Can you help think through what you would see as the scope for a study committee like what this overture is talking about? How wide is too wide? How narrow is, you know, where are we trying to aim with something like this?

Well, if you try doing something like studying environmental impact of AI, or if you try studying whether or not data centers damage the environment in the places where they are, or if you are studying Legal aspects of AI, these are not things that anybody is going to the Presbyterian Church in America asking us to help them with, right? We are not going to do good groundwater studies.

We're not going to produce good results when it comes to that.

No one's coming to us for that.

And so I think it's good to ask the question, what kind of leadership do people expect to receive from the church? And I think that's the place that you maybe start.

And it helps you to stay limited.

And it helps you to stay restricted to what is it that the church's mission is? And then what are the areas that AI touches the mission of the church? So if you know what the mission of the church is, it helps you know, here's where we stay.

Why can't we just grab a few paragraphs and put that to use? Why not find a Danvers statement equivalent for AI and bring it like we've had come this year? Why does the PCA need to do something on this matter?