Biola University
Preston Sprinkle (Ph.D.), good friend of Biola University and The Winsome Conviction Project, knows that being a public figure comes with a cost. Preston joins today’s episode to reflect with Tim and Rick on the times he has been critiqued and what it is like to be called out as heretic. They discuss the importance of accurately representing someone’s views when offering a critique, the kinds of critiques to take seriously, how good critiques can help us make intellectual progress, and Preston reflects on a lesson learned when he reached out to a critic and the result did not go well.
Transcript
Rick Langer: Welcome to the Winsome Conviction Podcast. My name's Rick Langer. And I'm the co-director of the Winsome Conviction Project here at Biola University. We've been doing this for several years now. It's one of my favorite things to do. And I love working also with my co-director, Tim Muehlhoff.
Tim Muehlhoff: Thanks, Rick. It really has been a fun ride. And we've been doing this now, going on our sixth year of Winsome Conviction. One of our very first guests.
Rick Langer: That's right. One of our very, very first people.
Tim Muehlhoff: We're talking maybe third guest?
Rick Langer: In some ways before we even really began regularly doing the podcast.
Tim Muehlhoff: Boy, that's right.
Rick Langer: Was coming through and want to make sure we got him.
Tim Muehlhoff: Yep. And he's so gracious with his platform. Preston Sprinkle, welcome to the podcast.
Preston Sprinkle: Thanks for having me back.
Tim Muehlhoff: For those of you who do not know who Preston is, he's a biblical scholar, speaker, podcaster, New York Times bestselling author, co-founder and president of The Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender. He earned a PhD in New Testament from Aberdeen University in Scotland. Man, he's written some great books, some really thoughtful books. Does the Bible Support Same-Sex Marriage? His most recent book, Exiles: The Church in the Shadow of the Empire.
He also has an amazing podcast you need to check out called Theology in the Raw. And he hosts a conference, that if you're interested, go back into our archives. He hosts this Theology in the Raw Conference, where he brings people with different perspectives. He's not afraid to tackle really hard issues, like race, sexuality, critical race theory, how transgender and identities, climate change, American politics. But he brings on people that he knows comes from different perspectives. They're all orthodox, but not all Christians. And he has this wonderful conversation.
Now, all of that sounds great. I want to say a hearty amen to Preston for doing what we hope the Winsome Conviction Project does, maybe on a smaller scale. But Preston, the reason we're having you back on is the honeymoon, if there ever was one, is over and not everybody's thrilled with your take, with your perspective. And they've chosen to critique you publicly, to actually name you in commencement addresses, in podcasts, in reviews. Some have even gone as far to call you a heretic.
So we want to bring you back on as a friend, a friend of Biola, just to, almost on a personal level, ask the question, what is that like to be called out in some really strident ways?
Preston Sprinkle: It's super fun. I love it. It's a big question because there's so many different layers to it. There's different, I guess, levels or kinds of critique. The one that's maybe so distant, it just doesn't even ... I just almost don't even hear it. These are people with fish head profiles on Twitter and 19 followers and they have an internet connection, and so now they might be sitting at home just critiquing so many people, and I just am one of many. Maybe they're even a Russian bot. I don't even know if they're real people. There's just noise out there.
To me, that's almost ... It's almost become almost entertainment too. That's almost funny when I see that kind of stuff. And it's usually just a bunch of labels. They've never listened to me or read anything, and they just heard something and they just are lobbying stuff.
Another layer would be people that are real people, maybe they are thoughtful people, but the nature of their critique is still very similar. Maybe they're even well-known people, but they're critiquing me on things that are just grossly misrepresenting what I'm saying. Or maybe they'll even read my book and they'll actually probably agree with 95% of what I say, but they'll find the one thing and just rail on that one thing. And even there, I'm like, "Well, in context, it's not. You're not trying to represent what I'm saying."
So those kind of critiques, they might sting a little more because this is like, "Oh, this person has a name. People are going to listen to this." There might be hundreds of people that will believe whatever they say. But still, it's like if it's still not a good faith, not representing me correctly, then it's just not that big of a deal.
The critique that I try to listen to is when I sense that somebody is offering something in good faith. They are demonstrating some level of trying to understand what I'm saying. They are trying to represent what I'm saying, and then they still push back on it. Those are critiques I try to listen to more. Those are ... I'm human. We're all human. We're all fallible. We have mistakes. We just don't know where they are yet, otherwise we would change those. So I'm eager. Because my goal is not to be right, but to be truthful, I want to use good, sound critique to get closer to the truth.
Tim Muehlhoff: Break down that distinction real quick about, "I don't want to be right, I want to be truthful." Can you break that down real quick? Or-
Preston Sprinkle: Yeah. Because some people might say this is the same thing. When I say I don't need to be right, I want to be truthful ... When I say I don't need to be right, that's to defend the position I currently hold at all costs, to prove that the view I currently hold needs to be defended and embraced by all, anyone who's listening.
Truthful recognizes that I have all these positions I currently hold to, so I'm stronger than others, but there's obvious holes in my knowledge and beliefs, and I'm trying to plug up those holes the best I can. And one of the ways you can do that is by listening to good, sound, thoughtful critiques.
Rick Langer: That's one of the things of how we make intellectual progress. It really is by making assertions because if you never make the claim, then you don't even know what you think. You've got to kind of drill down and say, "Here's what I'm really committed to." And then the way ... It's what I call avoiding half-baked convictions. And I said the way you bake the ... Let me call them cooked because half-baked just sounds like you're just a flake. I'm saying no, our convictions are often half-cooked because we have not listened to people who see it differently. In the heat of that oven is what actually finishes cooking our own convictions. So it's like, yeah, this is actually done. I put the toothpick in, I pulled it out, it was dry. My banana bread of conviction here is done. I've learned something.
Of course, it may be recooked, it may be ... You know how it is with all these sorts of views. You never feel like you quite have everything solved. But that value of being open is just essential to having your conviction be finished, so to speak. Because before that, the dough isn't set yet.
Preston Sprinkle: Yeah, that's good. That's really good. Yeah.
Tim Muehlhoff: Is the claim of being a heretic so far out there that surprisingly, it doesn't affect you much? Or did that one kind of sting?
Preston Sprinkle: That doesn't affect me at all.
Tim Muehlhoff: Really?
Preston Sprinkle: At all. Because it's just factually wrong. The word heretic, whether you want to go to the Greek word hairetikós, it's in, I think, Titus 2, has to do with a factious disruptive person or something. And then in the early church and all throughout the church, it had to do with somebody that [inaudible 00:07:49] with fundamental doctrines of the faith, which I factually do not. I've never advocated for anything other than what the historic church has agreed upon. And some people have tried to say, "No, you do and do all this." And it's intellectually just ... If I can say, it's kind of embarrassing how hard people work to try to show that I'm outside the bounds of orthodoxy. But I just don't do labels. Even though I am somewhat of a public figure, I'm still primarily an academic. And so that's just the way my mind works.
And you don't go to a scholarly conference and people are saying, "You're a homophobe." They'll say, "Well, here's your argument. Here's why this and this argument is wrong. Here's the evidence for why that's wrong. Here's a counterargument that has superior evidence. And here's the evidence. What do you say about this?" And then we engage in a, "Oh, man. Okay. Maybe that's a good point," or whatever. So that's the kind of thing that I receive when somebody just lobs, "You're a racist, you're a homophobe, you're a liberal, you're a conservative, you're a heretic." It's like I don't even hear it. It's like I'm walking through a jungle and these are the leaves, and I'm just trying to ... It just doesn't affect me. That didn't make sense to the audience. I'm just pushing aside the noise to get to the real thing because I have, like anybody, limited time. So I want to focus on learning from good, constructive content-driven push back so I can get closer to the truth. All this other noise stuff, I just need to drown out.
Tim Muehlhoff: Let me ask just kind of a personal question. So I recently spoke at a conference on civility. My wife was at the conference, but she was in the back. We weren't speaking together. They introduced her, but she was so far in the back, most people didn't see her. She went to the bathroom, came out of the bathroom, two men, husbands were waiting for their wives, and they were talking about my talk, and it was not kind. It was like, "Oh my gosh, this guy's afraid to tell the truth. He's obviously embarrassed by the gospel." Noreen just stood there steaming. It bothered her. So let me ask this. You're easy to wipe it away, but you have children that are old enough to be on the internet, and you have a wife who certainly can hear the criticism. Is it hard on them?
Preston Sprinkle: It would be much harder on my wife. My wife would be exactly where your wife is at. My kids hardly even know what I do. I go in the basement, doesn't have a real job. So I don't think they see any ... None of them are on Twitter. They're all like Insta. Instagram is pretty civil. Every now and then, they'll see ... Okay. So a daughter's 21, 19, 17, 15, 15-year-old son. My oldest, yeah, even she ... She heard somebody on a podcast she loves, she listens to this podcast faithfully, and one time they mentioned my name. Positively.
Tim Muehlhoff: Oh, positively. Oh, that's great. Yeah.
Preston Sprinkle: No, they were like, "We love Preston," or whatever. And she was so blown away. She's like, "They know who you are." They're like, "How do they know who you are?" I don't know. So yeah, we have tried to really shield our kids from the junk that comes with what we're doing, but hasn't ... Because so much of it, Tim, is on social media. And our kids haven't been that active on social media, and especially the darker forms of it stuff. So I don't know if I've ever had a person in-person call me a heretic or somebody that I have had some kind of embodied relationship call me. It's people that are just at some church across the country that I'll never meet, never talk to. And it's just like the age of the internet has just unearthed. Just weird world where we could be exposed to so much stuff that we just don't need to be.
Rick Langer: What happens when we take labels like heresy, heretic, things like that, and start spreading them so broadly, applying them to all kinds of things? What does that do for our ... Partly for our discourse? But I'm a little bit more worried even about what it does for the actual way we process doctrine. I worry about it kind of corroding the way we do our beliefs and understand them.
Preston Sprinkle: Yeah. I think it waters the term down. Kind of like calling ... Can we get a little spicy here?
Tim Muehlhoff: Oh, sure. We love spice.
Preston Sprinkle: It's like when people call Donald Trump Hitler.
Rick Langer: Yeah.
Preston Sprinkle: That's a little insulting to the six million Jews who died in that [inaudible 00:12:25]. You're like ... Right? It's like, okay, you can ... Using labels like that, or calling people a Nazi because they don't believe in same-sex marriage, or something like that, it's like you're taking a term that has a really intense history and meaning. And what you're doing when you overuse it, you water it down. Even racist. I believe very much racism is still an issue, a significant issue in many places and stuff. But if you just label anybody a racist for saying something that doesn't fit within your exact view of something, or you voted for Trump, you're a racist, you're watering down a term that has meaning and history. And so that's not ...
You're actually now doing a disservice to the very thing you're really passionate about. So the word heretics, people were burned at the stake-
Tim Muehlhoff: At the stake, yeah.
Preston Sprinkle: ... for ... Not advocating for that. But this is a serious charge, a serious charge. And it has, again, a very clear specific historical criteria for what is a heretic and what is not. And I factually don't fit that.
Tim Muehlhoff: So let's pull back the curtain just a little bit because I'm going to use a personal illustration that I want ... You made a very curious decision in one of your podcasts to actually reach out to a person and have a dialogue with this person, who really came at you very strongly, and you decided to engage. So I wrote a book with Sean McDowell, a friend of ours, Think Biblically Podcast. We wrote a book called End The Stalemate. And in it, we realized, "Oh my gosh, we have a disagreement. And the disagreement is on pronoun usage, preferred pronouns." There would be occasions I would use a preferred pronoun, and equally times I wouldn't, but Sean would not, right?
So we decided to have this conversation on his YouTube channel, which what was I thinking? So we had it. And I would say it probably ran like 75%, 25% against my position. I was called woke. People called for my job. Made fun of me not having hair. I thought that was below the belt. Stuff like that. So I decided to reach out to a couple of them, to reach out to a couple people who had sent in some emails to Think Biblically. And actually had two really good conversations with a person who had very powerfully said to Think Biblically, "Now I would never suggest that my grandchildren come to Biola." So I reached out. We actually had a great conversation that lasted over several emails.
You're being called a heretic mostly because of the fact that you would also say there would be times that you would use a person's preferred pronoun. A person interpreted that as saying, "Well, you advocate lying, which obviously goes against one of the Commandments," right? Which is so interesting to use the word heretic that way. You might really disagree. That is not wise. That is not whatever that is. But to move into the heretic realm, I love what you just said about weakening a term that needs to be protected within the history of the church. Now, you made the decision to reach out to a person in a podcast.
Why did you decide to do ... To my recollection, that was rare that you would actually bring on a person and say, "Okay. Let's go. I'm actually confronting you on some things that you had said." What went into that decision? And in your estimation, how did it go?
Preston Sprinkle: Oh, you're talking about the one that I invited and did come on?
Tim Muehlhoff: Yes.
Preston Sprinkle: Oh, right. Okay.
Tim Muehlhoff: Oh, yeah. He came on.
Preston Sprinkle: Because I've reached out to three or four different people who have, more public figures, who have called me a heretic to say, "Would love to have ..." And I wish I could show. The email was extremely kind. I said, "Look, this could be offline." In fact, I'd prefer offline because when it's online, it gets too performative where they're ... because to protect the good faith nature of a conversation, I would love to have a offline conversation and then maybe an online, but I ... So all of them said no. This one person was ...
It was some random person on Twitter I'd never heard of, I never met, wasn't even sure if it was a real person kind of thing, just somebody. And in my weaker moment, I reached out on Twitter and invited him. "Hey. Why don't you come on the podcast? We should talk about this." And he said yes. And I was kind of shocked that he said yes. I've never done ... And why I wasn't sure if I should do that, I rarely have ever engaged people on Twitter. It almost always goes bad for both of us and everybody looking on. So it's not a healthy way to have long-form dialogue. It's not set up that way. So I have made a rule that I rarely have ever engaged people, and I broke that rule.
Tim Muehlhoff: You even said that in the intro. You even said something along those lines.
Preston Sprinkle: Did I? Okay. Yeah.
Tim Muehlhoff: Yeah.
Preston Sprinkle: So in this case, this person was very much misrepresenting anything I believe. Something like ... Gosh, I can't remember all this stuff. He gave four big critiques. Or he was repeating somebody else's critiques, but endorsing that. And the other person's not on social media, so I had to go on him. And three of the four were just factually, I just don't believe those things. I just don't. Never said it, never written it, and they're just wrong. The other one was a little bit like the way you're wording it, I wouldn't do. I agree with what you're saying I'm saying here, but the way you're framed, it's just kind of weird. So basically, my goal in bringing him on was not to debate. He wanted to debate.
Tim Muehlhoff: He did want to debate.
Preston Sprinkle: He wanted to debate.
Tim Muehlhoff: He wanted to go.
Preston Sprinkle: And this is where I'm not sure if I made this clear upfront with him, and that's where I might've went wrong. I was not having him on to debate. I was basically bringing him on to say, "You're saying things that I believe. I do not believe those things. This is spreading falsehood among the brothers, which according to Proverbs 6, one of the six things the Lord hates. I need you to repent from doing that sin," was kind of my approach, which I never ... That's not like-
Tim Muehlhoff: Right.
Preston Sprinkle: This is a case where it's [inaudible 00:18:35].
Rick Langer: So how did that go?
Preston Sprinkle: Didn't go well at all. Yeah. So again, he was in debate mode. I'm not here to debate. Because he wanted to take into, "This. What about this?" And draw me into kind of a debate conversation. I was like, "I have zero interest in entering into a debate conversation with somebody that I just have zero confidence you're a good faith dialogue partner." And I'm telling you, I'm staring at him through the screen saying, "I do not believe this. I'm right here. I don't believe what you said and never have said that." And he's like, "I don't know." Yeah. That kind of person. Why would I be interested in debating somebody that when I tell him exactly what I believe, he doesn't even believe it?
Tim Muehlhoff: And if you go back to the podcast we did with you, the most recent podcast we did was all about your awesome Theology in the Raw Conference where you get hit with the platforming critique all the time. I remember that conversation with him. He very much was saying, "The mere fact that you would have somebody at the conference means, in fact, you do endorse." And that is a philosophical disagreement you weren't going to resolve with a person who holds that kind of philosophy. I thought you were a really powerful mix of truth and love.
Preston Sprinkle: Really? I'm disappoint ...
Tim Muehlhoff: Well, I-
Preston Sprinkle: I won't tear it down because I don't do that, but I will not do that again.
Tim Muehlhoff: Listen, the truth part was there and you were saying, "Listen, I can't get any more clearer than looking you right in the eye and saying, "Brother, I do not believe what you're saying that I believe."" So maybe a lesson learned that you're not going to go that route.
Preston Sprinkle: Right. Yeah. It wasn't ... and again, this isn't somebody who ... We come from very different parts of the church. We're both Christians. Okay. But we swim in completely different tribes, very different approach to so many things, different way of [inaudible 00:20:25] in the Bible, different view of almost everything. So it's like why ... If he was somebody close to me in my life, a family member or a good friend, that would make sense. Somebody in my church. But I have no connection with this person. That's where it's like, "Ah, what was that? Why spend time in that?" Maybe it was because ...
Well, okay. So his posts on social media got hundreds of thousands of views. So it's like, "Okay. Now there's ..." Most people, it's just they're not paying attention. But for the few thousand that maybe is like, "Oh, this guy believes that," so you've now influenced all these people about stuff that I've never said. So Tim, going, "How do I handle criticism?" It does ... The one part that does irk me is when people believe things about me that are just simply untrue, and refuse to have that corrected. I still have people that believe that I affirm same-sex marriage, that I am a gay activist. I'm a straight married man. I have written several books opposing gay marriage publicly, right?
Tim Muehlhoff: Right.
Preston Sprinkle: Other people on the other side say I advocate for conversion therapy, which I've denounced over and over again. So that gets more annoying, not ... Sometimes it's like, "Oh." Just critique me for what I actually believe. I'm fine with that. I'm fine with somebody saying, "You believe this, and I think you're a heretic because of that." I'm like, "Well, you're using a heretic wrong, but yeah, you represented me correctly. We can agree to disagree," and whatever. But when they say, "You believe this. And therefore, you're a heretic," I'm like, "I don't believe that."
Tim Muehlhoff: And remember leading with curiosity, we've talked about that before. Wouldn't that be interesting with a person who obviously you feel, "Look, I don't know how you can read my books and get this wrong or listen to my podcast, but I want to be curious. I want us be open to hearing where are you getting this from"? If you had to think about a book, and maybe it's there and I wasn't as clear as I could be, but that's the curiosity part of saying, "Bring me up to speed how you created this image of what I believe. I'd like to hear more about that," would be a nice thing to do.
Rick Langer: One thing I'd be interested, to move this back to the land where some of our listeners probably live in, is this issue of when do I choose to confront someone? My daughter's believing this. This person in my Bible study group is believing that. And I will have people ask me this ... actually, it's uncanny when we're doing things about Winsome Conviction workshops, and things like this, how often people come up with this issue of, well ... And sometimes because they have talked to somebody and they didn't hear.
So everything we're saying about sharing or being curious [inaudible 00:23:10] doesn't work because I tried to talk to this person and didn't go well. Or other people trying to imagine, "Well, you talked about all this, but I'm trying to imagine applying it over here." So there's a lot of anxiety people feel, it seems like, about confronting people. I'm kind of a fan for saying we kind of have to figure out ways to do that. That's part of the gig. But I wondered what thoughts you have about this for sort of ordinary life and when you say, "Okay." When do you confront? And what process do you take to do on that?
Preston Sprinkle: I'm honestly not the best person to answer this. I don't think I do this well. And I'm not naturally a confrontive person. Just some people that enjoy confronting people. Maybe they're Enneagram eights or ones. I don't enjoy that. I do think I agree with you. I think it still does need to happen in certain circumstances, given certain relationships and so on. But I don't know if I've really navigated that well, quite honestly. If I can just think out loud, I'm not sure if this is right, this is what I would naturally do, I try to read the person and see if they are demonstrating some willingness to rethink something.
If I could sense that there's a potential for a good faith conversation here, then I'm going to be much more eager to engage it. But if I sense that this person is ... They're not at a psychological place where their mind can even entertain some kind of confrontation or alternative viewpoint, that I just avoid it, man. Let's just talk about base ... There's lots of other things we can talk about. Baseball. Dodgers had a great season. I don't know if that's right. Some people say, "No, you still need to give them the truth. The Holy Spirit can break through those walls." And I'm like, "Yeah. Okay. I agree with that." Maybe I'm just going on my anecdotal experience of so many just frustrating conversations that didn't go anywhere, and then other ones that were very fruitful and went somewhere. So I've kind of learned to say ... I can kind of anticipate the kind of personality I'm with and whether it's going to be worth the time and energy. So what do you ... I would love to hear you guys.
Rick Langer: One of the things that I think you've just said that I would probably highlight is to say the always-never analysis for when do you confront is probably a dysfunctional way to approach it. To say, "Because this is wrong, it always has to be confronted. Or I never do if the person doesn't seem open," I'm like, "I don't know." Some of these things, we're stewards of all the things God gives us. One of the things God gives us is relationship and standing with other people. Sometimes that means I think I need to cash in some chips. And I don't know how this is going to go, but if I don't say anything, who would or who will? Other times you're like, "You know what? I don't know that you're divinely appointed to be the Holy Spirit for this [inaudible 00:26:12]."
Tim Muehlhoff: And let's just agree, Christmas, Thanksgiving is probably not the best time-
Rick Langer: Not the best place. Yeah.
Tim Muehlhoff: ... to bring up politics-
Preston Sprinkle: Politics.
Tim Muehlhoff: ... or sexuality. It's just-
Preston Sprinkle: Immigration.
Tim Muehlhoff: I would say, Preston, the idea of communication climates has always stayed with me that-
Preston Sprinkle: Communication climate?
Tim Muehlhoff: Climates. Just like-
Preston Sprinkle: Oh, I like that.
Tim Muehlhoff: ... we ask what the weather is and we-
Preston Sprinkle: Is that kind of what I was saying without using the term? Is that what you're describing? Okay.
Tim Muehlhoff: Yeah, I think so. I judge what the climate is like. And for harder issues, the climate will never be perfect, but I need to establish a climate. Fortunately, comm theorists have really studied what makes up a climate. It's the expectations you and I have of each other. And are they being met? It's the amount of acknowledgement. I don't have to agree with you, but do I acknowledge the weight of your perspective? Then it's the amount of trust between us. If trust is lacking, we're pretty much sunk. And then the level of commitment, like how committed are you to me? If I don't change my beliefs, is this going to threaten the relationship? So I would say I'm going to probably judge the communication climate between us. And if I need to build that up a little bit more, then I'm going to build it up before we get to the really hard topics that I know is going to challenge the climate.
Preston Sprinkle: So I'm a big Jonathan Haidt fan. I think [inaudible 00:27:27].
Rick Langer: Oh, yeah.
Preston Sprinkle: He has argued, and many other social psychologists have argued as well, that 90% of why people believe something has to do more at the heart than the mind. So if all you do is try to change people through intellectual arguments when they're really stuck in their ways, you need to get to the heart. That could be, "Tell me about you. How's your wife doing? I heard she was in the hospital," and demonstrating empathy, showing that you really care for them. And that can sometimes lower those-
Tim Muehlhoff: The neighbor love.
Preston Sprinkle: ... walls a little bit. Yeah.
Tim Muehlhoff: It's neighbor love.
Preston Sprinkle: So going back, if I do have somebody that's just mentally so stuck in their ways, if I still want to try to break through, I'm going to just focus purely on the heart. I'm not going to jump into some back-and-forth intellectual debate.
Tim Muehlhoff: Yeah. And I think social media has made us gun shy. I would say the students that we have at Biola are always trying to improve the climate. But I like what you said, cash in on it. They're building the bridge. They're just not sending much over the bridge because the bridge isn't quite perfect yet. And I would say the climate's never going to be perfect. But if you know heading in, we're lacking in one issue, maybe the commitment level really is at risk, well, then I've got to shore that up a little bit before I get to it. And I love your comment about the heart. We're literally writing curriculum right now called the Heart of Civility curriculum. Deal with our heart first before we get to the techniques because we'll ditch the techniques as soon as our heart ...
You get trampled on, you're pretty much done. So we love what you're doing. Just know that we really respect the fact that you have chosen to put yourself out there. And that does come with great cost. And just know that you're in our prayers. Obviously, Biola loves what you're doing. You work with Think Biblically Podcasts. We've had you come in and actually talk to our faculty, so we very much respect what you're trying to do, both in tone and in content. And today, it's pretty rare to say that a person-
Rick Langer: To get both.
Tim Muehlhoff: ... can get both of those, so we just commend you. Thank you so much for being a friend to Winsome Conviction, coming on our podcast.
Preston Sprinkle: I appreciate it. Thanks for having me back on.
Rick Langer: I'd like to thank all of you as listeners for listening to this episode. We'd love to have you subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or wherever it is you get your podcasts. Also, check us out on the web, winsomeconviction.com. It's a great place to both find some resources, but we'd also love to have you sign up for our newsletter so we can keep in contact with you.
Tim Muehlhoff: Thank you.
