— by Christian Schnedler

I have spent the majority of my career innovating in the gap between the ever-more-sophisticated tactics used by criminals and terrorists and the staid methods employed by the government agencies charged with maintaining law and order. This journey has led to stints as an entrepreneur, international technology consultant, government employee, and now senior executive. Throughout I have been guided by a vision — my “Leaf by Niggle” (Tolkien, 1938), as it were — that in the life hereafter we will once again walk unclothed and unashamed, with neither the taint of sin nor the self-awareness that proceeded from it interfering with our revelation to one another and to God. Yet this life demands a balance between transparency and privacy; a balance in need of a solution facilitating a more robust, redemptive dialogue between the government and governed. My hope is that the result will be transparent conversations focused on the fundamental decisions that must be made and enforced by each society, rather than sensationalized examples and concepts taken out of context and without any real bearing on the true issues at hand. It is a solution that I have been advancing in the various vocations God has called me to, but one that remains in dire need of support from others willing and able to answer the call.

As a case in point: Americans are demanding greater transparency regarding the use of emerging technologies by the criminal justice community. This includes the use of facial recognition and artificial intelligence across surveillance cameras and other Internet of Things sensors. Most public debates result in polarizing conclusions and unverifiable accusations that such technology is facilitating the systemic oppression of at-risk communities. In the face of this public outcry, the criminal justice community’s adoption of such technologies has become unnecessarily opaque and erratic across jurisdictions (stagnant in some and growing unrestrained in others). Not only has this effect diminished the tangible benefit realized by law enforcement in its fight against crime and terrorism, but the private industry manufacturing this technology has been motivated to look elsewhere for guidance on how this technology should mature and evolve — including to countries that do not share the same societal norms as the United States.

In reality, the criminal justice community is naturally compelled to provide great care in the selection and operation of technical solutions to address threats posed by criminal and terrorist actors. Law enforcement budgets are limited and procurement is an arduous, Byzantine process. Leaders cannot afford (politically or financially) to make large bets on technology programs with a high risk of failure. This leads to a “late majority” adoption model, with expenditures directed towards technology platforms proven in the commercial sector. Due care is also taken to ensure any new innovations conform to the even more outdated expectations of the courts, including explicit or implicit policies that analogize the methods and work product to prior art in the law enforcement playbook. Yet this definition of appropriate use is often poorly communicated (e.g. lack of publicly-available policies), inconsistent (e.g. lack of standards spanning jurisdictions), and untimely (e.g. relying on common law decisions). This leads external observers, and especially those predisposed to question the earnestness of the government, to conclude that the criminal justice leaders are out of touch at best and hiding something at worst.

Moreover, this opaque and unregulated nature of the criminal justice system’s use of technology leads to needless waste, broken families, and lives lost. As I once explained to a panel reviewing law enforcement’s use of facial recognition: if a bomb goes off in Midtown Manhattan, it’s not like everyone near the incident won’t be investigated simply because there is no tool to aid in the process. Rather than relying on technology to help expedite the identification of suspects wishing to cause harm, dozens if not hundreds of law enforcement officials spanning multiple government agencies will be brought in to manually review everything they can leading up to the incident. Countless man hours will be spent poring over information, and with each passing second the likelihood of apprehending those responsible before they can do further harm is reduced. The families of those serving in the criminal justice system are likewise materially impacted, and the trauma that the officers experience reviewing the darkest parts of humanity can be lifelong.  

The solution I am advancing addresses issues such as this by refocusing and reframing the conversation on the fundamental topics that should be transparently reviewed and agreed to based on societal norms and in light of the brokenness of this world.  

This solution includes the notion of persons deliberately and authoritatively identifying themselves within a population of people. These persons have individual rights and histories, and these persons also form broader communities that exhibit emergent properties all their own. As an avowed believer in democracy and the freedoms engendered by the United States Constitution, I believe that the default state of these persons should be one of privacy as no government or commercial entity has the right to peer through a one-way mirror at its fancy. Yet as a Christian, I understand that the evil of this world perverts such freedoms and leads certain persons to commit unspeakable crimes under this same shroud of privacy.  

The solution I am advancing therefore also enables the government’s indisputable identification of individual persons within a population of people. The government, through its agents (whom are also persons), must follow transparent processes in order to obtain authority to remove the shroud of privacy in order to identify persons of interest. The shroud of privacy resumes for all other persons. To prevent abuse, the means by which the identification process was adhered to must be made transparent as part of the trial process. To prevent bias, an aggregated view of the identification process and determination by the courts must be made transparent once a verdict has been reached and investigation closed.

In other words, the solution I am advancing represents the reconciliation of the subpoena process employed by the criminal justice system in the United States with the reality of today’s technology-driven world. Technology has lowered the barrier to achieving both true anonymity and complete transparency. Yet the solutions that achieve these ends are themselves shrouded in technical jargon and secrecy that creates an impenetrable definition and unregulated existence. The solution must take the form of something easy to understand and manage. However, the solution must also understand the fundamental forces at play dating back to the time of Adam and Eve.

Here’s a glimpse of how the solution I am advancing could work, using the same lightning rod example of facial recognition cited before: 

In the future, we should all go about our ways in complete anonymity to both the governments we are governed by and businesses we patronize. Our governing bodies should have a transparent rubric that defines criminal behavior and that has been translated into technical rules. When a crime occurs that justifies the identification of the otherwise-anonymous actors, law enforcement can request a subpoena from the courts that de-anonymizes only those actors in close proximity to the event. As the investigation narrows, anonymity returns to those whose proximity was mere happenstance. Once the case has been presented to a jury and the verdict rendered, the anonymity of those involved also returns as before — albeit with the guilty receiving an indicator in their anonymized profile. The anonymized records of the population are generally available, encouraging privacy advocates and academia to continuously vet the efficacy of the system and provide feedback for continuous improvement.  

Scenarios such as the above where humans are on the technology loop guiding the criminal justice system in a transparent manner is no longer mere science fiction. The identities of persons within entire populations are routinely exploited by commercial ads, tech companies, and authoritative regimes around the world. What is missing in Western societies is a commitment to have the tough conversations required to establish a regulatory framework that balances the desire for privacy with the reality of the brokenness in this world. These conversations, implicitly or explicitly, must acknowledge our carnal desire to control which portions of our identity we reveal to God and to our fellow man.  They must likewise acknowledge the reality of evil and its propensity for deception. This evil resides in each of us and its temptations increase with our worldly influence. Those placed in positions of authority must therefore be held especially accountable in grace and love.

Personally, I am grateful for the Christian community that has supported me on this journey as I strive to strike this balance and innovate solutions that can bring about a more redemptive criminal justice system. Though I harbor no illusion that I will succeed in crafting a perfect solution to such a foundational problem in this imperfect world, I pray daily for guidance and forgiveness as the world marches closer to striking a new balance between transparency and privacy. Through it all, I cling to hope in the revelation God has given me that in the life hereafter we shall once again walk naked and unafraid in the cool light of grace.

This is one of the 2020 CEF Whitepapers. For more information on the Christian Economic Forum, please visit their website here.

Recent articles

——

[ Photo by Stephan Bechert on Unsplash ]

CEO | SAAD Investment Holdings

Johan du Preez spent his first 15 years in business primarily as a CEO responsible for the turnaround of various non-performing businesses. These include: Sanlam Health, a health insurance company (CEO, 1999–2001); Innofin, a retail investment platform – subsequently rebranded Glacier by Sanlam (CEO 2002–2004); and Quince Capital (start-up), a holding company investing in companies offering niche financing solutions (CEO, 2006–2009).

He acted as the CEO of the then JSE-listed pharmaceutical company Cipla Medpro South Africa (August 2012–June 2013) and during this time concluded a $450 million transaction with Cipla India that saw the delisting of Cipla Medpro.
Johan founded the private equity firm SAAD Investment Holdings (www.saad.co.za) in 2006. In 2007 he began the Tree of Life Foundation (www.tol.org.za), a Christian not-for-profit, that now owns SAAD 100%. He devotes his time to furthering these organizations. He also serves on various boards and is often consulted by CEOs of medium-sized companies.
He is happily married to Leentjie, founder of Grace Photography (www.gracephotography.co.za). They have three children – Benjamin (24), Nina (23), and Petrus (19) – and reside in Cape Town.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO FAITH DRIVEN ENTREPRENEUR

Executive Director | True South Actuaries & Consultants

Paul Zondagh is a [tired] father of four children (aged 20, 18, 16, 13) and a husband (to one wife only!).
He’s an avid reader (but for the last 20 years hasn’t really had enough time to actually read a lot).
He’s a cautious cyclist (with a strong preference for routes made up of long, gradual downhills).
He’s one of the founding partners of True South, an actuarial consultancy (established 2001).

CONTRIBUTIONS TO FAITH DRIVEN ENTREPRENEUR

The Bible

We believe that God speaks to us through His word and that all of Scripture is useful for instruction on how to live, work, and serve in any capacity. Scripture, when taken in aggregate, provides us with a great handbook on every question of life and entrepreneurship.

If you need a book to start with, this is the one. It’s easy to overlook, but it’s vital if we want to steward our life and our business for God’s glory.

If you’re not sure where to start, check out our resources to help you stay connected to God’s Word.

Click on the book cover to check out the Reviews and Purchase at Amazon

— by Ryan Ramsdale

Being a believer in a large organization is a rich ministry opportunity with large ripples of influence. At the same time, it presents frequent challenges in your leadership as there are tasks to accomplish that will cause you to reflect on what your convictions are and define your approach to several choices and actions. 

God calls us to be vessels of love and mercy. He equips us to bear unique characteristics in the often competitive whirlwind of corporate life; but how do we exemplify this fruit when the strategy demands difficult action? The onset of corporate restructures has become so frequent in our society that it is just another discipline with an abundance of resources in print or supported by consulting firms. 

As a Christian leader in business, how do you navigate the difficult waters of restructuring? What is God’s view on this activity? How can we minister when our task is to carry out massive cuts in jobs impacting individuals, families and the health of the economy in our region? Here are a few situations and perspectives that help understand some of the truths in this complex problem. 

First, if the strategy to restructure is unethical, vindictive or reflects any other signs that challenge your convictions, you may be facing a bigger decision. What role can you play with a clear conscience? Dedicated prayer focussed on your ability to participate is necessary which may result in a difficult choice to depart from the organization. It is more likely however that an organization has to make this difficult decision to remain competitive or even avoid approaching insolvency. In either way the accountability falls on the Christian leader to execute on a plan that involves many unpleasantries. 

An important thing to keep in mind is that while a task may be daunting or unpleasant it does not mean that it’s inherently wrong. With such a complex, multi-faceted event as an organizational restructure there will always be a blend of positives and negatives. 

Life and leadership are always full of difficult decisions. 

A restructure is no different. It is the next challenge to pass through and like all challenges requires deep connection to the Spirit on a moment by moment basis as the event approaches and passes. Knowing that you have done your part in line with the Spirit will reassure you of your actions. 

God is in control. 

We are not the ones who need to ensure everything will work out perfectly for everyone involved. While we have the opportunity to provide generosity in severances and support services, God loves the affected individuals more than we can and has better things intended for them whatever that looks like. 

Don’t personalize the event. 

Many times, regardless of how agnostic restructures claim to be, names were chosen through some sort of rating process. Perhaps as the leader you had this direct accountability to choose who stays and who goes. Often performance histories, and prior results are contributing factors to forming the team of the future. If you are saying farewell to historical low-performers have a clean heart by ensuring you take no pleasure in “settling the score” for any past aggravation their performance has caused. This cannot be about revenge for inconveniences in your life and career. Ask God for wisdom and direction as this sensitive selection process is made. 

Understand the deep roots of value and self-worth in human kind. 

While the loss of career can become a crippling event, know that truth is God’s will for each person involved. Whether the person on the other side of the desk is aware of it or not yet, their value is not defined by the job they are loosing or will gain in the future. This step may play a significant part in their search for the deeper fulfilment from a relationship with Jesus. With that said, understand you aren’t doing them any favours either, but you should also recognize that you are not making a statement that you believe they are of no value. If you approach the exit 

planning and conversation with an appreciation, even love for their value, your ministry of grace will shine through the grey-cloud of the restructure. 

Pray for each person. 

Pray deeply for each person who you will be saying farewell to by name as well as their family members whenever possible. Your desire for God’s best for each person will be a fuel that displays a supernatural mercy in an otherwise heartless event.

Related articles

——

[ Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash ]

This article was originally published here.

by Bill Wichterman and Dana Wichterman

Not many people like to budget or keep track of their expenses. But we do. That makes us a bit . . . unusual. Still, we’d like to make the case for the increased joy that comes from following a budget.

First, giving is much more fun when you’ve already decided how much you’ll give away that year. Donating to charities becomes a question of where to give rather than how much to give. There’s no pain in thinking about how much money you’re forgoing, because you’ve already given it away in your heart. If X percent of your money (and we believe 10% should be the floor, but not the ceiling, for Christians) is automatically designated to be given away, then deciding where to give is almost like getting free tickets at a carnival.

Second, saying no to emotional appeals for a charity that lies outside your planned giving is less heart-wrenching. Once you have given your planned amount, it’s easier not to feel guilty about not giving. Your budget has been set, and you can feel more peace about saying no. But if you don’t have an agreed upon amount to give away, then you may find yourself wrestling with every appeal.

And it’s not true that we should always give more. It’s possible to give away more money than the Lord wants – and I know people who have done just that and later regret it. All of our money belongs to God, not just that which we give away. The Lord has given us responsibilities to pay our bills, save for the future, care for our families, etc. It may well be ungodly to give to charity that which should go elsewhere. A careful, prayerful plan well-executed is pleasing to God.

Is it possible that the Lord might call us to change our plans and give more than we budgeted? Sure, He does that sometimes. But most of the time, a thoughtful plan bathed in prayer is how the Lord leads.

If you live within a budget for your lifestyle and your tithe, what about spontaneous generosity that falls in the gray area not typically thought of as charitable giving? If you’re too planned, wouldn’t that preclude on-the-spot generosity? Nope – not if you plan for that, too. We budget a specific percentage of our gross income (above our other planned giving) for spontaneous non-tax deductible giving. That way, we can pay for a friend’s meal or anything else that wouldn’t usually be considered “charity” and where there isn’t a true need, but is still an expression of generosity. Here again, giving becomes more fun when it’s part of a responsible plan.

And we also build in flexibility with our regular planned tithe, with a portion set aside for the inevitable appeals that we can’t predict but want to respond to (short-term mission trips, etc.). If it doesn’t get used during the year, it gets added to one of our regular charities as an add-on. Hence, we budget in flexibility in our planned and unplanned giving.

It’s true that budgeting still means saying no to spending outside the budget, and that’s never easy. But that’s what stewardship is all about – saying no to some things so we can say yes to other things.

Budgeting also extends to peace in other areas of our lives. For instance, budgeting for “unexpected” auto expenses just makes good sense, and it can help to reduce stress when our car breaks down – it’s in the budget! It also will inject reality into our budgeting and make us realize how little discretionary income we really have.

There’s another cost of budgeting: keeping track of your expenses. Budgets lie. An accurate record of expenses doesn’t. It’s easy to draft a hopelessly unrealistic budget, as we did the first year of our marriage. We kept thinking we could live on less than we could. But a budget based on last year’s actual expenses, adjusted for the cost of living, is far more likely to be a real budget. And it helps us confront those uncomfortable truths, like knowing how much you really spent at Starbucks. And once we know the truth, we can better make needed adjustments. Not keeping track of expenses may be a way of shielding us from what we’d rather not know.

It’s a hassle to keep track of expenses, but there are so many useful tools to help make tracking expenses easier. We use Quicken, but many software programs will help to assign categories to expenses we download from our bank or credit card account. Spending a couple hours per month keeping track of expenses is worth the freedom of living in reality.

For the ambitious, categorizing your giving (church, evangelism, discipleship, poverty, cultural renewal, etc.) can help you decide how much to give to specific areas. We tend to give more financially to areas that receive less of our time (since giving of our time is another form of stewardship). There’s no magic formula, but examining your giving is another metric to help you lean into the joy of intentional living.

Wise stewardship of our money is integral to following Jesus. Jesus repeatedly warned his followers about the dangers of misusing money. Following a budget can help us experience more joy in serving him by what we give, spend, and save. It’s not easy, but the effort pays dividends in decreased stress and increased joy.

This article was originally published here by Oakton Foundation

Related articles

——

[ Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash ]