Ruling elder Tom Fisher (Cambridge, MA) was elected as moderator. Elder Fisher is the third ruling elder to ever serve as moderator of the synod. He is also the second African-American to serve as moderator. Tom’s wisdom and grace as well as high practical knowledge of the RPCNA Constitution and rules for ordering a meeting made him an excellent choice as moderator.

The 192nd synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church met on the beautiful campus of Geneva College from June 11-15, 2024. Often we meet in IN, but it was nice to be home at Geneva. About 150 delegates from around the nation (and Japan) attended and, as church courts are public meetings, several interested Reformed Presbyterians from Beaver Falls and elsewhere sat in on the week’s meeting.
Ruling elder Tom Fisher (Cambridge, MA) was elected as moderator. Elder Fisher is the third ruling elder to ever serve as moderator of the synod. He is also the second African-American to serve as moderator. Tom’s wisdom and grace as well as high practical knowledge of the RPCNA Constitution and rules for ordering a meeting made him an excellent choice as moderator.
Each morning began with worship and the court sat under preaching, prayer, and the singing of Psalms. Our theme for the week was related to God’s desire for mercy, not sacrifice. The first sermon was the “retiring moderator’s address” by Dr. Pete Smith (Wilkinsburg, PA). Dr. Smith preached a riveting message from the Sermon on Mount, even giving cases of conscience in his sermon that “named names” from previous actions of synod describing how to apply mercy to areas of disagreement. Other sermons included a message from Dr. CJ Williams (RPTS); Rev. Iain Wright of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church; and Rev. Ed Blackwood (Colorado Springs, CO). The singing of Psalms was also an important part of our worship each morning.
First time delegates and new members of the court were introduced. There were twelve new ruling elders at synod and six new pastors. The new pastors included Revs. Ryan Alsheimer (Walton, NY); Hunter Jackson (elect in Broomall, PA); Jon Sturm (Lafayette, IN); Yusuke Hirata (Japan); Keith Dewall (Washington, IA) and David Witmer (Seattle, WA). Fraternal delegates were also introduced and they were heard from later in the meeting. We were brought greetings from delegates from various denominations with whom we have fraternal relationships. The most significant of these was Rev. Matt Dyck from the newly formed Reformed Presbyterian Church of Canada. They have been a denomination for one year and described their first year experience in terms of a young man moving out of his parents home: “Food is expensive and rent is expensive.” We are grateful for them being our brothers to the North.
Each presbytery was able to present a report of their work in the past year. It is noteworthy that three pulpits are open in the Pacific Coast Presbytery and they could use our prayers and help. The Midwest Presbytery has planted a Mandarin speaking congregation in Little Rock, AR. The Great Lakes-Gulf saw a year of healing and working towards greater unity. Atlantic, in the Northeast, reports good news from our most heavily populated region of the country. Japan gives thanks for Yuske Hirata finishing his PhD from Queens University in Belfast and look forward to seeing how God will use him at Kobe Theological Hall and in Japan. St. Lawrence is laboring with less congregations this year as their Canadian churches are now part of the new Canadian denomination. The RPCNA currently has 93 congregations. In those 93 congregations there were 183 baptisms and 165 professions of faith last year.
The boards and agencies each gave reports as well. We heard from Dr. Calvin Troup of Geneva College and he spoke about the various ways that Geneva is a distinctively Reformed Presbyterian college. It was reported that there was a major college-adjacent land gift that will expand the size of the college. Plans are underway for new buildings on that land. The college also has seen a very high increase in enrollment for the coming school year. Dr. Barry York spoke about the work of the seminary. There have been a couple of difficulties this year due in part to Dr. Keith Evans’s sudden departure from the faculty (he is now a professor at RTS Charlotte) as well as the death of Dr. Jeff Stivason’s wife, Tabitha. The seminary reported on a major remodel of their main building, Rutherford Hall. Rutherford Hall was build in 1898 as the home of Durbin Horne called “The Gables.” Seriously, give money to this remodel of our 126 year-old building.
The RP Home also reported and there were two communications connected to the RP Home. One was a request to divest the home because it came to the court’s attention that the Roman Catholic Mass is being publicly served at the Home. After a long discussion, a committee was formed to investigate the relationship between the RP Home and the denomination. There was also a motion passed for them to begin revising their practices to preclude Roman Catholic and non-Christian “spiritual care.” It was also noted on the floor that the RP Home currently only has two RPCNA employees. A speaker urged pastors and elders to encourage their young people going into health care to consider working at the RP Home.
The missions arms of our denomination are divided between Home and Global Missions. Home Missions (HMB) reported on several church plant endeavors. A question from the floor squashed a rumor that the HMB sought to investigate congregations that choose to use older Bible versions or Psalters. The HMB president affirmed this was not true. Global Missions has been working on revising their bylaws. After a six year discussion on this with the synod, bylaw revisions were approved. We also heard good reports from several of our mission fields, many of which are in security-sensitive nations and are not written about publicly. Pray for these places and faces bringing the gospel in difficult soil.
The RP Trustees discussed two congregations that have left the RPCNA: the former West Lafayette congregation that left following a minor-on-minor sex-abuse scandal where the pastor and elders were disciplined. Our Dallas, TX congregation left the RPCNA for the Free Church (continuing). It was reported that Immanuel paid the Trustees around $300,000 in a settlement. (In the RPCNA, when a congregation dissolves its assets belong to the Trustees). The Trustees are currently working with Dallas on a settlement. Related to this, a committee was established to craft a policy on how a congregation can leave the RPCNA. A paper from the Bloomington session seeking “lessons learned” from the Immanuel sex-abuse case was returned to the session. A two year moratorium on the paper was put in place because the matter is “too raw” and “too soon” as mentioned. We may see that paper in 2026.
A committee to consider the biblical and theological appropriateness of our current practice of female deacons will report in 2025. A few questions from the floor about the nature of the committee’s work were asked. Another committee concerning recusals in appeals was heard. Some changes on who can speak and vote during recusals were made and the decisions were sent down in overture.
Much of our time was taken up in appeal and complaint and debating reports related to controversies. This is not a negative as the higher court is a court of appeals and established to hear complaints (See WCF 31.3). Several of these related to our practice of exclusive Psalmody, but can be divided into two: the first was a case of conscience instructing RP pastors and elders on how to participate in worship where exclusive psalmody is not practiced. The second related to a ruling elder-elect who took exception to our current practice (although he did believe that only songs from the Bible ought to be sung). For several reasons neither of these were sustained, but the Synod did re-affirm its commitment to a cappella psalmody via special resolution. Later in the meeting we heard that the elder-elect had come to affirm our position fully.
Two complaints led to reconciliation. A two year conflict between the Orlando session and the RP Home led to the beginning of reconciliation. The RP Home sued a former pastor of Orlando who was living at the home resulting in the synod admonishing the home for their sin against this minister. The RP Home has now repented of that and are making steps to make this right with the former resident and his family. The second was a complaint from the former minister and ruling elder of Phoenix against the Pacific Coast Presbytery. Their complaint was that the presbytery did not make a pronouncement of innocence after investigating an alleged relationship between a 17 year-old young man and an adult female. Part of that complaint resulted in the presbytery repenting of this as they did not find evidence of scandalous sin and another part included forming a commission to investigate this matter further. It is a very complicated and sensitive case, as you can imagine.
Rev. Jeff Yelton appealed a decision of the Midwest Presbytery to suspend his credentials for being insubordinate following counsel to take down or amend a website that promotes wine-only in communion. The issue was not so much about wine, but about the manner in which he wrote about those who promote the use of grape juice in the sacrament. Both contents of the cup are permitted for use in the RPCNA. Mr. Yelton’s complaint was not sustained and he remains under suspension.
We also heard a complaint and appeal from Mr. Ben Manring, a member of the Southside Indianapolis congregation, who was rebuked for an email concerning a ruling elder-candidate and why Mr. Manring believed this ruling elder-candidate was disqualified from office. The appeal and complaint was against the Great Lakes Gulf Presbytery for upholding the discipline after he appealed to the presbytery. The court sided with Mr. Manring concerning “irregularities in the proceedings” (upheld 77-20). Four other matters related to the appeal were not upheld. The Book of Discipline requires some action on the part of synod in overturning the discipline. A three man commission of former synod moderators will determine how that will occur.
Several other reports were given and some without oral presentations. This synod was a case study in the value of longer synods. There was little time for fellowship as it was a very busy week of labor for the kingship of Christ and the building up of his bride.
Nathan Eshelman
Orlando, FL
#RPSynod2024
Source
Related Posts:

We must also recognize that AI technology is here to stay. The church cannot avoid giving careful thought to fundamental questions like: how does AI fit into the Christian worldview and how might we engage with AI technologies to further our mission without compromising our biblical values and principles? 

Abstract: The headlines of today are saturated with talk of “AI,” from how Artificial Intelligence (AI) can improve your business to warnings of how it might transform our government, our schools, and even our churches. However, the lifespan of AI as a technology was not always certain. Around five decades ago, 1974 denoted the start of the “AI Winter,” a period of reduced federal funding and consequently a reduced research focus on Artificial Intelligence (AI). In the intervening fifty years, researchers rethought their earlier mechanistic views of intelligence, moving instead towards a ‘learning model’ of developing intelligence. This shift in focus revolutionized the field of AI and has led to many of the advances we see today. This shift, however, has moved AI from being a tool that we control to more of a technology that we shepherd. It is this distinction between tool and trainee that lies at the heart of many of today’s discussions on “the future of AI.”
In this essay, we will explore from a Biblical perspective three aspects related to AI: AI as a tool, AI as a trainee, and AI as a temptation. Used as a tool, we see that AI has many similarities to other technological advancements that we have used to both better our lives and to further the proclamation of the Gospel. As a trainee, we see that AI forces us to reestablish and reaffirm our views of mankind being made in the image of God and to consequently wrestle with what it means for AI to be made in the image of the image of God. As a temptation, we must reaffirm our God-given mandates and not cede them to technology. We conclude with our thoughts on the open questions that need to be explored in this area but also advice on how pastors can shepherd their congregations well during this exciting time of technological advancement.
Introduction
Many Christians consider Paul’s statement “when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son” (Gal. 4:4–5) to encompass not only the theological fulfillment of God’s plan of salvation, but also as a statement concerning God’s preparation of the geographical, political, and technological backdrop into which Christ was born. Roman engineering paved the way, literally, for the fulfillment of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20). A Christian appropriation of technology, however, does not stop there. It was not long before Christians transitioned from scrolls to the “new-fangled” print technology of the time—the codex—and with it our move from being “people of the scroll” to being “people of the book” (again, literally). With a belief that “every good gift and every perfect gift is from above” (James 1:17), Christians through the ages have embraced various technologies as a means of spreading the Gospel. The ever-expanding development and adoption of technology by humankind, however, requires Christians within their time and context to evaluate new technologies for their potential to be used in God-honoring ways.
Today is, in some ways, no different from any other period in history; yet, in others ways it is very different. The difference is not the need to adapt to technology, but instead the rate at which society (and consequently the church) is being forced to confront and adapt to technological advancement. Futurist Ray Kurzweil, well-known for his commentaries on the exponential growth of technology in our age, has predicted that “the Singularity is near.” Kurzweil defines “the Singularity” as “a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed.”[1] Although we as Christians would argue that true transformation only comes through the work of grace through faith, we might acknowledge that we are reaching another possible paradigm shift: the age of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Implicit in the evaluation of many technological advancements of the past has been the view that technology is, at its core, a means of enhancing, extending, augmenting, and/or amplifying the things that we as humans do.[2] The old adage of technology doing a task “better, faster and cheaper” was in essence a statement measured against how we ourselves might do the task. However, AI is also different, for AI also has the potential to resemble, imitate, and even impersonate the things that we as humans do.
There are many tasks that we as humans accomplish that we are willing to delegate to the tools we use. AI, however, has now moved into the realm of doing things that appear more human-like, such as communicating through language (e.g., ChatGPT). As with every technology, AI has the potential to be mishandled or misappropriated. Both the power and the potency of AI have the potential to stimulate temptation, which in turn leads to people being “dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death” (James 1:13–15).
The purpose of this article is to answer the question, “What is AI?” and to reflect on its strengths and weaknesses from a biblical perspective. As mentioned, we will consider AI as (1) a tool, (2) a trainee, and (3) a temptation. In what follows, we will first briefly provide some of our theological presuppositions about technology. Second, we will give a brief tutorial on the history and terminology associated with artificial intelligence. Third, we present our threefold taxonomy and consider what it means to view AI as tool, trainee, and temptation. Finally, we conclude with some theological reflections.
Presuppositions
There is a long history of studying the ethics of technology: from life-giving uses of technology (e.g., reproductive technologies)[3] to life-ending technologies (e.g., technologies used in war).[4] The starting point of all these studies is an acknowledgment that God is the source of innovation and providentially oversees its development and use[5]: “Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon for its purpose. I have also created the ravager to destroy” (Isa. 54:16). We agree with Jason Thacker that “Technology is amoral but acts as a catalyst that expands the opportunities for humanity to pursue. It is not good or evil in itself but can be designed and used for good and evil purposes.”[6]
Counter to the secular humanists who hold that “technology can solve almost any problem,” we know that our fallen condition is a problem that humanity cannot resolve. Only God can atone for sins, only God can raise the dead, only God can make a new creation. And yet, ironically, even here the payment for sins came upon a tool—the Roman cross. What man intended for evil, God used for good and the good news is that by Christ’s death, man can receive eternal life.
In light of God’s sovereign rule and our creaturely dependence, David Ehrenfeld has said that “deep within ourselves we know that our omnipotence is a sham” and “our knowledge and control of the future is weak and limited.”[7] For the purposes of this study, it is important to appreciate that technologies amplify and channel animated power.[8] Lord Acton is credited with the saying, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” However, a recent study shows that power does not indeed corrupt; it “heightens pre-existing ethical tendencies.”[9]
Thus, as we will see, the role of AI in the church gets at deeper questions. Following the Christian ethicist Oliver O’Donovan, we hold that “If a moral ‘issue’ has arisen about a new technique, it has arisen not because of questions the technique has put to us, but of questions which we have put to the technique.”[10] The question we are putting to the “technique” of AI is: What are the liberties and boundaries God has set on us, His image-bearing creation, when we exercise our God-given talents to create images of ourselves? We may not answer all of these types of questions, but in order to understand the relevance of these questions, we must now turn to a brief tutorial on AI.
Background of AI
When discussing the background of the development of a particular technology, it is often helpful to select a transition point in history from which we can make generalized statements about the past (i.e., prior to that point), while observing what has transpired since. For the history of Artificial Intelligence (AI), World War II (WWII) demarcates a transition in computing.
In the decades prior to WWII, a “computer” was a person who computed (think: the book and movie Hidden Figures). After WWII, a large plethora of research areas emerged, for example: nuclear physics, numerical weather prediction, and digital computing. During this time period, as digital computers were able to take on more and more “computing” tasks, the nascent computer science discipline started to ask at what point a computer might “appear” human.
Many computer scientists point to Alan Turing’s 1950 paper entitled “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” as the start of AI when he posed the following question: “Can machines think?” The phrase “the Turing test” became known throughout the computer science field as the question of at what point could a human interact with an interface, asking it questions and engaging with it, in which the human could not tell whether he was dealing with a fellow human or a computer. With the Turing test firmly established, the race was on!
Read More
Related Posts:

We also learn from Job how we should respond to suffering, should this be God’s purpose for us. When Job is called to suffer, he does not curse God, nor seek to take his own life. Because he is blameless, Job has every right to cry out for vindication–as do we if we have sown to the Spirit. Job is not suffering because he has done something wrong which angered God. Rather Job is suffering because God has a purpose for his ordeal–-as yet unknown to Job.

Who Was Job?
So, who was this man who God called to suffer great loss and play such an important role in redemptive history?
Job is introduced to the reader in the opening verses of the first chapter. “There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil” (v. 1). The land of Uz is east of the River Jordan (Qedem–“the east”), likely in what is now the nation of Jordan. Uz could be anywhere between Edom on the south, Moab on the east, and the land of the Aram to the north. While Job was not an Israelite–since no tribal or family identification is given–he clearly worships Israel’s God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. [1] So, apparently, do his friends and family.
As the story opens and we meet the central character, what stands out is the assertion that Job was “blameless and upright” and that “he feared God and turned away evil.” What, exactly, does this mean? One thing it does not mean is that Job was sinless, or that he had attained a state of justifying righteousness because he lived a blameless and upright life. We must not confuse cause and effect. We know this to be the case because elsewhere in this book Job declares himself to be a sinner. In Job 7:20, Job laments, “If I sin, what do I do to you, you watcher of mankind? Why have you made me your mark? Why have I become a burden to you?” In Job 13:26, he laments “for you write bitter things against me and make me inherit the iniquities of my youth.” Finally, in Job 14:16 -17, Job confesses that “you would number my steps; you would not keep watch over my sin; my transgression would be sealed up in a bag, and you would cover over my iniquity.”
Upright and Blameless: What Does that Mean?
If Job acknowledges himself to be a sinner, what does it mean when Job is described as being “blameless and upright?” The answer is simple. The text means exactly what it says–Job was blameless and upright. He feared God and shunned evil. Job was an honest and moral man, who avoided those things contrary to the law of God that had been written on his heart (cf. Romans 2:14). In chapters 29-31, Job can appeal to the public knowledge of his piety, which is the visible manifestation of his faith in YHWH. When we read that Job was blameless and upright, we should understand this to mean that Job believed YHWH’s promise to forgive his sins and, like Abraham, Job was justified through faith. Job believed and confessed that YHWH will cover his sins and through that act of faith, Christ’s righteousness was reckoned to Job, just as it was to Abraham.
Job’s faith in YHWH bore much fruit of the Spirit, fruit which was tangible to all who knew him and fruit which was especially pleasing to YHWH. As one writer puts it, “there was an honest harmony between Job’s profession and his life, quite the opposite of the hypocrisy of which he was presently accused by Satan and later by his friends.” [2] Having been justified by faith, Job lived in such a way that his conduct before men was blameless and upright, in contrast to someone who is indifferent to the things of God, or who hypocritically professes one thing, but lives like their personal profession makes no difference.
Job’s conduct was exemplary (some of it is described in the following verses in the way he served as priest of his family). In Job 4:3-6, one of Job’s friends can declare of Job, “Behold, you have instructed many, and you have strengthened the weak hands. Your words have upheld him who was stumbling, and you have made firm the feeble knees. But now it has come to you, and you are impatient; it touches you, and you are dismayed. Is not your fear of God your confidence, and the integrity of your ways your hope?” In Job 42:8, when God rebukes one of Job’s friends, telling him “now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves. And my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly. For you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.” In this, we see that Job is a righteous man, which is the outward manifestation of his faith in YHWH—not only by virtue of his justification before God through faith, but evident in his daily conduct. James 2:18 comes to mind. “But someone will say, `You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” When Job suffers, it is not because he has some secret sin, or because God is punishing Job because he has done something which provokes God to anger.
This is precisely why Satan sets out to expose Job’s obedience as phony (a quid pro quo) and why the Lord allows Job to be put to the test. Even if God turned Satan to an ash at that very moment, the question about human righteousness resulting from divine bribery would never be answered. Job was truly blameless and upright. Job had done nothing to bring about the trial that is about to befall him. He feared God and shunned evil. Hence God allows Satan to put Job to the test to vindicate God’s righteous dealing with his creatures. Satan will get his answer.
This also explains why Job has every right to cry out for God to vindicate his good name. After all, God has promised not to punish the blameless. But why then does Job suffer if he has done nothing wrong? That is the question which this remarkable book will seek to answer. And that answer is found in the wisdom and mysterious purposes of God.
In verses 2 and 3, we learn something of Job’s personal circumstances before his ordeal begins.
Read More