United Methodist bishops put AI on their agenda as local church bodies set their own boundaries

A meeting agenda and existing local examples

The United Methodist Council of Bishops has placed the church’s response to artificial intelligence on the agenda for its November 2–6 online meeting. Bishops from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas are expected to take part, according to the council’s November 2 announcement.

The notice identifies AI as one item alongside immigration, earth care and church finances. It does not say when the AI discussion will occur, what proposal will be considered or whether the bishops will issue guidance. A scheduled conversation is not a decision, and the announcement does not establish a new denomination-wide policy. Source: unitedmethodistbishops.org

For clergy and congregations, one question to watch is how a broad discussion would translate into decisions people can use: who checks an AI-assisted text, what information may be entered into a tool and who can answer when something goes wrong? Existing regional documents show that these questions are already being addressed, but at different levels of church life.

The Desert Southwest Board of Ordained Ministry’s guidelines, revised January 28, 2026, tell certified, provisional and full-member candidates writing papers for the board to explain where and how they used AI, including editing, verify information independently and obtain consent before sharing information about another person, including in examples from congregational care. The board also says noncompliance can affect the candidacy evaluation process. These are that board’s instructions for its setting, not a policy announced by the global bishops’ meeting. Source: dscumc.org

Michigan’s 2026 conference historical report describes an eight-member task force developing guidance for conference communications and ministry. Its communications team reported that AI is a tool requiring human review and editing. The report records work already undertaken in Michigan; it does not establish that guidance was adopted or that every United Methodist church follows the same process. Source: 2026.michiganumc.org

The distinction matters when a church drafts a notice versus when a minister considers entering a pastoral conversation into an AI service. Both might look like writing tasks, but the second involves another person’s confidence. The Desert Southwest example makes consent explicit; a local church would still need to determine its own responsibilities and the tool’s data practices.

For Christians, Paul urges believers to restore someone gently and carry each other’s burdens in Galatians 6:1–2. That call to care can guide how a church protects another person’s confidence, though it does not establish a technical privacy standard. Galatians 6:1-5 (NIV)

What to watch next: whether the bishops publish a statement, identify a responsible body or provide a timetable after their discussion. Until then, local documents remain examples of existing practice, not evidence of a new churchwide ruling.