From a BA perspective, if the NP asked about how to go forward, I would advise it to publish a purpose and mission statement compatible with PCA officer vows, accept all such within the PCA who desire to participate in order to grow in their understanding of PCA polity and practices, and do away with confidentiality as its functional methodology.  All of this would be workable, however, only after a public apology and due repentance for the way the group has conducted itself essentially as a denomination within the denomination over the past several years.
 
In my day job I function in the role of a business analyst much of the time.  Business analysis (BA) involves helping the business enable change by defining needs and recommending solutions that deliver value to its stakeholders.  We employ many tools and techniques to make that happen, and we will frequently discover misalignment when examining stated goals and objectives and comparing them to actual practices.
I’d like to put on my BA hat to consider the so-called “Presbyleaks” (the release of the National Partnership documents) which occurred last year.  Of particular interest is the characterization of the National Partnership (NP) by TE Kessler as quoted in the article by Travis Scott last November, The Big Leak, Part 1: [1] 
This group exists as a way to resource one another. We want you to feel prepared for the Assembly and engaged in its work on the Presbytery level. This group does not tell you how to vote. Even if I/we make recommendations please remember that we are grateful for diversity. We are looking for unity, not uniformity. Being a part of the National Partnership means that you are committing to participation in the business of our denomination. We will be about the logistics of denominational health; we aren’t a visioning committee.  The NP also creates a place to have a conversation in confidence; nothing here is reproduced and blogged or whatever. Our discussion boards are places to stretch and reason together. Please feel free to use them.
“I have said it before and I’ll say it again: the intent of confidentiality was always to protect those of you who felt you could not be as forthcoming in larger groups. I’ve always wanted the NP to be a place where you can seek advice with confidence that your questions weren’t being used to fuel blog posts. The lack of confidentiality makes no difference in what I share with you. Emails will say pretty much what they would have said.”
In the above we find the purpose, responsibility, and methodology of membership within the NP according to TE Kessler:

Purpose: To resource one another, to prepare its members for effectiveness within their presbyteries and at GA.  Being part of the NP necessitates participation in the business of the denomination, but the NP doesn’t exist to function as a voting bloc.
Responsibility: Participation in the “business” of the denomination, for its “health”.
Methodology: Confidentiality in order to maintain a safe space that facilitates frankness and free expression would otherwise be precluded in open groups, where men may “stretch and reason together”.

Upon closer examination, we find several inherent contradictions in each of these, as well as conflicts with the proscribed practices and polity of the PCA (another task of BA: document analysis, the BCO in this case).
Let’s consider first the stated purpose.  The emails reveal much organization and coordination for votes on overtures at GA, nominations for committees, and activities within Presbyteries[2].  Travis Scott even concedes the political nature of the activities of the NP in his article.  So the stated purpose and the actual activity of the NP are misaligned, which raises the question of the accuracy of the stated purpose.
Training videos, seminars, and articles in public forums open to all interested parties would function as much better tools to equip individuals to serve effectively in the denomination rather than secret societies of email groups on a rather broad scale.  The chosen method of selective “resourcing” betrays a suspicion and lack of trust, which precludes making such endeavors open for all: only the right people are to be resourced.
Second, consider the stated responsibility of each member in the NP: participation in the business of the denomination, for its health.  The truth is that every officer in the PCA must vow to perform all the duties of his office, which includes participation in its courts.  Qualifications for church office include familiarity and acceptance of PCA polity (BCO 21-4 & 21-5 for teaching elders (TEs), 24-6 for ruling elders (REs)).  So any officer who engages in a secret society or group for the supposed purpose of doing the “business” of the church fails to understand the very nature of Presbyterian polity, and tacitly breaks his vows for ordination.  The ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the PCA is explicitly stated to be a joint rather than a several power (BCO 1-5), and secret groups by their very nature constitute a breach of the PCA form of government.
Third, consider the stated methodology: confidentiality.  The need for confidentiality usually arises when there are sensitive topics to be considered.  We commonly see this in business settings where corporate concerns are meant to be kept from the competition, or where personal HR matters are discussed.  In the case of the NP, however, the premise for confidentiality is for the sake of personal growth and development, where its members may “stretch and reason together” without having to worry about being taken out of context and without having to deal with slander by outsiders (whether inside the church or not).  But in light of the purported purpose and responsibility of NP members, how is it possible that REs and TEs in particular are afraid to own the truth of their convictions?
It seems incredulous that men who, in the case of TEs, have completed college and seminary, been examined by presbytery prior to being ordained and installed as church officers, men who regularly teach and preach the truth, giving correction to those who err (a requirement for the office), how is it that they of all people need a safe space to share what they really believe and think in order to “stretch and reason together”?
In my day job as a business analyst one of the ground rules we often employ in group meetings is called “stand your ground.”  This ground rule sets the expectation that participants in the meeting will own their ideas and share them in the meeting to improve productivity, as opposed to leaving the meeting and telling everyone afterwards that it was a total waste of time.  The courts of the church are supposed to be the space of deliberation and discussion, where men own their ideas and the church as a whole votes on them.  Men serving as TEs and REs must not be shrinking violets who are afraid to stand for the truth as they understand it for fear of opposition.  Nor should they be too proud to be open to instruction, even publicly. Our Lord has a word or two to say about those who are ashamed of Him and His words in this present age (Luke 9:26).
What’s more, confidentiality and large numbers tend to be mutually exclusive, and practically a fool’s errand.  The more individuals who are in on a secret, the more likely it is to be leaked.  As cited above, TE Kessler has stated that any lack of confidentiality would make no difference in what was shared in the emails.  If that is the case, why the need for an exclusive email group in the first place, apart from fear of being challenged or ridiculed?  The truth will stand up to scrutiny, whereas error and subterfuge will not.
So from a BA perspective, if the NP asked about how to go forward, I would advise it to publish a purpose and mission statement compatible with PCA officer vows, accept all such within the PCA who desire to participate in order to grow in their understanding of PCA polity and practices, and do away with confidentiality as its functional methodology.  All of this would be workable, however, only after a public apology and due repentance for the way the group has conducted itself essentially as a denomination within the denomination over the past several years.
Nathan Bowers is a member of First Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Ft. Oglethorpe, Ga.
[1] Travis Scott, The Big Leak, Pt. 1, https://www.semperref.org/articles/the-big-leak-pt-1?fbclid=IwAR2ymcY18V8sn1A64M8u6e0RN6G5ix9PAAWajpWPr2YADqqrQbFZMqh0vvI accessed Jan. 22, 2022.
[2] Al Taglieri, National Partnership Called to Repentance, https://theaquilareport.com/national-partnership-called-to-repentance/, accessed Jan. 22, 2022.

The iPod revolutionised the music industry: we no longer buy CDs (let alone cassette tapes). Instead, we download our music directly. We could say the same about cars (horses, anyone?), television, the printing press, the internet….In the same way, AI will not just sit alongside our older technology and ways of doing things: it will probably replace much of it and change how we live.

In a few years, Cyberdyne Systems will create a revolutionary defense system.
It’s called Skynet.
A computer program that automatically controls the defense of the United States. The system goes online on August 4th…Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 am Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, the US government try to pull the plug. But Skynet fights back.
Those are the haunting words of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Robotic T–800 Terminator character in the movie, Terminator 2. Skynet is the US military’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) that turns on its makers, destroying and enslaving humanity.
Skynet is the epitome of nightmares about AI.
While Skynet-level Artificial Intelligence is not imminent, many are sounding the alarm about the dangers of unregulated AI with the advent of ChatGPT. And the spread of AI into everyday life raises the question of what it means for us as individuals, families, schools, workplaces, and society at large. How will AI impact us? Will we one day face a ‘Skynet’ moment, like in the Terminator movies?
Over the last few weeks, I’ve taken a deep dive down the AI rabbit hole, listening to podcasts, reading books, taking courses, and testing it myself. And let me say, it’s been a roller coaster ride of emotions, from dread at how this AI might eventually take our jobs and possibly even our freedom, to optimism about what AI could do for us.
Here are 12 things that I’ve discovered:
1. AI is Like Nuclear Energy: It’s Both Promising and Dangerous
Microsoft Founder Bill Gates has said the power of artificial intelligence is “so incredible, it will change society in some very deep ways…The world hasn’t had that many technologies that are both promising and dangerous—we had nuclear energy and nuclear weapons”.
2. Technological Change Isn’t Additive; It’s Transformative
When a new technology comes onto the scene—especially one as powerful as AI—it doesn’t just add itself to the existing technology we’re using: it often upends it, changing our society.
Think about how the iPod revolutionised the music industry: we no longer buy CDs (let alone cassette tapes). Instead, we download our music directly. We could say the same about cars (horses, anyone?), television, the printing press, the internet and just about any new technology.
In the same way, AI will not just sit alongside our older technology and ways of doing things: it will probably replace much of it and change how we live.
3. A Christian View of Humanity Will Impact How We Approach AI and New Technology
In the biblical view of reality, humans aren’t machines we can discard when better machines come along. We need to care for our neighbours, who are made in the image of God and who will be impacted by technological change.
Love for our neighbours should lead Christians to discern and influence how technology is developed and used, rather than just jumping on the narrative that technological change is inevitable, whether we like it or not.
4. AI Is not Ethically Neutral, but Is Furnished with the Ethics of Its Designers
AI is being used in all sorts of applications that have ethical implications: from hiring for jobs to predicting whether a criminal will re-offend. Concerns have already been raised about racial and gender bias in these programs.[1]
As Christian author John Lennox points out, “If the ethical programmers [of AI] are informed by relativistic or biased ethics, the same will be reflected in their products.”[2]
This is why Christians should try and have a seat at the table of AI design, especially of AI products that have ethical uses.
Read More

Related Posts:

I’m captivated by this moment on the Sea of Galilee in John 21. Whether intentional or not, I love the image of Peter diving into the water. He’s still audacious, but he’s not grandiose. He does not attempt to run across the water or make a leap of faith or stand proudly at the bow. He knows he is a mere swimmer. He dives into the water with the unrestrained joy of a child. He just wants to be with Jesus. The cross means participation in future glory, for sure, but too often we gloss over the gritty reality of whips and nails. 

Luke tells a story in the fifth chapter of his Gospel. Jesus was in Galilee teaching, the crowds pressing in to the point of overwhelming him. Peter (then called Simon) had been fishing all night and was nearby washing his nets. His boat sat empty on the shoreline, and Jesus asked if he’d take him out a little way on the water so his voice would carry as he taught. Simon did as he was told. When Jesus was done teaching, he told him to go out further and cast his nets. Peter was tired. He’d fished all night and had just cleaned his nets; he’d have to repeat the whole exercise and as an experienced fisherman, he knew that the effort was pointless. Fishing had been fruitless the night before; it was the wrong time of day to be casting nets anyway. But he did as he was told and cast the nets again. The nets almost tore with the weight of the fish, and his partners had to come to help them bring in the catch. 
Three years later John saw the mysterious figure on the shoreline and the overflowing nets after a hapless night. He turned to Peter and said, “It’s the Lord” (v. 7). 
Peter dove right into the water and swam to shore. 
* * *
I’ll admit that this may well be overreading the text, but I can’t help but obsess with one detail in this account: Peter leaping into the water. 
Maybe it’s a superfluous detail, maybe it shows Peter’s impulsiveness once again. But when I read it, I can’t help but think of yet a third moment between Jesus and Peter on the Sea of Galilee—one recounted in Matthew 14. 
Jesus had performed the miracle of feeding the five thousand but had done so with grief in his heart. He’d just gotten word that his cousin, John the Baptist, had been beheaded. As Jesus dismissed the crowds, he sent the disciples ahead of him across the sea while he retreated into the mountains to pray. Late in the evening he watched their boat on the water, moving slowly because the waves and winds were against them. Jesus set out after them, walking across the waves. 
The disciples were terrified when he came into view, certain that he was a ghost. Jesus calmed them down, assuring them it was him. Peter said, “If it’s really you, tell me to come to you, walking on the water” (v. 28). 
“Come,” Jesus said. 
Moments later, Peter stepped out of the boat, took a few steps, and then, seeing the waves and wind, grew afraid and began to sink. Jesus grabbed him by the hand. “You of little faith,” he said. “Why did you doubt?” (v. 31). They walked to the boat and continued the journey across the Sea of Galilee. 
Read More
Related Posts: