Bearing Witness in a World of Fabricated Voices

Between Babel and Pentecost — Article 5 of 5

By Matthew J. Skolnik

Scripture: John 14:1–7 · Matthew 7:1–5 · Exodus 20:16 · Ephesians 4:25

Imagine a congregation preparing a Bible study about Christian leadership. The pastor has used artificial intelligence to explore the subject and develop the lesson. The finished material includes a compelling quotation attributed to John Calvin, accompanied by a precise-looking citation. The words support the study’s theological argument, and they sound like something Calvin might have written.

The study is distributed under the congregation’s name. During the discussion, someone asks to see the original passage. A search of Calvin’s writings reveals that the quotation is fabricated. The words were never his.

What happens next? The pastor might quietly remove the quotation, reasoning that the theological argument remains sound. The Session might decide that an acknowledgment is necessary because the church has taught something inaccurate under its own authority. The discovery might also require revisiting the argument itself: had the supposed authority of Calvin substituted for sufficient examination of Scripture?

And would anyone have challenged the quotation if it had supported a different position—or if no one had thought to ask?

The example is hypothetical, but its danger is not. AI can produce convincing words, images, voices, and references whose authority is entirely manufactured. Once we distribute such material under the church’s name, a private error becomes part of our public witness. Even the possibility of fabrication has consequences: it can lead us to believe a false accusation, or to dismiss genuine evidence merely because it could have been fabricated.

One of the six Great Ends of the Church named by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is the preservation of the truth (Book of Order, F-1.0304). That responsibility is more demanding than detecting false quotations. It asks what truth is, what authority our interpretations possess, and whether we will apply the standards we proclaim to ourselves.

The Truth We Do Not Possess

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

>

— John 14:6, The Shared Word Translation

We sometimes contrast a former age of the truth with a contemporary preference for my truth. The contrast is too simple. People have always contested claims about truth, and the expression my truth can mean different things. Someone may be describing an experience that others have refused to hear; that experience deserves serious consideration. But personal conviction does not by itself establish every factual claim. Two people may experience the same Session meeting differently, while the recorded vote still establishes whether a motion passed. Likewise, Calvin either wrote the alleged words or did not.

Theological interpretation is more complicated. Christians may agree about the words of Scripture and disagree about their meaning. History, experience, theological commitments, and methods of interpretation influence what we see. The existence of these differences does not make every interpretation equally well supported. It does mean that we must distinguish the authority of Scripture from the authority we claim for our understanding of it.

In John 14, Thomas confesses that the disciples do not know where Jesus is going. Jesus responds not by giving them a complete account of all they have yet to learn, but by directing them toward himself. In John’s Gospel, truth is inseparable from God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. This does not reduce Christianity to subjective experience or make doctrinal and historical claims unimportant. Rather, it places our claims under the authority of the one whom we confess.

The Theological Declaration of Barmen identifies Jesus Christ, attested in Holy Scripture, as the one Word of God whom the church must hear, trust, and obey (Book of Confessions, §8.11). The church’s responsibility is to bear witness to Christ, not to make its own judgments indistinguishable from his authority.

Reformed theology has described our encounter with God’s Word through four related expressions. The Living Word is Jesus Christ. The Written Word is Holy Scripture, the normative witness to Christ. The Spoken Word is God’s Word proclaimed through faithful preaching and attentive reading in dependence upon the Holy Spirit. The Visible Word is the sacramental witness of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, where God’s promises are signified and received in the church’s worship. The Confession of 1967, §§9.27–9.30, helps us distinguish Christ, Scripture, and proclamation; the PC(USA)’s Study Catechism, question 69, calls the sacraments visible words.

These are not four interchangeable authorities. A sermon does not become God’s Word merely because a pastor delivers it; neither can a computer turn generated religious language into faithful proclamation through fluency alone. Scripture bears authoritative witness to Christ, and proclamation and sacrament belong within the accountable worshiping life of the church.

We preserve the truth not because we possess the fullness of truth, but because we are accountable to Jesus Christ, who is the truth.

The Dangerous Freedom of Interpretation

The Protestant Reformation challenged established structures of ecclesiastical authority by insisting that the church’s teaching remain accountable to Scripture. In Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, Alister McGrath identifies the right and responsibility of Christians to interpret Scripture as a defining and disruptive Protestant conviction. This freedom helped make reform possible. It also posed an enduring question: when Christians read the same Scriptures differently, who determines what the church should teach?

The historical story is not a simple transfer of infallibility from the pope to each individual reader, or even from the pope to the printed Bible. The Reformers developed confessions, catechisms, and church structures because they did not believe private interpretation removed the need for accountable teaching. Protestant assertions about scriptural authority also predate the Roman Catholic definition of papal infallibility at Vatican I in 1870, a doctrine concerning specified definitive teachings rather than every papal statement. The crucial distinction for us is between God’s authority and the fallibility of those who interpret what God has revealed.

The Westminster Confession of Faith describes Scripture as its own infallible rule of interpretation, while acknowledging that synods and councils may err and have erred. Presbyterian polity holds individual conscience and corporate judgment together. F-3.0101 affirms that God alone is Lord of the conscience; F-3.0102 recognizes the church’s authority to order its common life. Neither principle cancels the other.

Individual Christians are responsible for reading and discerning, but no personal conviction becomes authoritative for the whole church simply because it is sincerely held. Councils possess real authority, yet their votes do not make every judgment infallible. The Book of Order, F-3.0204, describes presbyters as seeking together to find and represent the will of Christ. Opportunities for discussion and discernment, review of decisions, and shared responsibility give that calling institutional form.

Presbyterianism also makes room for mutual forbearance (F-3.0105). Faithful Christians can disagree about some matters without treating every difference as a threat to the church’s essential confession. Communal discernment is neither compulsory uniformity nor the simple aggregation of private opinions. It is an accountable search for faithfulness, open to testimony, evidence, and correction.

AI makes an old problem newly urgent. Anyone can now request an elaborate theological interpretation, complete with apparently scholarly citations, and receive one in moments. A pastor with decades of theological study may recognize a fabricated citation more quickly than a newly commissioned ruling elder. Yet advanced education does not remove intellectual blind spots, and a commissioned pastor may bring mature pastoral judgment, knowledge of a congregation, and the courage to ask the question that others have neglected.

The church therefore needs more than a warning to inexperienced users. Congregations and presbyteries must equip leaders with trustworthy sources, opportunities for continuing formation, and relationships where interpretations can be examined without pretending that credentials confer exclusive possession of truth. The freedom to interpret Scripture has never removed our responsibility to discern together.

Always to Be Reformed—According to the Word of God

Presbyterians often describe ourselves as Reformed and always reforming. Sometimes this sounds like permission to embrace change for its own sake, as though novelty were a measure of faithfulness. But the Book of Order, F-2.02, gives the fuller Latin formulation:

Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei.

The church reformed, always to be reformed according to the Word of God. The constitutional English sentence continues with the affirmation in the power of the Spirit; those words are not part of the Latin motto.

Both the passive construction and its standard matter. We are not simply the architects of our own improvement. The church is continually called to be reformed by God. And the measure is not fashion, efficiency, institutional survival, or attachment to familiar traditions. It is God’s Word. The church’s confessions have genuine authority as subordinate standards, but they do not escape examination under the authority of Jesus Christ, to whom Scripture bears witness.

This should make us question both our appetite for innovation and our instinct to defend what we have inherited. An AI-generated interpretation is not faithful because it is ingenious. An established practice is not faithful because it is old. Both must be tested.

Yet this test begins closer to home than we might prefer.

“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

>

— Matthew 7:5, TSW

Jesus does not prohibit correction; he challenges those who examine others while refusing to examine themselves. Self-examination prepares us to judge more faithfully. It must never excuse postponing protective action when someone is being harmed, but it does expose the danger of condemning falsehood elsewhere while defending distortions in our own communications or decisions.

What if a congregation condemns misinformation but quietly corrects an inaccurate report without notifying those affected? What if we speak confidently about biblical authority while treating our preferred interpretation as though no faithful Christian could question it? What if we believe a fabricated quotation because it serves a conclusion we are reluctant to reconsider?

Before we ask whether the world is telling the truth, we must be willing to examine the truthfulness of our own witness.

The preservation of truth is not the preservation of our certainty. It is a continuing responsibility to be examined and, where needed, corrected according to God’s Word.

The Responsibility to Bear Truthful Witness

“Therefore, having put away falsehood, speak truth each one with his neighbor, for we are members of one another.”

>

— Ephesians 4:25, TSW

Paul connects truthfulness with the relationships that constitute Christ’s body. The Ninth Commandment similarly prohibits false witness against our neighbor (Exodus 20:16). Truth is not merely information to possess. False claims can injure reputations, distort decisions, and harm people. Concealing genuine wrongdoing may preserve an institution’s appearance of harmony while undermining its common life.

The historic Presbyterian principle that truth is in order to goodness (F-3.0104) presses the point further. The preservation of truth belongs alongside the Great Ends of proclaiming the gospel, promoting social righteousness, and exhibiting God’s kingdom. Our witness is tested not only by what we say, but by what our words allow us to do to our neighbors.

Return to the fabricated Calvin quotation. We first need to establish the facts: the source does not contain the quotation. Then we need to examine the argument that relied upon it, consider what allowed the error to pass into the congregation’s teaching, and decide how to correct the record. Perhaps the theological conclusion remains defensible using authentic sources; perhaps it must be reconsidered. A quiet correction may be inadequate if people have relied on the original material. Protecting the congregation’s reputation at the expense of honest correction would compound the error.

Consider a more consequential situation. Suppose a fabricated theological quotation influenced a closely divided Session decision to fund a neighborhood partnership, and the partner has already made commitments in reliance on the church’s promise. The quotation must be acknowledged and corrected to those who received it, but that does not automatically settle whether the decision itself should be reopened. Some elders may still support the partnership on independent biblical and practical grounds; others may have relied heavily on the supposed authority of the quotation. Truthful correction, fair reconsideration, responsibility for promises, and care for people affected by delay are all real obligations. Preserving truth requires more than quietly replacing erroneous words, and neither loyalty to the decision nor embarrassment about the error can substitute for shared discernment about what repair now requires.

The same obligations apply when the consequences are more serious. We should neither accept an accusation simply because a recording or image seems authentic nor dismiss genuine testimony simply because fabrication is technically possible. Evidence, appropriate procedures, protection of those affected, and fair consideration all matter. Institutional loyalty cannot substitute for investigation.

We can begin with a simple discipline: examine ourselves, attend to the Word, test the claim, discern together, and bear witness while remaining correctable. This is not a formula that guarantees our judgments. It names responsibilities the church can practice whether AI is involved or not.

The church needs people with different gifts for this work. Scholarship, pastoral knowledge, technical expertise, experience, and the willingness to ask difficult questions each have a place. A council’s responsibility is to provide conditions in which truth can be examined responsibly, not to assume that its collective authority eliminates the possibility of error.

The Freedom of a Church That Can Be Corrected

The responsibilities of truthful witness can feel severe, especially for leaders who already live with uncertainty and limited resources. We know that our churches are made up of people who misunderstand, disagree, become defensive, and sometimes fail. No confession, process, or technological safeguard can guarantee that we will never err.

But our hope does not rest upon the perfection of our institutions. It rests upon the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Because the gospel is not a claim that the church has always been right, we can acknowledge an inaccurate teaching, reconsider a council decision, confess wrongdoing, and seek repair without treating every correction as the destruction of our identity.

Correction may be one of the ways the church honors the truth it has been entrusted to proclaim. This is what it means to remain open to reformation according to God’s Word.

At Babel, people sought to make a name that would secure their future. At Pentecost, the disciples proclaimed God’s mighty works through a gift they had not manufactured, and people heard without surrendering their different languages. That contrast also confronts the church’s public witness. Will we use our words and institutions to defend a name of our own making, or will our speech serve the One whose truth we receive rather than possess?

In a world of fabricated voices, credibility will not come simply through speaking with greater confidence. Our witness must take shape in honest claims, the willingness to hear others, and the courage to correct what is false—including what we have said ourselves.

The preservation of truth is not the preservation of our certainty. It is the continuing responsibility of a church willing to be examined, corrected, and reformed according to the Word of God.

Questions for Reflection and Conversation

1. Truth and authority: What is the difference between confessing Christ as the truth and claiming that our own interpretation is beyond question?
2. The Word we receive: How do the Living, Written, Spoken, and Visible Word challenge the assumption that convincing religious language is necessarily faithful witness?
3. Conscience and community: What is gained, and what is risked, when interpretation moves from private conviction into a council’s shared teaching? How does mutual forbearance matter?
4. Reformation: What changes when we say that the church is always to be reformed according to the Word of God rather than merely always reforming?
5. Beginning with ourselves: Where might we be more eager to identify another’s error than to examine the claims issued under our own congregation’s name?
6. Truthful witness: How might we equip pastors, CREs, and ruling elders with different kinds of training to verify claims and make corrections without suggesting any one person is infallible?

A Practice to Try: Trace the Claim

Choose a theological quotation, historical assertion, or biblical interpretation that we might use in a sermon, study, newsletter, or council report. Before searching, ask why the claim appeals to us. Would we be as willing to investigate it if the evidence threatened a position we already favor?

Locate the original source; check whether the words, context, and claimed implications are accurate. Do not accept an AI-generated citation as verification. Where practical, invite another leader with different experience or training to help examine the claim.

Then ask what we would do if the statement had already been distributed and proved inaccurate. Who needs a correction? Would we also need to revise a conclusion built upon the statement? What would an honest and proportionate response look like?

The aim is not to become suspicious of every voice. It is to cultivate habits through which our congregation bears truthful and trustworthy witness.

We preserve truth not by refusing correction, but by remaining accountable to the Word of God.

Sources and Further Reading

Scripture: John 14, Matthew 7, Exodus 20, and Ephesians 4. All quotations are from The Shared Word Translation (TSW), linked to the Church Commons Bible Reader.

Reformed theology and polity: Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Book of Order, 2025–2027, F-1.0304, F-2.01–02, F-3.0101–05, F-3.0204–06; Confession of 1967 §§9.27–30; Theological Declaration of Barmen §8.11; Westminster Confession of Faith chapters 1 and 31; PC(USA) Study Catechism, question 69.

Historical study: Alister E. McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution—A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First (HarperOne, 2007).

Contemporary church context: Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), The Algorithm and the Almighty: Navigating Artificial Intelligence through a Reformed Lens (2026), 227th General Assembly social witness policy.