Apologetics and theology - a discussion (am90FZKbJLY)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=am90FZKbJLY

The doctor has responsibility, I don’t have responsibility. My only responsibility is in enacting the sacred ritual. So people are using plaster on this disintegrating wall and they’re just trying to patch up the things that they feel like are coming through. And that’s the way that people are living, right? Or you could also say the way that people are being dead. Yeah, I do agree that people are on the razor’s edge, the way that they’re living. There’s still an engagement with these people somewhat propositionally, some practical, and reorientation that occurs. For instance, I have children and I don’t have to let them experience that poison ivy is going to give them a rash. I can tell them that because of the teaching before me. That’s the problem, right? You can’t do without either. And I would say materialism is trying to do without one. All right, welcome. Today I have a special treat. We’re not doing a dia logos, we’re doing a trial logos. We have Bruce with us today, though it’s not just Marc Emmanuelle’s show today. And what we thought we’d talk about is apologetics, right? And the interaction with theology. And we’ll get definitions for each of those terms from Bruce, who is clearly the expert in this crowd anyway. And then we’ll proceed from there. And, you know, so there’s going to be a lot of talk about the church and Christianity in general. And Bruce, why don’t you give us your bona fides for for for speaking about this? Sure. Well, I mean, I am a lay person. I don’t have a degree in theology, but I am an elder in a church. I hold to the reform Baptist 1689 London Baptist Second Confession of Faith. If someone was curious. And so what that would mean for lay people would be I come out of the tradition of the Reformation and I live in the mid-Atlantic, which is one of the cradles of of that that world in America, at least. I hold in high regard the scriptures as the highest and ultimate authority. And I believe I believe Christ died for our sins and trust in him is the only way to achieve salvation ultimately. So around apologetics and theology, I believe that that every every person is a theologian who approaches the text. And I believe that every person should have a reasoned defense for what they believe. And so that’s kind of the nutshell, I guess. I like that. I like that. So, Manuel, what did you what did you want to I mean, you’re the man who needs no introduction. So what did you want to say around around theology and apologetics in particular? Well, so no, I’m going to do an introduction because it was promised one. You can do that, too. So I actually am trying to find a better way for people to think about themselves and the world. Right. And I have a YouTube channel, Eccopic Orientation, where I try to exemplify that in conversations. And so I’m an amateur tinker. That is my classification and my justification for being here. And, yes, I I I try to to give that separate angle to to the conversation, right, to get it into something more real. Because one of the problems with apologetics is that it ends up going higher, higher, higher. And we end up losing sight of the ground. And one of one of the problems with that is, well, where’s the practicality in that? Right. And I think Bruce was talking about this justification stuff. Like, I think justification is really important. And I think part of justification has to be an experience, if not all of it. So, yeah, so bridging that gap is for me really important. Right. And so I kind of want to focus on what’s the aim, right? What are you aiming at when when you’re doing this apologetics and why is it good? Yeah, I think we’re on the same page there as pragmatists, right? The justification linked back to their participation in the in in in the thing, rather than the propositions around the thing. And so, Bruce, so what would you say if you had to draw a line between theology and apologetics? What would that line look like? I would say that your theology informs your apologetics and actually the method of apologetics that you use is largely informed by your theology. And I think that’s why it’s so important. Theology is so important generally is because it doesn’t inform your worldview and your apologetics. And I think your worldview can also inform your theology in some ways, too. But one of the reasons why I find this to be so important is probably similarly to the reason you all find this meaning and this this world of discussion so important is because the people that I meet seem to have these sorts of questions and problems today. And I meet more people in the church than out of the church. Typically, so my goal and aim many times is education for those who claim Christ. Now, I do believe in evangelical evangelical pursuits, and I think that giving a reason response to the atheist or the nonbeliever or whatever whatever you want to call them is also very important. But I also I truly believe today shepherding the flock is one of the more important goals for someone in my position as an elder. And so equipping them to go in the world and live in the world and not of the world, you know, and having an apologetic to do so. I see. So who would you say the audience for? What is what is apologetics aimed at? And I mean, I like your differentiation that the theology leads into the apologetics. But again, where’s that where’s that back online? Like, where does where does your theology actually become apologetics? Right. Which is part to who it’s aimed at. Right. Well, I would say that, like, for instance, the term apologetics, right, comes out of apologia, reasoned response. And so what are you reasoning from? Right. And so that’s really the bigger, I guess, telltale sign as to how you how you approach apologetics or how you approach giving a response to someone for the hope that is within you, as it says in Peter, that approach is informed by your theology. And so if your theology is one that is that holds the ultimate standard of yourself, for instance, you are your ultimate standard. Well, that would inform your apologetic method. Or let’s say your theology is one of evidence based ideas. So science or other or other tangible, you know, I guess, pursuits or one that holds to special revelation scripture, that theology would have a particular apologetic. And so that’s that’s where they interface, I think. OK, yeah, I see. So so you’re saying is the reason the reason is the theology. Yeah, that that would be how you come to your reasoning. Right. And how you admit it. Right. And then the communication of that reasoning, right, is the apologetics. Yep. Yep. Giving the reason to response, right? And I think one of the things that people I think many in so I’m a presuppositional apologetic, right? That would be my apologists. That would be in presuppositional is sort of a really fun term for bringing forth the truth that people have a number of presuppositions or ideas or worldviews when they come to a discussion or conversation. And so I would say that I call into question people’s ultimate standard usually when the questions come up. And I’m looking for and as much as it seems as though I’m going to some scientific route, I’m really looking for someone to give me their ultimate so that we can then agree on a foundation before we can even begin many discussions that that’s difficult, I think, for lots of people, especially in postmodern sort of context. Yeah, yeah, I like that. Yeah, I try to do the same thing. It’s like, well, where are you starting from? That’s what I try to ask people. I know. I know, Jonathan, this is one of my one of my critiques and Jonathan Michelle, he says, he says, you know, where are you standing? Right. And it’s like, yeah, yeah, but it’s really where you starting from what your starting point for your set of arguments, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So we’re all standing before the face of God, as far as I understand, as far as I would say. So you’re standing in the same place. Everyone else is standing. So where are you? What are you standing on? Thanks for lumping us all in there. Right, right, right. No, for a Christian, you’re right. Like, yeah, the stance should be the same and they should assume Christianity until proven otherwise. I think that’s one of the big mistakes around apologetics is like, it was one of the things I thought that was cool. They came out of, you know, a number of years ago, Sam Harris was on Sunday special with Ben Shapiro. And, you know, basically, at the very end, Ben Shapiro drops drops the bomb on Sam Harris and says, are you sure you came up with all this by yourself? Or is it because we grew up because it turns out they grew up like four blocks apart, right? In the in the same place at around the same time, because they’re not not that far off an age. And like, Sam didn’t have an answer for that, right? Because how do you know where your where your baseline ethics come from? You know, it’s probably baked in, which means that most of the people in the West have a baked in Christianity to them. Like they just do, right? This is Tom Holland’s point or part of Tom Holland’s point in the community. So and so what would be the the the, you know, well, we’ll just take the Peterson thesis to talk is to think, although I have my disagreements with that. With that as being the exclusive way to think, what would be the usefulness? Like, when do you when do you pull out the apologetics? Right. Because for me, theology is something you discuss will say in the church primarily, right? Although it’s not the only thing you discuss in the church or anything like that, right? That’s your reasoning, your justification, right? All of that. But when you pull out the apologetics, because so I mean, we can use some of the symbolism behind us, which which Manuel came up with here for for, you know, the assault on the church will say, right? And so people see apologetics as a thing you pull out as this, you know, magical force field, right? Where you’re you’re defending the church as such will say, although I would say the church as the body of Christianity and not the, you know, the various denominations of buildings and the administration or the structure. So how how would how do you think about that about apologetics? Like when when does it become apologetics? Well, I think I’ll quote like one of the greater one of my greatest influences is Charles Spurgeon, who says the word scripture, God’s revelation is like a lion, he needs no defense, he let him out and he devours. And so what what I would say about that is, we believe in my tradition that the word scripture very specifically has power. And I don’t mean the the translation into English or the King James Version or the Greek, I mean the special revelation. And so when his word is preached, or proclaimed, those who are the sheep will hear and those who are the goats will not and in anything many many will reject. And so the force field around the church or the defense of the church, that’s not really the goal of the apologetics in my in my position, I would say my position is equipping those with teaching that will help them portray the thoughts and feelings and hope that they have within them. Why why do they come to church in the first place? Why are you even compelled to read scripture or pray? That sort of question comes up in the world. It says, why are you going to church? You know, Sunday is football day. You know, Sunday is is the day that we eat, whatever the case is. So why are we going to church? Why are we gathering with people? And I would say, well, here’s a reason defense for that is is giving giving an account reasonably reasonably for the hope that’s in you and why you do what you do. So I want to because I came on this word power a couple of times and I think it’s best substituted with authority because I don’t and the authority will self-manifest, right? Like if an authority is there, right in nature or whatever, or true nature, then it will self-manifest and it will be perceived as power. But I think it’s better through this. So yeah, so you’re saying there’s a what I say there’s power in the word. You’re saying that there’s authority in the word. Yeah, and I would agree. Yeah, and I would say that it does manifest naturally, right? Through natural revelation, general, you know, general relation and special revelation. So yeah, I would agree. I think that’s a good definition. Yeah, power power people equivocate on the order because I have a video on that because I have a video on everything people equivocate on the word power. Right. Power is control powers influence powers authority. Those are three ways in which people use power, right? I use power as directed time, energy and attention, roughly speaking, right? Like when you when you actually direct your time energy attention, that’s how I use power. It’s a little bit different, but most people use it to mean influence, right? Or control or authority. And yeah, I think it’s worth avoiding the use of the term entirely, just so people don’t get confused with the postmodern non definition, right? It gets swapped out a lot. So that’s a good catch. Manuel, I like that. I’m going to expand that a little bit, right? Because what is power? Power is the expression of energy. Right. I would say the controlled expression of energy, but yeah. Yeah, well, constraint, right? Which is seen as control, right? And so, yeah, if you look at the logos as or the word, right? Like as the structure that is forming the energy that flows to the world, right? Like that has an authority, right? The authority means having something to say about something else, right? Which is what a word does. Right. And some people won’t listen to the authority and some people will listen and reject, just as you outlined, Bruce. I think that’s good. So in some sense, then, apologetics is the propositional defense, right? So not defense indeed, but defense in word, right? In this case. Your reasoning. Is that what you’re claiming? Yeah, I would say it comes out in the deed as well. But in the case that we’re talking about, I guess, in this context, yeah, we’re talking about the word or its propositional application. But yes, I would say that this is more of a scholarly approach in some ways. Whereas, but it’s not, for instance, like those who engage in apologetics and are shepherding their flock would never give someone knowledge and state that your memorization of these tenants and the way that you have the ability to craft them is somehow ultimately important. What’s most important is how you live. I would agree that one is knowledge and the other is application. But I don’t see a giant disparity between the two. Mark used the word defense. Are you agreeing with the word defense or is justification a better word? I think defense of the faith is a fair way to say it only because against what? Against questions or nonbelievers or those who wish to. But what is that? Is that a defense in order to maintain integrity or is that a defense in order to stay up the attack? Yeah, that’s interesting. I would say it’s a defense initially in order to stay above the attack. And then it’s also to maintain integrity. Again, all of the defending should be done in humility, although imperfect. It’s very difficult to be humble to a degree that is perfect, of course. And impossible, I’d say, to be perfect. But yeah, I mean, it’s defense but also maintaining integrity. I think it’s fair to say that people would like to be able to portray their feelings and thoughts in a way that doesn’t demean their character of themselves, family, or church. You know, I don’t see that as a problem. I can see it as a problem for those that make an idol of such things. And I think that that’s really one of the big, I think, retorts against apologetics and theology. And there seems to also be this anti-intellectual side and movement, especially from what I find in the evangelical folks that I meet in the United States. There’s a serious push against intellectualism. And again, intellectualism would be a problem. We would say that’s an idol. But what we would also say in my world is that Christianity is entirely rational and logical. So it’s not as though you can turn off your logical thinking and take the word and just throw it into a blender, right? You come to it and it exposes itself rationally. So it’s not as though you should be a buffoon when you read. I believe that, you know, it’s rationally portrayed and should be approached that way. Okay, so I want to go a little bit further because the question I was having is, is it inward-focused or outward-focused? And you’re answering with outward-focused, right? So when you’re outward-focused, you’re also not focused on yourself anymore, right? So now you want to have an effect in the world. So what is the effect in the world that you want to manifest with your outward focus? Well, I think the outward focus is to point anyone to Christ. That’s the goal. We want to reorient the conversation to Christ. We want to reorient our talk to Christ. That’s the goal. The inward portion is what happens in prayer, humility, and reading the text. That happens by way of the Holy Spirit’s discernment. That’s how we would say that’s happening. But the outward is how you are pointing people to Christ or the church or both in that case. So that’s where that really goes. It’s not as though it’s wrong, I think, and I think it’s fair to say it’s wrong to put yourself or even like a particular set of people as the outward focus. The orientation is to Christ. That’s the goal, at least. Does it happen that way? Sometimes no. So that’s interesting. Yeah, I mean, I think the failure of something like evangelicalism is there apologetics is strictly proposition. And that’s really… And would you define the propositional text like an example or how you define that? Yeah, sure, sure, sure. So let me just give you the example. The problem that people point out with evangelicals is hypocrisy, roughly speaking. You’re speaking and you’re not living that way. Fair enough, right? But hey, that’s all of us. So kind of a lame critique in some cases. Yeah. But so when John Ravich talks about propositional knowledge, he’s talking about language, words, those sorts of things, statements that are statements. They’re logos. They’re pure logos, in essence. But then when he talks about… And look, this is one of the things that I just absolutely, mind-blowingly love about John’s work. He talks about participatory knowledge, and then that’s the way in which you participate with something. And that’s a different type of knowledge from the knowledge you get from a book. And I’m like, yes, it is. This is super important. Everybody should understand this concept. And there are several reasons for that that I don’t want to get bogged down into because I don’t think this is the right forum for it. But the apologetics that happens by being a good Christian, by getting out there in front of the lions, by giving positive testimony of your faith, for example, or your beliefs, maybe not even your faith, maybe just your beliefs as a result of your faith. Those are the sorts of things that if they’re in alignment with the propositions, if they’re balanced somehow, and I don’t want to comment on what balance looks like because I don’t know, it sounds like a hard problem to solve. But I think that gets around the hypocrisy. Because that’s roughly what a saint is. So the saints seem to say little, but do lots. And there’s a lot of participation. And that participation just seems to go well, in my opinion. That seems to be what that’s all about. Or you have to use saints. You can use church fathers or whatever other, whatever. Insert ideal here, roughly speaking. So I think that’s what people are upset about with apologetics, is that they’re pretending they’re under attack, and sometimes they are, to be fair. And B, they’re primarily propositional. So they’re using the tools of science. They’re using this accuracy and precision and this appeal to history and all these other things which I think are completely unnecessary, rather than just doing the good deeds. I have a question. Is getting in front of a lion apologetics? Because that does not fit with my definition. Is it apologetics to get in front of a lion? Yeah. I think in the case of doing what is right by the word, by Christ calling, then it can be. Okay, should it be? Should you seek out to quarrel with lions? As a method of apologetics, right? Because the way that I look at it, you do the good thing and you end up in front of the lion. And apologetics has nothing to do with it. Oh, I see. Yeah. I think both are true. It’s not as though these interactions occur in a vacuum. There are particulars that happen throughout a person’s life, in their culture, etc. Where they feel as though they should approach the lion to ensure the safety of their flock. And I don’t have a problem with that. I actually think that that’s fair. I think men carry their sword to protect their family or their church or whomever. If they see a threat and they proactively go forth and try and prepare for that, I don’t see an issue with that. I could see an issue with that when a person is puffed up to a point where they have sacrificed their duties for the sake of their knowledge wars. That’s a different thing, right? They’re not really achieving anything outside of their own selfish desires there. But yeah, I think it’s fair. And I think interestingly, the hypocrisy claim is one that I hear a lot. Um, one of the things that’s wild to me about these, and I’m not saying you guys are in this camp, but people that call, let’s say, a Christian a hypocrite, because they’re preaching, you know, chastity, or they’re preaching some particular virtue from scripture. Well, our worldview accounts can sustain this hypocrisy claim, because we have a standard. Where’s your standard? There is, I mean, many of these people are claiming hypocrisy while having no standard themselves to then call us a hypocrite. So we agree that we are hypocrites because we don’t live a holy life. Ultimately, that is before the face of a holy God. We are sinning, and we are hypocrites in many ways, many times preachers. And I think people preachers or people that are practicing apologetics, they’re not just preaching to the flock. They’re also preaching themselves. And I know that seems like a cope. But again, this hypocritical claim, I think, is always sort of the people like to get a get out of jail free card as though they’ve set the new standard, which is you must be perfect before you can engage with anyone. And that stops at the gate. There’s no one that could engage ever. And I can understand why some people say, well, I’m not going to engage because my life’s a mess. And I can understand that. But there are higher callings many times that people have for their family, their faith, their church to step out, even though their life is a bit of a mess and pursue what’s right. Yeah, I like that. Yeah, I don’t like the hypocrisy claim quite so much because it does seem to be a perfection argument, right? It seems to be an idealism, right? A form of idealism. It seems to imply utopia. And you’re claiming a utopia and you’re claiming you’re in it. And you’re claiming that that is the way the world is. And that’s why I’m upset. But it also smacks to me of this deep scientism where in the science realm, science is just intersubjective truth, right? Trying to achieve accuracy and precision. Right. And so accuracy is something like, does it match my phenomenological experience? Right. Or could it match my phenomenological experience if I went through the experiment? For example, right? There’s the intersubjectivity of science. And I kind of recorded that video last night. I didn’t get to it, but I’ll do my definition of science at some point. But that’s basically what it is. It’s intersubjective truth, right? And their game is accuracy and precision because that’s in the material realm. That’s what you can get. Like you can get some accuracy and some precision. Of course, if you add time back in, that goes away. But science and science is very useful and helpful. And we like it. We’re all using computers. Let’s not get silly about this, right? That’s right. That’s right. Yeah. Understand transistors are important. Okay. Yeah. I think the orientation is the issue. Many apologetics practitioners or the Christians that I know are huge nerds. And I mean, massive nerds that love science, everything about science, technology, astronomy, et cetera. It’s the unfolding of creation before our very eyes and our ability to participate in this creation is almost inexhaustibly difficult to describe. And so anyone I think that has a worldview that says the creator created all of this for the world and has asked his sheep to participate in his will by which he would bring new believers to see this revelation is a privilege and honestly, it’s a it’s difficult to even say sometimes without getting a little but clumped, right? Yeah. A little misty because it’s so it’s so huge. I think that approach to apologetics is the approach. The approach that where you have someone with a sign that is looking to get into fight. If the gospel isn’t present, then I have a problem with that. I see. Yeah. I mean, I would I would characterize science as being a powerful additional tool for participating in the world. And so if you’re all about participation or participatory knowledge or phenomenological experience, like if you really care about experience, adding science to to religion, to ritual, to the ethereal things, right? If you want to call them things. And I think I think I do. Right. To those patterns, those those patterns that we navigate throughout life, right? Those inevitable patterns. I think, yeah, I mean, for people who participate is great. And I think the scientism comes in when people aren’t participating. So they’re off in a lab and maybe they’re running an experiment, but that doesn’t connect them to their life. It’s interesting to say that because I feel like this you have the scientism, right? The guy in the lab, right? Like you’re talking about who never actually lives. You can kind of make that claim to someone who is a Christian that sits in a lab, as it were, and doesn’t live. This is why I mean, many there are many people that have a different agreement on this, but I believe men and women should have children as Christians and engage in that experience. There’s an entire group of people that would say, well, you know, maybe some men should be celibate and women women as well. And we should I actually think that that’s the tiny the tiniest calling, if at all, for anyone. And this experience that you’re having is oriented in the proper worldview. That’s the apologetic, you know, that it’s one living like Christ, right? I mean, you’re talking about living and not sitting in book knowledge. I would agree with that. I would agree with that entirely. You know, I don’t think that there’s a place where people just sit in their tower with their knowledge. You know, that doesn’t really know. The Internet’s kind of made it interesting because now you can sit in your tower, get online. And is it really the same? There’s I don’t know if it’s the same. I don’t think it is. I do think that there is a disconnect and people still feel as though they’re protected by their intellect when they’re in their home. You know, that that’s just my take on that whole like division. Yeah, no, I mean, I think there’s a place for the monks, right? There’s a place for the people who are sitting there in the knowledge, steeped in the knowledge, right? They’re in the margins, though, to your point, like they’re not the norm. And if you value knowledge, right, if you value will say propositional knowledge in particular, or if histamology is your highest value, I have a video on that, of course, with Sam Harris highest value where you can see it. You can see the highest value play out in that video, right? So if you have that, the tendency is to get stuck trying to be a monk effectively. Like you may not look at it that way, but that’s actually what’s happening, right? That’s actually what’s happening. You’re sitting in your knowledge pool, right? Absorbing more knowledge, right? Reading more books, getting more information, like, you know, we’re going to Wikipedia all day, whatever, you know, whatever method you’re using, it doesn’t really matter. Sort of a timeless pattern. So it doesn’t doesn’t the things will change over time, right? The way you absorb this propositional knowledge, but right. It was all only oral tradition. Then it was then it was some, you know, written works, handwritten works, right? Then it was, you know, Stela’s, right? And things on statues, right? And we went from sort of hybrid glyphics and then we’re going back to hybrid glyphics with memes. All right, and we went to books, right? So and now it’s computers, right? And there are books on computers, but there’s a bunch of knowledge on the computer that’s really not a book, right? Yeah, yeah. Material, for example. I would say that even in the ancient world, there was still an objective standard. And when I say that, I mean, it’s not as though you could just fabricate an idea orally or otherwise and not point to the objective standard. I mean, for instance, like even Moses in the mountain, it’s on tablets that he comes down. He comes down with an experience with a face that is glowing so bright that it must be covered. But what does he still have? Tablets. See, there’s still classification and objective standard by which people should be living. And so there is a piece for the objective standard or the propositional, as it were. It’s not divorced from the experience. It’s not divorced, but it is still important, I think. But it also got abandoned immediately the first time. Yeah, yeah, right, right. Well, I think I like what you said there, but I wouldn’t call that objective. Although I understand because you’re using the word objective to talk about an object. I would call it material. Or a material objective. Well, but even then, people are appealing to a standard. It’s not as though these standards arise out of your own personal standard. There’s still something that you must have when you engage with others. It’s not only you. It’s also linked to the material realm. And I agree. That’s really important. And then what that does is it indicates, like maybe it is. Yeah, I think that’s true. It also comes to the incarnation, links to the material. But it’s so important that God has been… The incarnation was one of the biggest focuses for the early church because it was truly a ground-break. I mean, it was all that come to fruition. And now the incarnation on this planet, that’s so important. I think we’re talking about the distinction between a line in the sand and a wall. I do feel like we treat those two things differently. Like a wall objects, but a line might get enforced. But it might also know. Right. And that’s why I wanted to bring the focus to… So you’ve got something in the ethereal realm. Maybe it’s just a wild idea like a unicorn. If that doesn’t link to the material realm, there’s no relationship. And so really what we’re talking about is intimacy at that point. We’re back into intimacy with the quality of the relations you’re making between the ethereal realm and the material realm. Are there tablets? And how do you treat those tablets? And then when those tablets are gone, do you maintain that relationship? Because I think that’s effectively what’s happening. The church is pretending as though things that maybe didn’t survive time or were lost or whatever are still material. And that’s what the materialists… And I’ll just quickly define materialists as people who believe that it’s primarily matter that moves the world or determines the world. And not that they don’t believe in non-matter, but it’s primarily matter. And so that’s what… In other words, it’s emergent. The earth is beneath us, last I checked. I mean, maybe not. But there could be a new internet movement out there. I’m sure there is. Yeah. So I just wanted to focus in on that relationship, right? Because the intimacy crisis, which my video with Catherine will be out before this one, is real and important. Yeah. And I think it’s also important to use the word binding. And I use this word and I like it, right? Now, what is binding? Well, binding is the solidifying of this intimate bond, right? And saying, I’m now going to make it a given, an axiom, right? Like, or what was the word that you used? Theology. And because I have bound myself to it, now I can build. Yeah. I mean, the firm foundation is the term that we use in Christianity more often than anything else, right? Christ, Logos, God is a firm foundation. And I think that’s true. Otherwise, you’re on sand, right? Those are the scriptural analogies. But they hold, I think. And we are bound to them. The thing that the presuppositionalist, someone like me says, we’re bound to them regardless of your recognition of them. That’s kind of the big distinction. Right. Well, that’s that which objects. That’s my, when I use object, that’s usually what I’m referring to, is that which objects. So the thing that objects, you can believe whatever you want. But that real world objection, and I used to, when I was much younger, in fact, I used to talk a lot about the red brick wall of reality and people beating their heads against the red brick wall of reality, right? Which is something like doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. And the problem with that is that, statistically speaking, that will work. If you keep bashing your head into the wall, eventually you will destroy the wall. Now, you’ll also destroy yourself. So maybe, maybe no, right? But it is that acting as if the relationship is the thing that’s important. In other words, you can remove one side or the other, but we’re going to act as if the relationship is important. So even if we don’t have the tablets or the tabernacle or whatever, whatever material artifact we need to satisfy the material first people, right? We’re still going to act as if that happened, those material objects were there to be connected to, and we’re going to maintain the connectedness. And maybe that’s the right definition of something like the sacred. And I also think, right, like there’s a place of disconnecting and reconnecting. Okay. That’s also given when Moses gives all these rituals and these sacrifices, part of them is he’s going through a list of transgressions towards different relationships and how to reestablish that relationship. Right? So there is a recognition that these bonds, they might be broken, but they might be repaired. Right? And so it’s not so much in the adherence of the bond, but in the recognition that you’re supposed to participate through them, and then transgressions, right? Sins are somewhat allowed and that’s in the early stages. Well, it certainly creates the margin. But yeah, I mean, the maintenance of that relationship, right, of that sacredness is more important than the instances of, we’ll say, sin, right? Of transgression. Can you repeat that? I want to, I think I want to address that particularly. What do you mean? Yeah. So the fact that the community as a whole, the body, the church, the church as body, right? All the people that believe in Christ will say that that relationship exists, right? So that fact that that relationship exists, not just with me, but with other people, right? And we treat it as real is part of the thing that allows the transgression, which is inevitable, right? That’s what that’s original sin states are speaking, right? Transgressions inevitable because we’re not perfect. We’re not perfect because evolution is true, by the way. So like, let’s just put that to bed. Like evolution just proves original sin right off the bat, right? It’s an absolute statement that original sin is a real concept in the world and is probably fundamental, right? Because we’re all different. So none of us are perfect yet, right? Because that’s what evolution is moving towards. If it has a telos or that’s going to happen if it doesn’t, either way, that’s fine. But that means original sin. But what’s important is not every instance of that relationship being, we’ll say, held right, but the sacredness of it, right? That’s where the sacredness comes from. Even though we can’t maintain this relationship 100% of the time, right? Or 24 seven or however you want to frame it. We still treat it as if we should and that we can and we still try to do that. That’s what sacredness is. It’s acting as if this is. Yeah. And I think what one thing I think people get there that becomes difficult for them is they say, how can I maintain this sacred relationship? Despite my own faults, right? Despite my own faults. We have, you know, there’s a sacred relationship that must be maintained, right? And I would say that we see that in the Trinity, right? It’s maintained from the beginning of time, right? It’s what the Trinity is what, you know, gives us the idea of relationship actually. And it is and the Trinity and is actualized in the world with Adam and Eve, right? Two together relationship, them and God, three. And so this relate that that sacred relationship is there ontologically, right? From the beginning. And now, since you are flawed as an individual, you can no longer maintain the sacred relationship. It’s not possible because of your transgressions. So what happens? A savior, God himself comes and you cleave to the cross of which he was crucified as your intercessor in that relationship. And so now, Christ says, I have bridged this gap in this broken relationship between sin and God. And now, because that’s happened, because I’ve done this, you have access to the Father. And the Father has always had access to you. But because you’re in sin, you couldn’t get back that relationship. And so the sacred was divorced from people. And their ability to maintain the relationship. And so now we have a great, how can I say this marriage between us and Christ that is repair the relationship. And that’s really the apologetic that I try and get out of presupposition apologetic is in the beginning, this is your problem. This is my problem. This is our problem. And so cling to the cross to maintain this relationship. So how are we defining Christ in this context? Are we defining Christ as the internal force that’s cultivated within you that is representative of the divine? Well, I was defining Christ as the crucified God man on the cross. Right. But what’s our relationship to him? Those are well, for our relationship to Christ is those who are in Christ saved by Christ are given the Holy Spirit. And your relationship is now particularly bonded with Christ, particularly. And then there are those who are not. And those who are not are unfortunately doomed because they have no will by themselves that could possibly achieve perfection and glory because Christ doesn’t save everyone. And if he did, I don’t know that we would have this conversation. Yeah, interesting. So I just want to sort of circle around and point out that it seems a lot like one could, if one were so inclined, could look at the cycle and say, look, everybody was participating. They had all the tribes, groups, cults, whatever they were back, back, let’s say pre-farming. And then after farming in history, we’re getting together, having these religious participations. There’s a lot of evidence for this. And then then came writing. Then came this new propositional way of communication. And the new propositional way of communication creates this gap between epistemology as mere propositions and epistemology as participation in the world, right? Like the knowledge of participation of the world. And the actions of Christ effectively seem to give you a thing you can mimic to participate in the world better, right? And re-anchors away from the propositional, just from the mere word, and back into the actions of somebody who’s enough like you that you can go, oh, I can relate to that, right? And re-vivifies sort of the participatory aspect of religion after it sort of waned due to this super propositional world that we inhabited. What’s your hesitation? Like, why are you… I just wonder, it’s hard for me because there’s a number of definitional differences, I think, between some of the terminology. And one I think is that which arises in Christian scripture, and the other I think is that which arises in merely scientific language, or I would say, like for instance, they would… So what Mark is saying isn’t really distinguished from that of sort of Eastern enlightenment ideas. I don’t really see a particularity there. It’s more of a theoretical knowledge that you could get to. And I would say that the difference is we would say that there’s one way to the Father. And I don’t know that Mark’s not saying that, but it’s not… Just call me the Bible-thumping evangelical where my spidey sense starts to tingle when someone doesn’t say Christ. You can fault me for that in some ways, but that’s really the car I’m in. What’s the argument with the one way? Every relationship to Christ is different. So you could make the argument that that’s many ways. The relationship temporarily looks different, but it’s ultimately the same. You’re with or without Christ. And I think maybe that’s the difference here is I’m maybe speaking ultimately and you’re speaking temporarily or practically or pragmatically. And maybe I’m not speaking pragmatically enough. I’m saying ultimately there’s one way to the Father that’s through Christ. And ultimately the path is narrow. Now, what the path looks like to here on earth, there are some particulars. There’s specifics. There are specifics, for instance, Paul’s writing to many different churches across many different nations. There are different people. There are Gentiles, Jews. There are different tribes. But they are all saved, all people, all tribes, tongues, in one particular way of redemption, that path. And that’s kind of what I’m getting at, I guess, is one’s ultimately one way. So is this ultimate framing important for apologetics? Yeah, I think so because we believe that those who are not in Christ are unfortunately destined to hell. And I don’t want to see that for my brothers, right? I want to see my brothers in heaven. And I think that’s because God wants to see his children in heaven too, but he also is just. And so we are the means by which the gospel is being spread, which is by being open through my voice, through my actions, through my family, my church. And so it is ultimately important for someone like me. I think it’s important for every Christian. Yeah, okay. But ultimately, that doesn’t… When you make it personal about single individuals, which is fine, I’m not criticizing that. That wasn’t what I was talking about. What I was just talking about was simply the switch from primarily a propositional mode where you’ve got language around something for yourself, right? Because we all engage with the language for ourselves, right? In our heads, which is fine. We have no choice about that, right? We also use it to communicate, but we first have it in our heads. Otherwise, we can’t communicate it, right? And that switch with the… We’ll say with Christ coming on the scene, enter, stage right. That switch to now we have not just words, but we also have an exemplar for participation. That’s my… Pardon me. That was my thesis, was that there’s a change from a primarily propositional mode to an addition of a participation, right? Or an exemplification of a participation in the world, right? In the world, right? Because part of John Brevecki’s work is talking about, oh, there’s a mimicry circuit in our head. Well, yeah, that’s in cog side that’s been there for a while, right? And that implies, along with his model, although our model is a little bit different, it’s the C-R model, right? That there’s four different types of memory and that they correspond to four different types of quote knowing, although I think it’s information. And one of those is the information of how to participate, right? And so what I’m saying is we had nothing but participation because that’s the lowest form in some sense, right? And then we’re gaining this propositional way through written language, right? Or it’s the ascendancy of verbal language into written language is making the propositional signal a lot stronger. And then along comes this guy and this cross and this whole thing. I don’t know the whole story. I hear it’s a hoot though. It’s a good read. And then all of a sudden now we have this life for however long you want to put that out that exemplifies the way to participate in. In other words, it gives the participatory aspect of the words that isn’t there when you just have the words like Little Red Riding Hood is a great story, right? But unless you run into a wolf in the woods, it doesn’t have the same flavor, right? The experience has a different flavor. And we can’t get that flavor except through direct experience. But what we’d prefer is mimicry. So we want to watch the things that have that experience and learn from them without going through the experience. That’s your mimicry circuit. So all I’m saying is there’s a shift to dampen down the ascendancy of, we’ll say, propositional knowledge. And then from that, I will naturally say, as we participate less in the world or less directly in nature and with others, propositions regain ascendancy, right? And then there’s just more propositions in the world. And that just looks like the internet to me, right? It’s just the internet is just this giant proposition machine. And then what’s the attraction of things like Discord voice and video or Zoom voice and video or something like Clubhouse, which is social audio? Well, it’s not as flat as Facebook. It’s not as flat as a comment or a forum, right? There’s more data there. There’s more participation in speaking. The phone is there. The pacing is there. All this additional information. And of course, video takes it one step further. But we’re still not at the level of proper, true being in person. And I haven’t done it yet. I could do it with you, Bruce. And I keep not planning my trips correctly, right? I could stop in and actually meet you. Manuel is just too damn far away. So that’s a harder sell. But I’ll get over to Europe again someday, for sure. There’s no substitute for that. Because once you meet somebody, and this happened at Thunder Bay, right? I met a bunch of people at Thunder Bay, including a lovely five or six hour drive with Ethan up to Thunder Bay from Minneapolis. That was wonderful. It was a totally different flavor than, say, talking to Ethan on Discord, which I thoroughly enjoy because he’s really interesting things to say. So I hope to have that same experience with both of you at some point, right? Where we get together in person and break bread. I broke bread with Paul Van der Kley, right? Like and John Vervecky and Father Eric. Yeah, and Jonathan Pigeot. It was wonderful. We played paintball together, a bunch of us, which is wonderful. So there’s a fundamental difference. And I’m just thinking like that’s the exemplification. And now we’re sort of moving away from that again with all these propositions that are available and the primacy of science in some sense, which is doing nothing but bitching about being attacked by religion. Although I haven’t seen any priests shoot any scientists yet. Open to the idea of having that happen just to shut them up at this point. There’s an exemplification there. There’s a new type of knowledge, if you will. There’s a new way of understanding epistemology and you have a hole in it, right? And that’s one of the things I like about Vervecky talking about it, even though I disagree that it’s even knowledge. Like I like that he does it because I think it opens people up to the idea that what you need to be doing in the world is not talking about it, thinking about it, arguing about it on the internet, or even getting on Discord and arguing about it or doing Zoom meetings about it so much, although yeah, all guilty on all accounts, but is participating with real people in the real world to build real things, you know, in the material. Yeah, I agree that there’s that there, you know, you these sorts of things are put into practice. They’re not merely propositions. One of the interesting things you said that made me think about this, this kind of reminds me of the this sort of, you know, propositional becoming participatory or participatory going back to propositional. I would say one of the interesting things like that that I think about is so it’s like before Christ, we have the law that is propositional, right? Christ comes to fulfill the law participatory in the world. The word made flesh fulfillment of the law. But fulfill it. Fill it up. Fill it entirely, meaning justification in Christ, because the law, whether where there are case law, ceremonial law, and the law itself is made for man, right? Man’s not made for the law, right? The law is made for man to prosper him. Well, this participation occurs in Christ’s death and resurrection, and the law is totally fulfilled. And so now you’re back to participation, right? With those who are saved, those who are born again, not by their own volition, but by God, who gives them new life. They are now participating in that law. So in other words, they’re merely propositions to those who are in other words, it’s foolishness to those who are not in Christ. But when you are, it is participatory and you see it transform your life. It’s difficult, right? There’s there’s a lot of scandalous natures of this idea, right? For instance, the law would state, you know, Jeffrey Dahmer would be killed forever, right? And never and in hell forever. But the participation of Christ’s death and resurrection and fulfillment of the law, and sin forgiveness is that Jeffrey Dahmer could be forgiven of sin. And Mother Teresa could be in hell, right? That would be that would be the scandalous nature of that. I don’t think people love that idea, because they’re they don’t have control of that. Their knowledge isn’t enough to fix that. Their knowledge isn’t enough to make them justified. It’s Christ who does the work. And so those who are in this participation, and I would agree, it’s entirely participatory with Christ have hope. But if you’re if you’re mere knowledge, it’s hopeless. And so I think that’s that’s also why we love meeting each other. And, you know, I got to meet someone a few months ago that I’d only had a relationship with online, who’s a friend of a friend. I knew a real friend in real life. And then we I met his friend online, and I met him in real life. And it was it was it’s awesome. I told him I said, I can’t wait to give you a big hug. And I did. And he’s wonderful. He’s a great person. I really enjoy talking to him. He’s a believer. And he and he and I, I think had awesome conversations to the point where he even stayed in my office for his time working. So he came to visit and I said, you stay here. And it was great. It’s that participation with him was much better than the propositional exchange online. But but only because I think those who are born again, I think, have this particular orientation. And I think it’s clear in those that are. Yeah. Yeah, I like that. Yeah. Again, I mean, I think there’s something to the idea that there’s different ways of informing the world. Right. And one of them is through propositions, through speech, to verbal and nonverbal communication. Right. But the other one is more you learn to shoot a bow and arrow by shooting a bow and arrow. You learn to ride a bike by riding a bike. It doesn’t make any sense to tell somebody to balance. You know how to balance if you know how to stand up. Right. And you don’t tell a baby to balance like this doesn’t make any sense. But when people are riding by, they balance, balance, balance, as though that’s the thing that translates well in your head to what you’re doing. And it doesn’t. On the other hand, you can’t do without propositions because they help point the way. Right. So I’m not saying get rid of propositions and throw it all science. Right. And I think that the great problem that we have with materialism in particular, not modernism, and any problem with modernism whatsoever. Right. But I have a big problem with materialism is that science makes us a promise effectively that we have control over the material to such a great degree that we have accurate and precise control over material or that we can. Right. If only we try hard enough. Doesn’t this sound like a familiar pattern? Right. And so then we want that in the church. We want the same thing. Right. And to your point, like, well, wait a minute, if Jeffrey Darvish is such a horrible person, how can he get out? Like, that’s not fair. Right. That’s not right. That’s the relationship, direct relationship, that direct sort of discrete linear relationship of you do a bad thing, you get a bad thing is broken, broken. And science doesn’t like that. I mean, I would say science overbills itself or people talking about science overbills science by several orders of magnitude, by my estimation, and I can prove it. Like, I get the goods. We’re not going to go into that here. But anytime you want to talk to me about it, I will disavow you your belief that science is all that great at the things it claims to be all that great at, we’ll say. Right. So having that impression that there is a mode of operation in the world where you have accuracy and precision, right? Where you have this direct linear, discrete relationship between thing A and thing B. I know Jacob on Bridges of Meaning calls it treating God as a vending machine. Right. And I’ve been using that ever since. I love it. Right. Because yeah, you know, you put in a quarter, you hit B5, you get a Snickers bar, and like nothing in the world actually ends up to work that way in the final analysis. Like, yeah, you participated in a particular prayer, liturgical stance, some particulars, and then that gives you this particular grace. Right. And I would say that’s, you know, if the grace of God would not be resistible by God’s power, right? If he’s giving you grace, it’s given. Right? And if not, it’s not. You’re not going to withdraw grace propositionally out of God and coerce it with your propositions. Well, not even with your participation. Right. Agreed. Yeah. It participates. You can’t coerce it with the participation. And I have this difficulty around, right? Like, yes, in the final analysis, there’s this judgment, right? But there’s this aspect of what we’re doing on Earth, right? There’s this aspect of what’s beyond that, right? And we have to resolve both questions. And I think we resolve both questions in the same way by living our lives, right? And becoming the person that we need to become. However, we get to that place, right? And what is the standard that we use in order to try and achieve that, right? That is, in some sense, the question, right? And then there’s an active relationship to that standard, right? Like, realizing the problem and the depth of it, right? Like, there’s this fractal nature where you’re like, oh, yeah, I can look at the layer below me. And, well, maybe I can, like, chisel a little bit. And then there’s a layer below that. But, like, it stutters all the way down. So knowing that that is a problem, right? Like, we need to find a different way of having that justification, right? And we started off with theology and apologetics, right? And if we’re talking about apologetics as the pointing towards the theology through a way that is intelligible to our communication partner, right? Then a different way of saying that is you’re acting out a principle, right? And the principle is the thing that has authority, right? Like, either what you’re doing works or it doesn’t, right? So it’s granted authority by your participation in the world. And so I guess I’m trying to point at the connection between the principles and maybe the propositional articulation of these principles. And the embodiment. Because in my perspective, like, sometimes having the articulation of the principles actually supportive of you acting in a certain way, right? Like, for example, do not kill or whatever, right? Like, knowing that and having that as a guideline is really handy. But there’s other principles, right, where you say, for example, balance or whatever, right? It’s amphetetical to enacting it, right? Because it’s withdrawing your attention from the participation into something static, right? Like something that you should be able to grasp. And then it’s letting you reenact out of that perspective, right? And I think this is somewhat the propositional tyranny that Pervade is talking about. So I guess I want to make two buckets or something and say, well, this is in this bucket and this is in this bucket. And maybe we resolve something that way. So you mean like apologetics and theology are in one particular frame, and then participation is in another? Well, no, I’m more so saying that there’s some things that are appropriate to reason about. And then there’s things that are not appropriate to reason about. Okay. So with the problem, I would say, not the problem, but I would ask like, how would one come to determine what is appropriate to reason? Because you would then have to have reasoning for the claim of appropriate reason, right? Only if reason is primary. Even in that case, you still have some way by which to say, this is appropriate. Well, like, because I’m still frustrated about this, Jesus is the only path, right? And I see a justification if you say, well, reason is limited and therefore we need something extra. I would agree. Yeah. But if we’re saying reason is sufficient, then I don’t see that justification. Oh, I see sufficient. Sufficient for what though? Well, to communicate the message. Was that merely the only goal is communication? Is it sufficient to achieve salvation, sufficient to have relationships? There’s just so many things that I’m not sure what you mean by sufficient. It’s just a talk. Well, why would you do it if you don’t have something that you can fulfill with doing it? Yeah, I would agree. You can see what you want to fulfill with it, right? So if you say the gospel’s purpose is to fulfill something within the person’s life, then you can make a sufficiency claim. I would say the gospel is the good news by which somebody is born again, right? That particular knowledge, claim and or truth. And I would say it’s an axiom or an ontological truth that is portrayed in words that saves an individual from eternal death. So that it’s sufficient for teaching correction. It’s sufficient for salvation. And when I say that, I mean it’s sufficient in giving words that are heard as the means by which salvation comes to an individual. But see, this is again, I think I could be wrong. I do think that I’m on a different layer of the discussion where one is more, I guess, practical in nature and I’m more, I guess, ultimate or eternal in nature. I’m not stating it as a good thing. I’m saying it as just a difference. Yeah, no, I think that’s actually really important, right? But I’m actually looking for that bridge, right? Where’s the bridge from the practicality to this eternal? Because if there’s no bridge there, there’s no justification. When you say justification, I guess I’m curious what you mean by that. Well, then you can’t have a reason to argument for your behavior. Okay, okay, okay. Yeah. So again, I’m trying to bring this down to a practical, I mean, more practically speaking, when somebody is, I’ll just keep using the term born again, or saved, or given new life, the orientation lives out practically different than someone who’s not. I think that’s the practical piece. That’s how I would see it. Because I think that there’s proof in the changed life. I think we can see that there’s fruit of that spirit. I would say we see that. There’s the ability to eat whole food as opposed to drinking mother’s milk. And all of that, I think, comes with the changed heart or life that occurs only through special revelation, supernatural means. Yeah, and it could be too, Manuel, that there’s just the is-ought gap that’s in the way here. But I think that having… And reason is a slippery word, right? Because we use it to mean the process, and we also use it to mean the tea loss, roughly speaking. So the reason for something is the excuse, the final cause, the goal, often. But also the reason, we use it as reasoning, right? We use it as the process. And that’s part of the confusion, right? Part of the equivocation for Vicky talks about equivocation of words. There is a word that gets equivocated reason all the time. And then I think that for me, the things that sort of defy, we’ll say, the rational, logical way of comprehending and apprehending the world are the things which object. So for example, a man cannot have a baby. Nature objects somehow, right? It just… And that makes them different from a woman, right? Nature objects, right? Because women can have babies. And then people get wrapped up with, well, not all women and therefore… That’s focusing on the exceptions rather than focusing on the rule. And that’s just an error, right? That would be an error in logic as well. It’d be an error on the other side of the ledger, for sure. But those things cannot be reasoned about at all, right? Because they are the objections that we are constrained by or subject, oddly, to. We don’t know why they’re there, how they’re there, or if they’re correct in some sense. And even evolution says this. Evolution keeps changing and it’s tried asexual reproduction and it’s there, but it’s rare. Why is it rare? I don’t know. There’s no way for me to know that, right? Why can lizards regrow their tails and we can’t regrow our hands, right? And you can make a scientific excuse for this, but it’s an excuse. It’s not a reason. There’s nothing in the literature that would back up the idea that the level of complexity is actually the thing causing the problem. And I’m not saying there isn’t a correlation there, but correlation does not equal causation, guys. So your own science says don’t do that. But so there’s a way in which, oh, well, that doesn’t work because some creatures can regrow feet, for example. So why can’t I regrow my hand if it’s a complexity issue, right? These things are not clear. They’re just not clear. And that’s sort of what I’m pointing out when I’m talking about the role of participation. It’s like, well, when you participate and something doesn’t work, that’s not a reasoned argument. That’s just a happening in the world. It’s an experience that occurs, right? It’s a phenomenological thing. And then you learn something from it, but what you learn is not propositional. But all language is propositional. So we fool ourselves into believing all knowledge is propositional because when we communicate the knowledge, even in some cases to ourselves, right, it becomes propositional. Although I would argue when we can’t communicate knowledge propositionally, that’s when we say, oh, it’s common sense. That’s what the bucket common sense is for. It’s something you know so well in such a deep way that you don’t have words for it. And therefore, you can’t just explain it or reason it or logic it or rationalize it to somebody else or maybe even yourself. But I think that’s a requirement. And now we’re back into the is ought territory, right? The world has a certain oughtness to it, right, which we are discovering, right? And we’re constrained by both the oughtness and the isness, right? Because if you do the wrong ought, you’re going to get a bad result and meet a quick end, right? So both elements are there on both sides. Now we’d say it’s probably 80-20, right? 80% of the isness is objecting and 20% of the oughtness is objecting. But I think that’s the important aspect that people are missing is that you can tie these things together and they map quite nicely, thank you very much, and they’re not a perfect map because we don’t live in a perfect world, but that’s idealism to me, right? That’s utopianism. It’s all the same mess. So the fact that we don’t live in a perfect world also allows us to live in the world because with perfection, we wouldn’t exist. Everything would be so regular and smooth that you couldn’t discern it anymore. There’d be no judgment at all. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, well, it kind of reminds me of, I’m just a giant Seinfeld fan and he says, well, you don’t want to be too graceful because you couldn’t walk. You couldn’t stand, right? So I do understand that there is that interesting, it’s somewhat mystical nature of how is it that imperfection is almost required for man to live? But I would say that that’s interesting because the story of redemption is required because of the imperfection. And the goal of the, someone in my case, the apologetic is not to somehow present knowledge that they will swallow and come to reason by the way that they might reason their way to the faith. I think there are some people that do that and I think that classical apologetics would be people that there’s a, just to give it a teeny bit of background, there’s classical apologetics, there’s presuppositional apologetics, there are different camps, there’s cosmological arguments, evidential, things like that, transcendental arguments. The argument I’m making is just that you are created in the image of God and when we speak about him and use his special relation of word, it has particular power that saves and convicts those by the will of God. And so it’s not like we’re giving a reasoned defense so that one can reason their way to the faith. And I think when people do that, you get into this problem and they’re saying, look, here’s the path of reason, climb the reason path, okay, and eventually you’ll come to the knowledge that gives you salvation or gives you clarity, right? It gives you peace that passes all understanding. If you get the reason, the problem is if you start from there, then you’re putting man’s autonomous reasoning as ultimate. Yes. Right. That’s a problem because now you have man and God under man’s reasoning, right? You have God and you have man under his reasoning, not the other way around, right? So there’s the layer of God and your reasoning coming out of God’s law of perfect knowledge or you, man, creating God out of your perfect knowledge. That’s impossible as far as I would be concerned and you’ve now created a new God, which is man, is not, you know, if I were God, we’d all be in big trouble, right? And that’s just the nutshell of that, you know, very basic. And I do agree with what I’ve understood to be your problem with those who engage in apologetics that go out looking for fights and trying to reason people into the faith. I don’t see that as useful. Yeah, yeah. And Vandu Klee points this out quite a bit, right? He says, look, all the evidence is that most people come to the faith because they had an incident they can’t explain through reason, logic and rationality. And that’s how they get in. They don’t get in any other way. And the problem is people that are born into the faith and don’t have that experience in addition tend to, you know, crash out. You know, I know a lot of people use the word deconstruct or, you know, We should just call it apostasy years ago, a long time ago. It’s just, you know, apostates. Right. Whenever I engage people who talk about why you constructed out of the faith, all I hear from them in their story, right? So they’ll describe it as deconstruction. Then I thought about this and then I thought about that and I thought, and I’m like, even I don’t do that. Like, that’s ridiculous. Nobody does that, right? I don’t think that happens. Maybe not nobody, nobody, but like almost nobody ever. Right. So, but when you hear their story, they were driving around and they hit a brick wall at a very high speed and that car everywhere. That’s what happened to them. Like when they tell their story, the story I hear is car hit brick wall at high speed every single time. I never hear a story of, well, I was walking down the street and I was thinking, you know, and this glad thing that preacher said this at church and now I’m not so sure and I’m done with this. I’m not going to listen to this guy’s preaching anymore because it doesn’t make any logical sense to me. There’s always the undercurrent of, I always had doubts. Oh, really? Oh, that’s so unique. Like I’ve never met anybody who didn’t have doubts. Come on. And not like, not just about religion. People have doubts all the time about all kinds of things, like all over the place. Like I have doubts some days that I know anything about computers because I go to set up a web server and somehow somebody changed some esoteric thing deep in the Linux operating system that I would never thought anybody would bother to change. Because why would you break things that used to work? And then they’ve changed them and I’m like, maybe I don’t know anything about computers anymore. I don’t know. Right. Or I do an interview with somebody and they say, no, your answer is wrong. And then I asked like five experts and they’re like, no, no, you’re dead on. I don’t know what that person’s talking about. Right. So we all have doubts. Like that just happens. Right. And especially for me to have doubts about my knowledge of computers is a little ridiculous because that’s the thing I know the most about by far. Right. I’ve studied all the history. Right. I’ve done all the work. I’ve done AI. I’ve done all this. I’ve done programming. I’ve done architecture work. I’ve done technical support. I’ve done all of it. Right. Like I’ve done a whole bunch of stuff here. And like I haven’t done his hardware design and I actually worked for a company that did that. And I still don’t know that much about it. But yeah, because if certainty was required, we couldn’t know. Exactly. I mean, even what we’ll just go like the most righteous man in scripture, Job, still doubt, still shaking his finger at God and he’s the most righteous. Right. And so he and even in even in the in Jesus’s ministry on earth, there are people he’s meeting that are doubting or asking for help with their unbelief. Like this is a not this is a non-starter as far as like I don’t have full understanding of all things in the universe. So I’m not saved or I don’t like God anymore because I don’t understand everywhere. I can’t act or I’m no longer an agent. And I think you see this. So they had the doubts. They crashed the car. And instead of saying what the hell happened, why did I crash the car? They go, oh, it was the doubts. It was definitely the doubts because propositions, which are material, by the way, right? Proposition is basically a thought made actualized, right? Usually by speech, but not exclusively. I would say it’s made actualized by by putting it in a proposition in your head. Yeah. Right. So it’s fundamentally different from your intuition, your intuition. You never propositionize your intuition in your head, right? People always ask, well, why are you making this? He’s like, I don’t know. I just have an intuition or I have a gut feel. Right. We’ve got a ton of terms for it. Right. But that’s basically non propositional information coming into us. It can’t be well or maybe propositionalized at all. Right. And so I think that that’s they’re pointing back at propositions, right? Because we’re stuck in this very materialist society where there’s got to be some reason. Oh, it must have been my doubt, my propositions that were failing. It’s like, I don’t think so. Like, I think that your intuition was off and that’s why you crashed the car. You were paying attention to your intuition. Well, when not when all the world is brute facts and then you just have to reason from induction, you have no grounding by which you come to propositions. And that’s the argument presuppositional apologetics. Well, but these people were in the church supposed to have to ground it, but that’s a different argument. But I think, I think, right, like I wrote down common sense is like a lack of judgment, like there’s an integration of something that you haven’t judged. Right. Like it’s judged for you by whatever means in some sense. And you use it as truth. Right. And that truth may serve you or it won’t, but you use it as truth. And then what are all these doubts? Well, doubts is the cultivation of a salience landscape. Oh, right. These are factors that I need to attend to because they might hold value to, right? Like there’s no actual value there, but there’s the promise of film, right? Because you think that if you figure it out, then the problem gets resolved. Right. And there’s no justification for that apart from an intuition, which is ironic. And so, so what happens if you crash the car? Well, you have a bunch of references, right, that you’ve cultivated. Right. And then you have a bunch of references that are intuitive and you haven’t cultivated. And so the option space that you can relate to in order to resolve is effectively only the propositions that you have cultivated. And I think that’s the problem, right? Like, so I think the grounding, right, like the lack of understanding what, how to frame the top, right? I like this idea, right, like where theology is reason. And Mark was talking about reason as a relationship to the Talos, right? And I actually think, I think actually the Talos is in some sense, this thing that is in the material realm, in the realm of ideals, right? And I think reason is the way that we bind ourselves to that. So I think actually reason is a pathway of connection that bridges the is-or gap. And so when we’re not in relationships to these aspects, right, like then we start having eschewed, right, or this is why the scientists like to use the word bias, right, we’re going to have a biased interpretation of the events that occur to us, right? And this is where you get into a reciprocal narrative, right? Okay, so I have these planetary structures that are related to my doubt, right? Because what do I need to pay attention to in the world? Well, the things that threaten me, well, what threatens you? The things that you’re doubtful about because they’re not certain, right? So that’s all the time the way that you’re going to categorize a problem that is being presented to you, right? And now you’re reciprocally narrowing this because like there’s going to be an answer, right, or you’re going to discard the framework, right? And you’re just going to hone on the ones that do give an answer, at least the promise of an answer because you don’t need an actual answer. And so yeah, you resolve to holding on to a specific way of resolving things for yourself. Like we’ve been watching the train crash with Nathan. And I think Nathan was a really good example when he came on the server on the Awakening from the Meaning Crisis server. He was asking questions, expecting an answer, right? And then the answer didn’t come or didn’t come in the format that he wanted. And he’s not the only person that has this, right? And then there’s no way to relate, right? Like there’s no way to integrate that information because all of the ways of judgment that you’ve incorporated, they fail to give you ears to hear or ICC. Right. I would agree. Yeah, entirely. A man who is in search of certainty by way of his own autonomous reasoning, I think will end up hitting the brick wall. And they do most times. Now, I think when many people hit the brick wall, is sometimes the means by which God has decided to reveal himself to them. There’s some people that hit a brick wall, and that’s the way that they understood themselves to be finite sinful human beings. And I praise God for that. And that’s kind of why we embrace the idea of suffering. Let me rejoice in my suffering so that I might be made aware of God’s power, sovereign God over my life. Now, that does happen. I don’t see a particular difference, I mean, thinking about all this, between what Mark and Manuel are saying, what you’re saying here, around creating propositions out of their own reason. I think we both agree on that almost entirely. And I think that many presuppositionalists would agree similarly. I think you probably will have engaged with apologetics, I think of people like, you know, street preaching, who is looking to reason a person into a faith in some, you know, propositional way, as opposed to exposing their fallacious logic to themselves and showing them, hey, you’re borrowing capital from the Christian worldview when you’re acting. And that’s what I try and do. But like I said, ultimately, I wish to equip the sheep so that they might be able to present these reasons for their faith when they engage in conversations like this or with, you know, even more, you know, you guys are agreeable people, you know, and you’ve probably dealt with people that are, I say agreeable, I mean, just in the context of this discussion here, comparatively to many who are hostile in their approach to conversation. And so that gets much, much harder when engaging in apologetics, as far as I’m concerned. In some ways, in other ways, it’s easier because it’s like, oh, you’re just, you’re just way out there. But yeah, I think they’re stuck. And I think that, you know, Nathan’s a good example when he came on the server. And he had an intuition that we were a cult. That was just, there was no piece of data that he was going to come to where we weren’t a cult, because he already made that assumption that this is what was going on, because that’s what goes on in all situations like this. And I mean, he stated that, like, almost exactly. But is this person a believer that was looking for meaning in belief, or was he not a believer in Christ? No, no, he was, he was looking to save us. And I think that, you know, that that’s that that was his goal was you guys are stuck in a cult, and it’s my job to come in and fix you and save you from this cult and show you the error of your ways. That was always his attitude. He did state explicitly, no, no, I’m sure you’re in a cult. And I need to help you out. It’s like, what? No, we’re not in a cult. We’re not right. And then he’s like, what do you all believe? And at the time, we had a Buddhist, right? We had like two atheists, right? One Christian and somebody else who was agnostic, I think, like all at once in that particular moment. And they’re all answering his questions. And he’s like, No, no, no, no. What do you all believe in common? We’re like, we don’t have a belief in. Yeah, but you’re you’re following this meditation video. We were not all following it. Just every assault that group us together and make us one thing failed because all of the things he was using to group people together weren’t working because they were all things that that only a cult would have in common. And since we weren’t actually a cult, it didn’t work. And yeah, that made them upset. But you can see the way in which doubt is the way in the way we learn, right? So we doubt things, we go in and we explore them. Although Nathan didn’t do that, right? Instead, he just wanted to, you know, pitch and haul us, which is fine. And whatever people do that all the time, to your point. He did he have a confession or a faith tradition himself? Or was he just looking to expose you? No, no, I he didn’t have any. He just wanted us out of the cults, right? Because if you’re out of the cult, then you’re in his tribe. Oh, I see. I see. Fair enough. Right. Because the only alternative to religion is obviously science. Oh, I see. Yeah. It’s not like other little religions. Yeah. It’s not like other little religious traditions pop up all over the place, like safety, race and climate or something, right? Yeah. Other cults. Yeah. Right. If you’re out of the church, you’re in the science club and you’re in the tribe. It’s all good. So I thought you knew that. I’m disappointed in your level of education. Yeah, I should have known that that we’re just talking about another religion here. Right. But I think that’s the way in which his intuition was wrong. Like had he had a good intuition and a good heart and open mind, right? He could have learned, oh, no, no, no, these guys on the Verveki server are not like, they’re not even just agreeing with John because Emanuel and I have our differences. John, believe you me. And we have actual critiques of his actual work. But we’ve also engaged with most of it, right? So yeah, I have not. So I can’t really go so far as to engage with it. I think not honestly, you know, I can see that. And that’s fine. And that’s good, right? Because all anybody asks for is honesty, right? Like if you’re honest and you say like, I mean, yeah, easily I could just say, has he proclaimed Christ Jesus as Lord over his life? And they’d say no. And I’d be like, well, I pray for him. Right. Really say I can’t really say the man’s a buffoon or an idiot. I mean, you know, some of the smartest people I know are non-believers. You know what I mean? So I can’t do that because knowledge itself isn’t saving power. No, that’s exactly right. And I think, well, except the science it is right because they posit this objective material reality. And they say, I see objective material reality better than the average person. Because I have a high IQ or I’m intelligent or I’m educated, you know, whichever of those three they use, probably all three. Right. And then they say, that makes me smart. And therefore, you should listen to me. And it’s like, I don’t know about that. Right. And then somebody like me comes along with no education. Right. And just destroys whatever ridiculous arguments they’re making because that’s actually really easy to do if you know what tricks they’re using and they’re easy to dismantle. Right. But it’s the intuition that matters because that’s the basis of what we’re actually doing, is that intuition. And when we ignore that intuition or deny that intuition, or we don’t give it the primacy that it deserves, right, we don’t trust our instincts, even though they’re imperfect. Right. Then we fail because we don’t recognize that we’re stuck in that intuition, that that common sense is what’s driving us. And I don’t think we can reveal common sense in all cases. I mean, maybe in some, I doubt in most. Right. And I don’t think we have to. Like, I don’t see any reason for any of this. I think your intuition by the fact that you were born, because when you were born, your knowledge did not come to you propositionally. That’s absurd. Right. And that’s sort of the, that’s actually oddly the premise of Dianetics. You’ve ever read Dianetics? That’s actually interesting. It’s interesting. People aren’t taught to sin propositionally. Right. Right. Well, and they’re not taught to stand up, and they’re not taught to speak propositionally. Right. The way they learn to speak is by correlating actions in the world, right, with things they hear. Right. Sure. Those aren’t propositions. So, right, those themselves are not the propositions. The propositions are formed from that interaction, which is saying a very different thing. Right. And we oversimplify, so we don’t really think about it. But, you know, it’s not mere word association. That’s not what’s happening. Right. Sure. Yeah. I mean, you know, intelligence would be required then for someone to, you know, be able to engage in the world in some way. Right. You’d think what sort of theology makes it so that a person who’s deaf, dumb, and blind might have experienced meaning in their life. Right. Right. The scientisms would give you this idea that, you know, a dumb person from the womb is going to have a less fulfilling life than, say, an intelligent person. And that, I think, is death. Really, that is a message of death. And I- Well, then that was Helen Keller’s story. Like, if you read Helen Keller’s story, it’s like, whoa. Like, they thought she was incapable of thought as such. Sure. Because she couldn’t communicate. Right. Yeah. Right. Right. I don’t know the story very well. I know it only as a sort of rote knowledge, but I imagine her teacher was a believer. I could be wrong, but I would be very surprised if she was not. Because the value that is in that person from birth is known by the believer. Right. We see inherent value in people who are even dumb and deaf and blind. Right. We see that, and there’s value there. But if your intelligence and knowledge is the only thing that makes you worthy, I mean, that’s- we’re all pretty doomed as far as I’m concerned, unless you’re, you know, Stephen Hawking. That’s interesting to take like a Hawking. Is his worth somehow less now that he was unable to walk and move around? Was he like- he had propositional knowledge, right? But he also had experiences. So they took his intellect and made that the worth of that man. Right. And is that worthy? The man had horrible relationships. I mean, you know, so yeah, he’s smart, but- And what is he smart about? He’s smart about things I can’t participate in. Yeah. He has a black hole theory. I’m not going to a black hole, Bruce. I don’t know about you. Maybe- I mean, I see the local black hole. I don’t- There’s some places on Discord that I think I’ve encountered the black hole. I don’t care enough. Maybe if you suck that cigar a little bit harder, then you’ll create- I’ll get to this. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I’m trying. That’s what I’m doing over here. Yeah. But there’s a way in which, you know, I like Stephen Hawking. I’ve read a couple of his books. They’re wonderful, really interesting stuff. I’m fascinated. You know, it’s good entertainment for my brain, for sure. It’s very intellectual style of entertainment, but it’s entertainment. It’s not something I can participate in. It does not help me build a shed or a dock for my pond. It does not help me learn to kayak or shoot an arrow, right? Or shoot a gun. Or engage in relationships with your spouse. Or be a good person. Right. It doesn’t help me smile when I go to the grocery store, which I always need help with, right? It doesn’t help me make people’s days brighter, right? It doesn’t help me help other people, right? And get them unstuck. It doesn’t help me. It doesn’t look. I mean, this is one of the beauties of John Mervigi’s work, for sure, in my opinion, is because he’s giving us a science of meaning, we can now talk about religion using non-religious terms, right? And get people unstuck and see where they’re stuck because we couldn’t do that before, I would argue. I’m not saying like religious people couldn’t intuit it, right? But because people are so requiring of propositions, there was no way to meet them propositionally, break them out of the propositional tyranny, if you want to think about it that way, or break them out of the materialism, which is more the way I think about it, and then get them to re-engage in participation. Because that’s what’s important, right? Because the proposition, for example, the proposition that it’s just the wealthy people are just getting wealthier off the backs of the poor people. And I’m just a worker because I wasn’t born wealthy. Well, first of all, all of those assumptions are just observably false, right? But people talk themselves or propositionalize themselves, tyrannize themselves into that belief. And now they don’t have to participate as fully as they could. Like they don’t have to do a good job at work because they’re just being used as slaves effectively, right? Yeah, I’ll make a controversial claim, I think, is I think you and Manuel, in this case, are participating in an apologetic. Oh, thanks for that label. My apologies, everybody. Yeah, right. Yeah, I would say it is, right? There are people that have a crisis of meaning and you’re giving them tools or at least you’re approaching them and giving reasoned defense as to why their meaning crisis exists and how they may be able to find practical ways by which they can get out of these crisis of meaning. But I would say you’re still engaging in an apologetic. I see. Yeah, under your definition, I think that’s correct. I have my disagreements with that particular yoke, we’ll say. But some of them are pragmatic and some of them are not, we’ll say, not germane to what you would see as facts on the ground, for sure. Yeah. Yeah, I want to bring out why is Dawkins writing this book and why are people reading it, right? It’s entertainment, but there’s also this idea that people have, right? Because we were talking about all of these anxieties, right? That people are trying to track of these problems, right? And what is that? Well, like people are threatened by the world. And then when you gain intelligibility somewhere, right? It’s like, oh, now I understand this thing that’s really, really far away that’s looming over my head all the time, right? And that gives some security, right? So it’s like this door that’s opened and then you look in there and it’s like, okay, now I can close it again because I have resolved whatever that means and whatever implication that has on your life, right? And we have the same thing with a diagnosis, right? It’s like, oh, diagnosis, I got my diagnosis, right? Now I get my 10 procedures that I need to enact in order to relate to the diagnosis and I have resolved, right? Now I don’t have to worry about it anymore. The doctor has responsibility, I don’t have responsibility. My only responsibility is enacting the sacred ritual of whatever that sacred ritual is. So people are using plaster on this disintegrating wall and they’re just trying to patch up the things that they feel like that are coming through and that’s the way that people are living, right? Or you could also say it’s the way that people are being dealt, right? Because it’s not living if you’re fingering the dike and then you pull it out, the floodgates will open. Like that’s not life, that’s just imprisonment. Yeah, I would still say that there’s a… Yeah, I do agree that people are on the razor’s edge in a lot of the way that they’re living. But there’s still an engagement with these people somewhat propositionally, some practical, and reorientation that occurs, right? And because of the nature of man, we have ways by which we communicate with each other through words and propositional knowledge. But also, for instance, like our children, we have children, I have children, and I don’t have to let them experience that poison ivy is going to give them a rash. I can tell them that because of the teaching before me. I’ve never gotten poison sumac, right? Or I’ve never been bitten by a lion. I think I have gotten poison ivy when I was a kid. But the knowledge of that is passed on to me as truth, and it’s practically applied. Please stay away from the three leaves, right? Please stay away from idolatry, right? Or please stay away from covetedness, right? You don’t have to experience it necessarily to know it’s bad. Now, when you experience it, is that teaching now brought to light? And I would say yes, in a lot of cases, that’s true. Now you have both. You have propositional knowledge that has manifested in an experience. But without the proposition knowledge, you would have said, well, maybe it was just me that got the rash here, and it was something else that caused it. Maybe it was just I had something else to eat that day, and I got a rash from the leaf. But that’s the problem, right? You can’t do without either. And I would say materialism is trying to do without one. It’s trying to do without the ethereal experience, the revelation. Yeah, because what will materialism do with that? They would say stay away from three-leaved plants, that knowledge, because it’s going to give you a rash, okay? So now what do you do? You avoid plants. You avoid anything that looks like poison ivy because you haven’t experienced anything else, right? They’ll say, well, these are okay over here, but these are not okay over here, and you need to figure that out without actually doing anything. So then you just don’t leave the house and you stay. Right. And that’s what happens. We have a limited set of propositions that we’ve been given through the quote education system, and I got a video coming out about that because we don’t have an education system at all. We’ve got a training system. So you’re trained in a way, mostly propositionally, to have these beliefs, right? And then all of a sudden, you don’t realize your beliefs, you don’t realize that not backed up by experience, and the world is a scarier place because you’re stuck in this propositional tyranny, right? You’re stuck with these propositions, and there’s a limited number of them, and you intuitively do know that you are limited and that you don’t understand how food gets to the supermarket, and that you don’t understand how the food that gets to the supermarket happens in the world. So in other words, you have no propositional understanding of farming as such or ranching as such. And that’s like that people get scared by, and I see this. I’ve seen this on Clubhouse, I’ve seen it on Discord, I’ve seen people who just, they don’t know how these things work. And there’s a wonderful, wonderful argument where somebody says, oh, I’ve invented an oxygenator, portable oxygen machine, and we could strap it to a cow when they have pneumonia, and it’s like, well, A, that’s not solving any of the problems with the food supply, and B, you can’t do that, because you’ve never tried to strap anything to a cow, you don’t understand that that’s a big no-no. It’s not gonna happen, right? And so, yeah, you get into these problems where they make these ridiculous propositions for how to fix a problem, they don’t even understand the problem because they’ve come at it propositionally, and they’re not talking to the people, say in the food supply chain that understand the food supply chain is broken. Yeah, they do this thing where they work on induction, kind of, and they say, well, okay, because we’ve done this, we can do that, right? So, you hear this all the time, it’s 2022, why can’t we drive electric cars everywhere, or why can’t we figure this out, right? And then anyone that has any small amount of experience with code software, or that’s what I do for a living, you’re like, every time we fix a bug, three more are created, and this continues. Why can’t we do this? Because it’s hard. And probably can’t happen, right? And this sort of experiential knowledge comes with, it does inform your decisions in life, but it’s not merely experiential, right? There’s both, yeah. Right. This utopianistic idea is extremely bothersome. Yeah, that’s the those who can do, those who can’t teach, right? That whole thing. It’s Jim. All right, right. I do want to be respectful of time here, because I’m getting to the end here, it’s still got two hours. So, I do want to wrap it up. I want to say, just as my precursor, just to frame how we should sort of close this out. I like the framework you laid out, Bruce. So, I appreciate that your expertise, and we’ve talked to you many, many times, always enjoyed it. So, I knew that you would do a really good job, and I think you have here. So, I want to acknowledge and appreciate that. But I think I like this framework for understanding the difference between theology and apologetics, and how that plays into sort of the vervechian model of participatory versus propositional, even though maybe you don’t have quite the handle on it that Manuel and I have for sure, right? But you can see the way in which this exemplifies things like the Azot Gap, right? Exemplifies the problem of, well, it’s not all one thing on either side, right? You can’t be all floaty, and you can’t be all material, right? There’s some mix that’s required, and that’s hard, and we can’t get it right, because it’s changing, and we’re changing, right? The river changes, and you change. That’s why you can’t step in the same river twice, according to Epictetus, right? So yeah, I mean, I think it was a useful, really useful conversation to sort of steer people in the right direction, where if you’re not doing the things in the world to some degree that people can see, right? Because it also matters that you do them out in public, exemplify them to people who can interact with that exemplification, who can mimic that behavior, then your apologetics is going to be less effective. Irrespective of, we’ll say, what type of apologetics you’re doing, maybe that’s unfair. So yeah, what would you like to say to sort of wrap it up there, Bruce? Well, I’ll just address that specifically. I think when someone tries to be effective in their apologetic looking at outcomes, they’ll be at a problem. I think on the onset, your apologetic should come from a place of humility and trust in God’s will and his word, and not in the outcomes. When you engage in the world and you have an apologetic and you wish to practice apologetics, humility is important, gentleness and love as it says, truth, not mincing words, but also understanding that the outcome isn’t determined by me, it is determined by God. Yeah, so the thing that I wanted to highlight is that there’s an aspect where your participation and your propositions need to align. They need to mutually reinforce. We were doing it with the poison ivy. So there’s this idea that too big of a category can be restrictive, too small of a category can be dangerous. And so it’s important to walk that line. I think walking that line in front of people is maybe what we’re talking about. Mark likes to talk about walking through walls. That’s like you see the gap where they can’t assume the gap. And maybe there’s something on the other side as well where you say, oh, I’m not going to fall into this hole because I know there’s a hole. Well, they can see the hole. And so that’s, I guess, the two ways. So when you grab in all these other elements, you also have to have the person’s attention on that. So I think we need to also have a way that the person can be receptive to that message. And so, yeah, I feel that’s all the components there. And the humility is the thing that allows the objection to be informing you as opposed to that you start informing the objection because that’s where you get into trouble. That’s where you have a projection where you’re living out a fantasy as opposed to actually relate to what is real. Oh, I like that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Are you allowing the objection or are you doing projection? Are you hearing things people didn’t say? Are you saying that they made claims that they didn’t make, for example, which Nathan might have done recently in the comments section of Andrew Clay’s video. So yeah, you get a lot of that. And I like that. And I really want to thank both of you for your time. And it was great to have this chat. And maybe we can do it again. I mean, there’s lots of places we could go with somebody who’s sort of really powerful, I would say, Bruce, in the faith. You’re very powerful because you’ve got that propositional way of speaking about it. And of course, you’re living it out and in a unique part of the country even, right? And in a unique way in a sort of a place where it’s a little bit more of a traditional thing than it would be in some other parts of the country, right? So I really appreciate that. And I just want to acknowledge everybody. We really appreciate that you’re engaging in this particular video. I know it’s almost two hours, but I definitely appreciate the time and attention.