent) as their greatest difficulty, and they rated theological appropriateness markedly lower for core creative tasks such as drafting a sermon. Large majorities asked for General Assembly guidelines (69.8 percent) and for an “AI pastoral support center” (81.8 percent).[3] These are self-reported denominational figures, but they show that pastors themselves sense a theological boundary and want it clarified.

That the risk is not merely hypothetical was shown within days of the guidelines’ adoption. A senior pastor’s public claim, which he said he had confirmed through an AI assistant, proved false and required a public correction (see §7.3) — a sobering illustration of how AI can fail a pastor precisely at the point of factual discernment, and of why the deeper answer to that failure lies not in better technology but in the Spirit’s work through the Word (§5.3).

1.2 The question

The question is therefore no longer “May Christians use AI?” but “How can the church use AI without compromising the nature of pastoral ministry?” For a Reformed church the question goes further: if AI can be a means within God’s providence, what are the theological limits of that means?

Answering it requires a prior account of ministry. In Reformed theology, pastoral ministry is not the production and distribution of religious information. It is the ministry of those called and entrusted with the Word of God, who preach faithfully, care for souls, and build up the church for God’s glory. However fluent AI becomes, the ability to generate text is not spiritual or pastoral responsibility.

1.3 Thesis and scope

The thesis stated in the abstract is defended in three steps: the place of AI in the theological order (Part 12), the objection that orthodox output makes its origin irrelevant (Part 13), and the practical classification of uses (Part 14). The study is limited to the Westminster/Presbyterian tradition, which is the confessional setting of the Hapdong guidelines; it does not treat the Continental Reformed confessions. Comparable statements from other traditions, such as the 2019 evangelical statement of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission statement included.

2. Method and Status of the Guidelines

2.1 The Standards are silent, but not without resources

The Westminster Standards do not mention artificial intelligence, and this study does not claim that they permit or forbid it.[4] They nevertheless supply three controlling categories.

First, matters not settled by explicit Scripture, the “circumstances… common to human actions and societies,” are “to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word” (WCF 1.6). The use of AI in ministry belongs primarily to this domain of prudence, not to that of new commandment.

Second, “God alone is Lord of the conscience” (WCF 20.2), and church councils “are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both” (WCF 31.3). The Hapdong guidelines should therefore be received as pastoral counsel whose authority derives from their conformity to the Word, and be tested accordingly. Their juridical force within Hapdong polity is a separate matter that this study does not address.

Third, God “in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure” (WCF 5.3). Means are neither despised nor made necessary. The second half of this sentence is as important as the first: nothing in the church’s mission depends on AI.

2.2 The ten principles

The guidelines set out ten principles “according to Scripture and Reformed theology.” They are reported to rest on the Westminster Confession and Catechisms and on Calvin’s Institutes.[5] They also state that AI must be understood as a highly intelligent device, not a personal being, and that it functions only as a human instrument.[6] Table 1 lists the principles with their official titles and the biblical and confessional texts used in this study.[7]

Table 1. The ten principles and their scriptural and confessional grounds

No.	Principle (official Korean title)	Key Scripture	Standards / Calvin	Critical question
1	Sola Scriptura (오직 성경)	2 Tim. 3:16–17; Isa. 8:20	WCF 1.4–10 (esp. 1.6, 1.10); Inst. 1.9	Does AI output exercise authority over Scripture?
2	Human Dignity (인간의 존엄성)	Gen. 1:26–27; Ps. 8	WCF 4.2; WSC 10; WLC 17	Is AI being confused with persons made in God’s image?
3	Sovereignty of the Holy Spirit (성령의 주권)	John 14:26; 1 Cor. 2:12–14	WCF 14.1; WLC 155; WCF 1.6, 21.3	Is technology treated as a substitute for the Spirit’s work?
4	Personal Pastoral Care (인격적 목양)	John 10; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2–3	WLC 158–159; WCF 25.3, 27.4	Is AI displacing the pastoral relationship?
5	Theological Discernment (신학적 분별)	Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1	WCF 1.9–10; WLC 160	By what standard is AI output judged?
6	Preservation of Community (공동체성 보존)	Acts 2:42; Heb. 10:24–25	WCF 21, 25–27, 29	Is digital interaction replacing the gathered church?
7	Stewardship Mandate for the Care of Life (생명 돌봄의 청지기 사명)	Gen. 2:15; Ezek. 34:2–4	WLC 135–136; WSC 9–11	Who protects the vulnerable when AI mediates care?
8	Truthfulness, Transparency, and Accuracy (진실성·투명성·정확성)	Eph. 4:25; Prov. 12:22	WLC 141–145; WSC 77–78	Who answers for AI errors and misattribution?
9	Understanding the Nature and Limits of AI (AI의 본질과 한계 이해)	Gen. 1:27; Ps. 115:4–8	WCF 4.2; WSC 10	Is AI treated as a person or as an oracle?
10	Strengthening Pastoral Ethics (목회자 윤리 강화)	James 3:1; Heb. 13:17	WLC 158–159	Who remains accountable for AI-assisted ministry?

2.3 A note on sources

At the time of writing, the full text of the adopted guidelines was not available to this study. The analysis relies on the ten principle titles and on summaries published in the Korean Christian press. Statements below about what the guidelines “reportedly” contain should be verified against the adopted text. In particular, the reported prohibition of sermon ghostwriting, the warning against technological convenience in preaching, prayer, and spiritual care, the concern that prosperity teaching, religious pluralism, or heresy may enter through AI output, and the emphasis on face-to-face worship and the Lord’s Supper, on protecting personal information in counseling, and on preventing plagiarism, are taken from press reports.[8][9]

3. Principle One: Sola Scriptura

3.1 Biblical foundation

“All Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Tim. 3:16–17), and God’s people are directed to the Word as the standard of judgment (Isa. 8:20). Nothing is to be added to it (Deut. 4:2), and the prophets who speak “visions of their own minds” rather than from the mouth of the Lord are condemned (Jer. 23:16). AI output, however learned, is not inspired. It is language produced by computation over human-made data and is neither a recipient nor a transmitter of special revelation.

3.2 The Westminster Standards and Calvin

WCF 1 establishes Scripture’s authority, sufficiency, clarity, and the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. Two provisions bear directly on AI. WCF 1.6 forbids adding to Scripture “new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men,” and WCF 1.10 names the supreme judge of all controversies as “the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture,” by whom “decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits” are to be examined. AI output at best compiles what others have written and belongs among the things to be examined, never among those that judge. Calvin’s warning against those who abandon Scripture for private revelation is to the same effect.[10]

3.3 Analysis

The critical distinction is between information and revelation. AI can process information about Scripture, but it is not a source of revelation. It is legitimate to ask, “Summarize the major interpretive views on this passage.” It is theologically hazardous to ask, “Tell me what God is personally saying to me through this passage,” because the second question turns an informational tool into a voice of spiritual authority.

The principle therefore means more than “AI makes mistakes, so check it.” It concerns the order of authority. The proper order runs from Scripture, to theological interpretation, to pastoral judgment, and only then to AI assistance. It does not run from AI output, to pastoral review, to sermon.

4. Principles Two and Nine: Human Dignity and the Nature and Limits of AI

Principles Two and Nine address the same question from two sides and are treated together.

4.1 Biblical foundation

Human beings are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27), and Psalm 8 places humanity in a distinctive position within creation while directing all glory to God. The Old Testament’s critique of idols is also relevant. Idols are made by human hands, have mouths and do not speak, and those who make them become like them (Ps. 115:4–8; Hab. 2:18–19). The point is not that AI is an idol. It is that a human artifact that appears to speak can acquire an authority it has not been given.

4.2 The Westminster Standards

WCF 4.2 teaches that God created man “with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image” (cf. WSC 10; WLC 17). It would be a mistake to say only that dignity does not rest on intelligence. The Confession itself names “knowledge” as part of the image. But that knowledge is not information-processing capacity; it is covenantal knowledge of God (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24), a moral and spiritual condition marred by the Fall and restored in Christ. Human dignity therefore does not rise or fall with computational performance.

4.3 Analysis

AI may surpass human beings in certain calculations or linguistic tasks without thereby becoming human, and nothing in Scripture or the Standards supports identifying it with a person made in God’s image. The guidelines rightly insist that AI be understood as a device and not a person.[11] Christians should be wary of language (“thinking,” “understanding,” “feeling”) that quietly erases the distinction.

Reformed anthropology avoids two extremes: treating humans and AI as ontologically equivalent, and treating humanity as autonomous or divine. The proper order is God the Creator; human beings as creatures made in his image; and AI as an artifact made by human beings.

4.4 The limits of AI: contingent and durable

Principle Nine lists familiar limitations: generative AI cannot reliably distinguish truth from falsehood, it can fabricate citations, it reproduces biases in its training data, and it can produce plausible interpretations without human experience. These are real, but they are contingent, and technical progress may reduce them. The theological argument must not depend on them. The durable claim is ontological and vocational. AI is not a person, it has no office, and it stands under no covenantal accountability before God.

The same applies to pastoral care. AI can simulate empathetic language, but simulated empathy is not an embodied person bearing another’s suffering. Church members increasingly disclose personal struggles to AI, and the church should teach them to distinguish the linguistic simulation of relationship from real human relationship.

5. Principle Three: The Sovereignty of the Holy Spirit

5.1 Biblical foundation

The Spirit teaches and brings Christ’s words to remembrance (John 14:26), and spiritual realities are discerned through the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:12–14). Believers are also warned not to quench the Spirit or despise prophecies, but to test everything (1 Thess. 5:19–21).

5.2 The Westminster Standards

Saving faith is “the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word” (WCF 14.1). The Spirit makes the reading, and especially the preaching, of the Word effectual (WLC 155). Scripture is understood savingly only through “the inward illumination of the Spirit of God” (WCF 1.6). Prayer is to be made “by the help of his Spirit” (WCF 21.3; cf. WLC 182).

5.3 Analysis

Few pastors would claim that AI replaces the Spirit, so the danger is functional rather than doctrinal. A pastor who delegates meditation, the wrestling with a text, and even prayer to a tool has not denied the Spirit but has stopped making room for his ordinary way of working through the pastor’s own reading, reflection, and dependence. AI-generated prayers deserve particular caution, because prayer is a work of the Spirit in the one who prays. The guidelines’ reported warning against technological convenience in preaching, prayer, and spiritual care is well aimed.[12]

A deeper reason underlies this caution. The knowledge that matters in ministry is not merely correct information but a living, relational knowledge of God, and that knowledge is “ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word” through “the inward illumination of the Spirit of God” (WCF 1.6; 14.1). No fact-checking tool, however accurate, can supply what only the Spirit gives. AI may in principle return a correct answer to a factual question; it cannot give the humility, teachableness, and love of truth that let a person receive that answer rightly. AI is therefore not, in any final sense, the answer to the church’s problem of discernment: the problem is not only inaccurate information but a heart not yet searched by the Spirit through the Word (cf. Ps. 139:23–24; John 16:13). A recent Korean case illustrates exactly this point (see §7.3).

A technological tool is not a means of grace. That AI helps organize resources for sermon preparation does not mean that it performs the Spirit’s work (see Part 12).

6. Principle Four: Personal Pastoral Care

6.1 Biblical foundation

The good shepherd knows his sheep, and they know his voice (John 10:3–4, 14). Elders are to pay careful attention to the flock over which the Spirit has made them overseers (Acts 20:28) and to shepherd it willingly, as examples (1 Pet. 5:2–3). God’s judgment on shepherds who feed themselves and neglect the weak (Ezek. 34:2–4) shows how much depends on personal presence.

6.2 The Westminster Standards

The Word is to be preached “only by such as are sufficiently gifted, and also duly approved and called to that office” (WLC 158). Ministers are to preach sound doctrine diligently, plainly, faithfully, wisely, zealously, and sincerely, aiming at God’s glory and the conversion, edification, and salvation of the people (WLC 159). Christ has given the church the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God (WCF 25.3), and the sacraments may not be dispensed “by any but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained” (WCF 27.4).

6.3 What AI can and cannot do

AI can help organize counseling materials, generate Bible-study questions, arrange visitation notes, prepare educational materials, translate, and draft documents. It should not be the substitute for:

• pastoral judgment concerning a person’s spiritual condition;
• personal exhortation and calls to repentance;
• bedside and funeral ministry, and presence in suffering;
• sacramental ministry; or
• long-term relational responsibility for a member’s spiritual life.

The phrase “AI ministry” should be used with care. The more precise expression is “ministry utilizing AI.” There is a real difference between AI doing ministry and a pastor using AI in ministry.

7. Principle Five: Theological Discernment

7.1 Biblical and confessional foundation

The Bereans examined the Scriptures to see whether what they heard was true (Acts 17:11); believers are to test the spirits (1 John 4:1) and to weigh what is spoken (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:21). Scripture is the ultimate standard for interpreting Scripture and resolving controversies (WCF 1.9–10), and hearers must examine what they hear by the Scriptures (WLC 160).

7.2 The structural problem

The chief danger is not that AI produces errors but that it presents them with fluency and confidence. It can invent nonexistent books and articles, misattribute theological positions, blend incompatible traditions, fabricate citations, and present an uncertain interpretation as settled. The guidelines reportedly warn that, because AI draws on vast web data, prosperity teaching, religious pluralism, and heretical doctrine can mix into its answers, and they make discernment the pastor’s primary responsibility.[13][14] Fluency is not evidence of truth.

7.3 A Contemporary Case: A Pastor’s Public Error and the Limits of AI Fact-Checking

In September 2026, an episode widely reported in the Korean church illustrated the danger just described. The senior pastor of a large congregation in Busan repeatedly claimed, in Sunday sermons and in an online video, that CBS (Christian Broadcasting System), Korea’s oldest Christian broadcaster, had deleted the word “Christian” from its corporate charter in 2005 and was therefore no longer a Christian organization. The CBS board of directors issued a formal statement on 18 September 2026 calling the claim false and demanding correction, apology, and removal of the video, noting that the charter’s first article explicitly names the organization “기독교방송” (Christian Broadcasting) in Korean and “Christian Broadcasting System” in English.[15]

When a reporter pressed the pastor for his source, he said he had confirmed the claim through Gemini, an AI assistant, together with a twenty-year-old news article. The article, however, concerned only the choice of an English abbreviation and did not support his claim, and the primary source, the charter itself, was readily available and said the opposite.

The episode confirms, in a sobering way, three points already made in this study. First, the AI tool returned, or appeared to confirm, an answer that matched the pastor’s prior conviction rather than the primary source, illustrating that fluency and apparent confirmation are not evidence of truth (§7.2). Second, no verification against the primary document, the charter itself, took place before the claim was proclaimed publicly and repeated; this is precisely the failure that WLC 159’s requirement of diligence and WLC 144–145’s requirement of truthfulness are meant to prevent, and responsibility for it could not be transferred to the AI tool consulted (§10.2, §15). Third, the case is a pessimistic sign for pastoral ministry in the AI age: even an office-bearer may treat an AI response as though it settled a public, potentially defamatory claim, rather than as one input to be weighed against primary sources under Scripture’s own standard of truthful speech (Eph. 4:25). The church should not regard such episodes as isolated; they warn what unexamined pastoral reliance on AI can produce.

As §5.3 argues, this failure cannot finally be solved by more accurate AI fact-checking. The deeper need is a right relationship with the truth itself, a fruit of the Spirit’s work in the one who searches (§5.3), joined with the ordinary diligence of consulting primary sources. AI, however much it improves, can supply neither.

7.4 A verification sequence

A responsible workflow runs: AI output; verification against primary sources; biblical examination; theological evaluation; pastoral judgment; and only then use. The order must not be reversed.

8. Principle Six: Preservation of Community

8.1 Biblical and confessional foundation

The first church devoted itself to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayer (Acts 2:42), and believers are told to keep meeting together and to encourage one another (Heb. 10:24–25). The Lord’s Supper is celebrated when the church “comes together” (1 Cor. 11:20–33). The Standards treat the nature of the church (WCF 25), the communion of saints (WCF 26), public worship (WCF 21), and the sacraments (WCF 27, 29).

8.2 Analysis

As AI improves, the church may be tempted to see itself as a provider of religious content. But the church is not a place where sermons are downloaded. It is an embodied covenant community in which believers hear the Word, worship, share in the sacraments, fellowship, and serve one another as the body of Christ. The guidelines’ reported emphasis on face-to-face worship and the Lord’s Supper is therefore theologically necessary, not merely a matter of preference.[16]

Online worship, digital education, and AI-assisted discipleship may serve as supplementary tools. When they structurally replace embodied worship and fellowship, serious ecclesiological questions arise.

9. Principle Seven: The Stewardship Mandate for the Care of Life

The guidelines’ title for this principle speaks of a stewardship mandate for the care of life.[17] It should be read first through the sixth commandment, which, according to WLC 135, requires all lawful endeavors to preserve the life of ourselves and others, to comfort the distressed, and to protect the innocent. Three applications follow.

Persons in crisis. A member in despair may turn to a chatbot in the middle of the night. AI can neither notice a trembling voice nor assume the duty to protect. Churches need referral protocols for suicidal ideation, abuse, and other emergencies that do not depend on an AI response.

The vulnerable and the excluded. The elderly, the disabled, and the poor may be left behind by ministry that depends on AI. Care for the weak (Ezek. 34:2–4) is a criterion for adopting any tool, and the digital divide has been noted in denominational discussion.[18]

Creation and resources. The mandate of Gen. 2:15 and Ps. 24:1 remains as a secondary application, since human beings are stewards and not absolute owners of creation. The energy, cost, and data implications of AI use deserve stewardship-minded evaluation. Throughout, efficiency is not identical to goodness. Time saved through AI must be given back to prayer, the Word, visitation, discipleship, and personal care.

10. Principle Eight: Truthfulness, Transparency, and Accuracy

10.1 Biblical and confessional foundation

Believers are to put away falsehood and speak truthfully (Eph. 4:25), and the Lord delights in those who act faithfully (Prov. 12:22). The Standards treat truthfulness under the ninth commandment (WLC 144–145; WSC 77–78) and the taking of what is not one’s own under the eighth (WLC 141–142). Plagiarism of AI-generated or human-authored material touches both: it appropriates the labor of others and misrepresents authorship.

10.2 Responsibility is not transferable

If AI generates false information, the pastor who uses it without verification cannot transfer responsibility to the machine. The human user remains answerable.

10.3 Transparency in graded form

There are circumstances in which congregations or readers should know whether AI has been used in a sermon or theological document, but not every kind of assistance calls for the same treatment. The higher the level of AI involvement, the greater the need for verification, accountability, and openness (see the classification in Part 14).

11. Principle Ten: Strengthening Pastoral Ethics

This principle draws together the other nine. Teachers will be judged more strictly (James 3:1), those given more will have more required of them (Luke 12:48), and leaders “will have to give an account” for the souls in their care (Heb. 13:17). The Larger Catechism makes preaching an ecclesial ministry carried out by a called and approved officer (WLC 158–159). It is not mere text production.

If AI writes a sermon, AI does not thereby become the preacher. If a pastor delivers an AI-generated sermon without real theological examination, the pastor cannot pass responsibility to the tool. The reported prohibition of sermon ghostwriting expresses the same conviction, and it is best understood as a consequence of the pastoral office and not as an arbitrary rule.[19]

12. The Place of AI in the Theological Order

The Westminster tradition allows three categories to be distinguished, and much confusion in current discussion comes from mixing them.

Table 2. Three categories and the place of AI

Category	Confessional basis	Place of AI
Providential means	WCF 5.3; Calvin, Inst. 2.2.15–16	Books, printing, computers, and AI are instruments used by human beings under God’s providence; the Spirit’s gifts in the arts and sciences are to be received with gratitude (cf. Exod. 31:1–5). AI may belong here.
Ordinary means of grace	WSC 88; WLC 154; WCF 14.1	The Word, the sacraments, and prayer, which Christ uses to communicate the benefits of redemption. AI does not belong here.
Circumstances ordered by prudence	WCF 1.6; WCF 20.2	How, when, and how much a tool is used in ministry is decided by Christian prudence under the general rules of the Word. AI’s practical use belongs here.

The claim “AI can be used to study Scripture” may be affirmed. The claim “AI communicates the grace of the Holy Spirit” is a different theological claim and must be rejected. The Reformed tradition also holds Word and Spirit together (WCF 1.5–1.6, 1.10) and does not rank them on a ladder. The order of authority in ministry can therefore be stated this way: God’s Word, illumined by the Holy Spirit, governs the church and its offices; the office-bearer exercises pastoral judgment under that Word; and AI serves, if at all, beneath that judgment. AI must not move up this order. It cannot stand above Scripture, replace the Holy Spirit, assume human moral responsibility, replace the church, or replace the pastoral office.

13. An Objection and a Reply

Objection. If an AI-assisted sermon is doctrinally sound, why should its origin matter?

Reply. Four considerations answer the objection.

First, the objection cannot be that God is unable to use such a sermon. The Spirit makes the preached Word effectual (WLC 155), and by analogy the efficacy of a sacrament “dependeth not upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit” (WCF 27.3). The Reformed tradition has long held that the faithful preaching of the Word is, in a real sense, the Word of God.[20] God is also free to use any means (WCF 5.3). The concern about unexamined AI use lies elsewhere.

Second, calling. The Word is to be preached by those “sufficiently gifted, and also duly approved and called” (WLC 158; cf. Rom. 10:14–15). The identity of the one who publicly speaks in Christ’s name is not a matter of the text alone.

Third, formation and integrity. WLC 159 requires the minister to preach diligently, faithfully, wisely, and sincerely. Paul urges Timothy to devote himself to public reading, exhortation, and teaching, and to “keep a close watch” on himself (1 Tim. 4:13–16), and the apostles gave themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word (Acts 6:4). A sermon is the testimony of a shepherd who has wrestled with the text and who knows the flock. Outsourcing that labor weakens the preacher even when the output is orthodox.

Fourth, honesty. Presenting as one’s own preparation what one has not prepared raises questions under the ninth commandment (WLC 144–145).

Calvin’s teaching gives the point a positive form. God, who needs no help, has chosen to use human ministers as his instruments (Inst. 4.3.1).[21] The office is God’s chosen means and cannot be delegated to a tool without loss.

14. Classifying AI Use and the Prohibition of Ghostwriting

The guidelines reportedly prohibit the ghostwriting of sermons.[22] A graded classification helps locate that prohibition in practice. The five levels in Table 3 are this study’s proposal and are not drawn from the guidelines. The precise boundary should be checked against the adopted text.

Table 3. Five levels of AI involvement

No.	Type of use	Examples	Verification and transparency	Reading in light of the ghostwriting prohibition
1	Basic assistance	Spelling, grammar, formatting, translation	Pastor checks accuracy	Permissible
2	Research assistance	Organizing information, research questions, comparative tables	Verify against primary sources	Permissible
3	Content-development assistance	Sermon outlines, teaching-material drafts	Pastor’s own exegesis governs; disclose where appropriate	Permissible with safeguards
4	Substantive generation	AI writes substantial portions of a sermon or argument	Extensive verification and disclosure required	Falls within the prohibition (proposed reading)
5	Functional replacement	Pastor delivers AI material with no meaningful preparation of his own	—	Clearly prohibited

In this reading the line falls between Levels 3 and 4. A pastor who uses AI for grammar correction stands in a fundamentally different position from one who asks it to produce an entire sermon, and the two should not be treated alike. The same reasoning applies to public prayer, which is offered “by the help of his Spirit” (WCF 21.3) and cannot simply be generated.

15. AI Can Perform Tasks, but Not Bear Responsibility

AI can draft a sermon, and it can offer answers to the following questions. But it cannot be accountable for them:

• Is this sermon biblically faithful?
• Does it rightly proclaim Christ?
• Does it conform to the church’s confession?
• Is it fitting for this congregation, and how should this congregation be exhorted?
• What pastoral consequences might it produce?
• Who answers if it contains theological error?

AI may perform portions of the work, but responsibility remains with the office-bearer.

16. Evaluation of the Guidelines and Areas for Further Development

16.1 Strengths

First, the guidelines do not demonize AI. They establish principles for responsible use, which is consistent with the Reformed doctrine of providence (WCF 5.3) and with Calvin’s recognition of the Spirit’s gifts in human arts and sciences. Second, they distinguish human beings from AI, which protects the significance of the image of God. Third, they preserve pastoral responsibility, which accords with WLC 158–159.

16.2 Areas for development

Status and enforceability. If the guidelines are counsel and not a rule of faith or practice (WCF 31.3), the denomination should state plainly what follows from a breach.

Classification of use. A graded scheme such as Table 3, with differentiated requirements for verification and disclosure, would make the principles workable in local churches.

Privacy and confidentiality. Pastoral counseling involves sensitive information about family relationships, suffering, finances, and sin. Such information should not be entered into AI systems without appropriate safeguards, and religious belief is treated as sensitive data under Korean law.[23]

Verification of sources. AI-generated biblical quotations, theological references, books, articles, names, and citations must be checked against primary sources. Fabricated references must never be incorporated into sermons or academic publications merely because AI produced them.

Crisis care. Churches should adopt protocols for members in crisis who turn to AI (see Part 9).

Spiritual formation. If AI shortens sermon preparation, the time saved should not simply be converted into more administrative output. It should strengthen prayer, biblical study, visitation, counseling, discipleship, and fellowship. Otherwise, AI may increase the efficiency of ministry while weakening its substance.

17. Seven Principles of Westminster-Reformed AI Ethics

The ten principles can be gathered into seven, each stated in terms of durable theological grounds.

1. Scripture has greater authority than AI. AI can explain information about Scripture but cannot possess Scripture’s authority (WCF 1.6, 1.10).
2. God is sovereign; AI is a tool. Technological development must not be given the place that belongs to God (WCF 5.3).
3. Human beings are responsible creatures made in God’s image. That AI can outperform humans in some tasks does not diminish human dignity (WCF 4.2).
4. AI may be used as a means under God’s providence and Christian prudence. Reformed AI ethics is therefore not a technological rejection (WCF 1.6, 5.3).
5. AI is not an agent of grace. It cannot replace the Holy Spirit, Scripture, prayer, or the sacraments (WSC 88; WLC 154).
6. Efficiency serves vocation and does not define it. Time saved through AI must strengthen pastoral ministry and the care of life, not replace them (WLC 135, 141).
7. Ultimate responsibility remains with human beings, especially office-bearers. It cannot be transferred to an algorithm (WLC 158–159).

18. Conclusion: The Nature of Pastoral Ministry Does Not Change

AI will change how ministry is done. Sermon preparation, biblical research, teaching resources, administration, and counseling support will all be affected. But technological change does not change the essence of pastoral ministry. At its center remain the Word of God; the Holy Spirit who works through that Word; the human being created in God’s image and called in Christ; the church constituted by Word, sacrament, and fellowship; and the pastoral office entrusted with responsibility for the flock.

AI may be a useful tool within this structure, but it must never become the subject of it. Reformed AI ethics must therefore move beyond the question “Should we use AI?” to a more searching one:

How can we use AI while glorifying God, preserving the authority of Scripture, depending on the Holy Spirit, protecting human dignity, preserving the community of the church, and faithfully maintaining pastoral responsibility?

The pastoral implications of this study may be summarized as follows.

AI can generate a sermon manuscript, but it cannot replace the calling of the preacher.

AI can produce counseling resources, but it cannot replace the pastor’s personal care of souls.

AI can provide information about Scripture, but it cannot possess the authority of Scripture.

AI can perform tasks, but it cannot assume responsibility before God.

The church need neither fear AI nor worship it. Under God’s providence it may use AI as a tool, and it must place that tool under Scripture, under the work of the Holy Spirit, under human vocation and responsibility, under the nature and mission of the church, and under the accountability of the pastoral office. Kept within these boundaries, AI need not replace pastoral ministry. It can be one of the instruments by which the church responsibly uses the resources of its age for the glory of God and the service of Christ’s church.

Primary Sources and Further Reading

• Hapdong General Assembly, “AI Ethics and Faith-Use Guidelines” (adopted 16 September 2026), full text to be cited from the General Assembly’s published record.
• Westminster Confession of Faith, Larger Catechism, and Shorter Catechism (The book of Church Order: Korean Presbyterian Church in America, 2016).
• John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. McNeill, trans. Battles (Westminster Press, 1960).
• Press reports of the adoption: Christian Daily, 16 September 2026; Daily Good News, 18–21 September 2026; Kukmin Ilbo, September 2026 (see notes).
• Comparative material: Chongshin University generative-AI guidelines (2026); ERLC, “Artificial Intelligence: An Evangelical Statement of Principles” (2019); Antiqua et Nova (2025).

---

EXTRA SPECIAL

Appendix: A Twenty-Point Comparison with Southern Baptist Statements on AI

This appendix is set apart from the body of the study as a supplementary, exploratory comparison and is not part of the main argument. It sets the Hapdong guidelines, as analyzed above, alongside two Southern Baptist statements on artificial intelligence: the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission’s 2019 “Artificial Intelligence: An Evangelical Statement of Principles” (ERLC 2019), a twelve-article evangelical public-ethics statement signed by 73 leaders across institutions, and Lifeway Christian Resources’ 2026 “Brentwood Statement on Artificial Intelligence and Christian Ministry” (Brentwood 2026), a seven-point ministry-focused exhortation issued by Southern Baptist leaders ahead of the SBC’s Annual Meeting.[24][25] The purpose is not to rank the traditions but to locate, by comparison, what the Westminster-Reformed reading offered in this study contributes and what it might still learn.

Table 4. Overview of the three documents

	Hapdong Guidelines (2026)	ERLC Statement (2019)	Brentwood Statement (2026)
Scope	Church ministry practice	Public ethics, whole of society	Church ministry practice
Form	Ten principles, Scripture + Westminster/Calvin	Twelve articles, affirm/deny	Seven short exhortations, wisdom register
Adopting body	General Assembly (denominational)	73 named signatories (inter-institutional)	Lifeway-convened SBC leaders
Confessional anchor	WCF/WLC/WSC as subordinate standard	Scripture cited directly; no subordinate standard	Scripture cited directly; no subordinate standard
Binding force	Counsel, tested by WCF 31.3	Statement of principle, not legislative	Encouragement to local churches, not binding

Twenty Points of Comparison

1. Occasion. The Hapdong guidelines answer a denominational survey showing widespread pastoral use of AI and concern about theological error (§1.1). The Baptist statements developed in two stages: ERLC 2019 addressed AI as an emerging public-ethics issue for the whole of society, well before generative AI reached the pulpit; Brentwood 2026 responded specifically to Lifeway Research findings that pastors and churchgoers find AI’s influence on ministry “concerning and confusing.”[26]
2. Genre. Hapdong states ten principles in confessional register, expressly grounded in “Scripture and Reformed theology.” ERLC 2019 uses the affirm/deny form common to evangelical public statements, covering many domains beyond ministry. Brentwood 2026 uses short second-person exhortations (“Christian ministers should…”) anchored mostly in Wisdom Literature, a homiletical rather than systematic register.
3. Basis of authority. Hapdong invokes the Westminster Standards as a subordinate standard mediating scriptural authority (§2.1). Neither Baptist document invokes an equivalent subordinate confession; both cite Scripture directly, consistent with the Baptist tradition’s characteristic reliance on the local congregation’s and believer’s direct accountability to Scripture rather than a denomination-wide confessional standard.
4. Image of God. All three affirm the image of God as what distinguishes humans from AI. Hapdong grounds this in WCF 4.2’s “knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness” (§4.2). ERLC Article 1 affirms “intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency” and denies that any technology should be assigned “a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.” Brentwood’s second exhortation adds “rational, relational, and representative capacities” and stresses creatureliness: believers “happily embrace” God-ordained limits rather than resent them.
5. Pneumatology. This is the clearest point of Reformed distinctiveness. Hapdong’s Principle Three gives a dedicated article on the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, distinguishing technological communication from the Spirit’s saving and illuminating work (§5, §12). Neither ERLC nor Brentwood devotes an article to the Spirit’s work as such; Brentwood’s “Pursue Wisdom” (Prov. 9:10) gestures toward a Spirit-shaped practical wisdom without stating the distinction pneumatologically. A Reformed reading supplies a resource the Baptist statements do not develop.
6. The preacher’s personhood and ghostwriting. Hapdong reportedly prohibits sermon ghostwriting outright (§10–11). Brentwood’s “Model Faithful Leadership,” together with press coverage quoting the finding that “God has always shared His Word through people, and AI is not a person,” makes a parallel pastoral point rhetorically, but this study found no formal prohibition stated with comparable specificity.[27] ERLC 2019, predating generative sermon-writing tools, does not address preaching at all.
7. Truthfulness. Hapdong’s Principle Eight is grounded in the ninth commandment (WLC 144–145; §10). Brentwood’s “Promote Truth and Fidelity” states the same concern more briefly, without the commandment-based moral-theological anchoring. ERLC’s Article 8 (Data & Privacy) touches truth distortion through “generative applications” but has no dedicated truth article.
8. Trust and integrity. Brentwood’s “Cultivate Trust and Integrity” (“be above reproach in all our ways”) parallels Hapdong’s Principle Ten and this study’s graded-transparency proposal (§14). The Baptist formulation echoes the pastoral-qualification language of 1 Timothy 3; the Reformed formulation is anchored instead in the pastoral office of WLC 158–159. The practical convergence is close even though the doctrinal route differs.
9. Privacy. ERLC Article 8 offers the most developed data-ethics treatment of the three, addressing consent, manipulation, and the eighth commandment (Exod. 20:15). Brentwood’s “Protect Privacy” (Prov. 11:13; 25:9; 1 Thess. 4:11) is brief but names AI systems specifically as a point of exposure. Hapdong’s Principle Seven touches privacy only within pastoral counseling (§9, §16.2). ERLC’s fuller data-ethics language is a resource Hapdong’s guidelines could draw on.
10. Ecclesiology. Hapdong’s Principle Six gives a dedicated article on the church, embodied worship, and the sacraments (WCF 25–27, 29; §8). Neither Baptist statement develops an ecclesiology; Brentwood’s “Represent and Proclaim the Kingdom of God” (Matt. 22; 28) speaks of gospel mission and the relational nature of gospel work without treating worship or the sacraments. This reflects a genuine difference in ecclesiological weight between a confessional Presbyterian tradition centered on the visible church and means of grace, and a congregationalist Baptist tradition centered on gospel mission.
11. Means of grace. The category itself (WSC 88; WLC 154; §12) is distinctively Reformed. Functionally, Brentwood’s insistence that a minister is “not a content engine” gestures at the same intuition, but without the categorical apparatus that lets Hapdong say precisely why AI cannot occupy that place.
12. Stewardship and creation. Hapdong’s Principle Seven cites Gen. 2:15 (§9). Brentwood has no dedicated creation-stewardship exhortation. ERLC’s Article 7 (Work) is the closer parallel, citing Gen. 1:27, 2:5, and 2:15 on the rhythm of labor and rest and the dignity of work beyond economic contribution.
13. Algorithmic bias. ERLC’s Article 5 is unique among the three: it names AI’s inherited bias explicitly and calls for continual human oversight to identify and remove it. Neither Hapdong nor Brentwood addresses algorithmic bias as such, though Hapdong’s concern for the vulnerable and the digital divide (§9, §16.2) is an adjacent, not identical, concern.
14. Sexuality. ERLC’s Article 6 explicitly names the risk of AI’s use for sexual objectification. Neither the Hapdong guidelines as reported nor the Brentwood Statement addresses this directly, a notable gap in both 2026 ministry-focused documents given documented risks around AI companion applications; it may be implicit in broader dignity principles but deserves explicit treatment in any future revision.
15. Medicine, war, and public policy. ERLC’s Articles 4, 9, 10, and 11 address these because it is a public-ethics statement for the whole of society. Hapdong and Brentwood, as ministry-focused documents, do not, and should not be faulted for not doing so: the difference reflects genre, not disagreement.
16. Locus of responsibility. Here the three converge most strongly. ERLC Article 3 denies that humans “can or should cede our moral accountability… to any form of AI.” Hapdong’s Principle Ten and this study’s Parts 13 and 15 make the same point from a doctrine of pastoral office. Brentwood’s “Model Faithful Leadership” states it exhortatively. This convergence, achieved from three different doctrinal starting points, suggests it is close to an ecumenical core of Christian AI ethics.
17. Register: confession, statement, exhortation. Hapdong speaks in a confessional-catechetical register; ERLC in a public affirm/deny register aimed at broad signatory consensus; Brentwood in a homiletical wisdom register aimed at formation. None should be read as more “binding” than its genre allows; comparing degree of obligation across genres risks a category error.
18. Authorship and adoption. Hapdong was adopted by a General Assembly and functions, per this study’s own reading (§2.1; WCF 31.3), as counsel rather than a rule of faith and practice. ERLC 2019 is an inter-institutional statement signed by named individuals, not a legislative act of any single body. Brentwood 2026 was convened by an SBC entity to “encourage local churches” ahead of the Convention’s Annual Meeting, explicitly not to bind them.[28] None of the three claims magisterial authority over conscience.
19. Practical convergence for pastors. Despite differing confessional bases, all three agree in practice that AI may aid but not replace pastoral judgment; that truthfulness and disclosure govern its use; that human dignity must not be reduced to computation; and that personal and spiritual information requires protection. A pastor could follow all three simultaneously on these four points without contradiction.
20. A Reformed assessment. Read through Westminster theology, the Hapdong guidelines supply two elements the Baptist statements do not develop as fully: a pneumatology of ministry distinguishing the Spirit’s work from AI-assisted communication (WCF 14.1; point 5 above), and an ecclesiology of embodied worship and the sacraments grounding the warning against digital replacement of the gathered church (WCF 25–27; point 9 above). Conversely, ERLC’s twelve articles offer more developed treatment of algorithmic bias and sexuality than the Hapdong guidelines address as reported (points 13–14 above). A future revision of the Hapdong guidelines, or of the proposals in Part 16 of this study, could incorporate that attention to bias and sexuality without adopting ERLC’s broader public-policy scope, which lies outside a ministry-focused document’s proper genre.

This comparison confirms, from outside the Westminster tradition, the central thesis of this study: across confessional lines, churches converge on the conviction that AI may serve pastoral ministry but cannot become its subject, and that responsibility before God cannot be delegated to a tool. Where the traditions differ is chiefly in the doctrinal resources they bring to explain why, not in the practical conclusion itself.

---

[1]Kim Jin-young, “[합동⑩] ‘목회자 대다수 사용’… ‘AI 신앙 가이드라인’ 채택,” Christian Daily (기독일보), 16 September 2026, https://www.christiandaily.co.kr/news/164152. The survey was conducted by the General Assembly’s Policy Headquarters.

[2]Yang Ye-eun, “AI 시대 목회 어떻게…교단 총회, 미래 사역 밑그림,” Daily Good News (데일리굿뉴스), 18 September 2026 (updated 21 September 2026), https://www.goodnews1.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=464387.

[3]Christian Daily (기독일보), 16 September 2026 (Kim, cited above).

[4]Citations of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), the Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC), and the Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC) follow the standard chapter/section and question numbering. Quotations follow the traditional (1646–47), (The book of Church Order: Korean Presbyterian Church in America, 2016).

[5]Daily Good News (데일리굿뉴스), 18 September 2026 (Yang, cited above).

[6]Christian Daily (기독일보), 16 September 2026 (Kim, cited above).

[7]The wording of the ten principle titles follows the Christian Daily report cited in the first note. Reported details of their content (the prohibition of sermon ghostwriting, the warning against technological convenience in preaching, prayer, and spiritual care, and the other items listed in this section) follow Daily Good News and Kukmin Ilbo.

[8]Daily Good News (데일리굿뉴스), 18 September 2026 (Yang, cited above).

[9]“AI 시대 윤리·이주민 선교… 미래 사역 기초 놓다,” Kukmin Ilbo (국민일보), September 2026, https://www.kmib.co.kr/article/view.asp?arcid=9000013222&code=23111113&sid1=chr.

[10]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960). References here are to 1.9.1 (those who forsake Scripture for private revelation), 2.2.15–16 (the gifts of the Spirit in the arts and sciences), and 4.3.1 (God’s use of human ministers as instruments).

[11]Christian Daily (기독일보), 16 September 2026 (Kim, cited above).

[12]Daily Good News (데일리굿뉴스), 18 September 2026 (Yang, cited above).

[13]Daily Good News (데일리굿뉴스), 18 September 2026 (Yang, cited above).

[14]Kukmin Ilbo (국민일보), September 2026 (cited above).

[15]Board of Directors, CBS (Christian Broadcasting System, Korea), public statement, 18 September 2026; An Di-do, “Pastor Son Hyun-bo repeats claim that CBS deleted ‘Christian’ from its charter, citing a 2005 news article,” Newsnjoy, 20 September 2026, https://newsnjoy.or.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=400765.

[16]Daily Good News (데일리굿뉴스), 18 September 2026 (Yang, cited above).

[17]Christian Daily (기독일보), 16 September 2026 (Kim, cited above).

[18]Kukmin Ilbo (국민일보), September 2026 (cited above).

[19]Kukmin Ilbo (국민일보), September 2026 (cited above).

[20]Second Helvetic Confession (1566), ch. 1: the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God.

[21]Calvin, Institutes 4.3.1.

[22]Daily Good News (데일리굿뉴스), 18 September 2026 (Yang, cited above).

[23]Korean personal-information protection law treats information concerning belief as sensitive data requiring stricter handling (Personal Information Protection Act, art. 23). The article number and current text should be verified before publication.

[24]Lifeway Christian Resources, “The Brentwood Statement on Artificial Intelligence and Christian Ministry,” drafted principally by Jason Thacker, assistant professor of philosophy and ethics at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Boyce College, in consultation with Southern Baptist pastors, professors, and entity leaders convened in Brentwood, Tennessee, 10 April 2026, and released June 2026, https://brentwoodstatement.lifeway.com/.

[25]“Lifeway, SBC Leaders Respond to Research Findings with AI in Christian Ministry Statement,” Baptist Press, 8 June 2026, https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/lifeway-sbc-leaders-respond-to-research-findings-with-ai-in-christian-ministry-statement/.

[26]“Lifeway, SBC Leaders Respond to Research Findings with AI in Christian Ministry Statement,” Baptist Press, 8 June 2026, https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/lifeway-sbc-leaders-respond-to-research-findings-with-ai-in-christian-ministry-statement/.

[27]“Lifeway, SBC Leaders Respond to Research Findings with AI in Christian Ministry Statement,” Baptist Press, 8 June 2026, https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/lifeway-sbc-leaders-respond-to-research-findings-with-ai-in-christian-ministry-statement/.

[28]“Lifeway, SBC Leaders Respond to Research Findings with AI in Christian Ministry Statement,” Baptist Press, 8 June 2026, https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/lifeway-sbc-leaders-respond-to-research-findings-with-ai-in-christian-ministry-statement/.

---

Peter Yang