Carl Trueman dissects modern individualism’s collapse of faith, tracing its roots to Nietzsche and Singer while critiquing expressive individualism’s moral contradictions—like condemning sexual crimes while normalizing risky practices. He contrasts Christianity’s creed, code, and cult framework with secular autonomy, using Psalm 73 and Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov to argue that worship and grace, not science, define humanity. Trueman advocates for churches to prioritize communal love over ideological battles, even amid tensions like LGBTQ+ relationships, framing faith as a supernatural act of coordination rather than personal expression. [Automatically generated summary]
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Clavin with this week's interview with Carl Truman.
Very recently, I was talking with my son Spencer Clavin, No Relation.
We were forming our sub-stack, The New Jerusalem.
And one of the questions I asked him is, can we think of any intellectuals who are alive whom we really respect?
And instantaneously, simultaneously, we both said, Carl Truman, followed by an embarrassing long silence before we could think of anybody else, although we did eventually come up with a couple of others.
And Carl Truman teaches at Grove City College.
He's a fellow at Ethics and Public Policy Center and an ordained Presbyterian minister.
But he wrote a book called a wonderful, wonderful book called The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.
I interviewed him when that book came out.
And as you know, if you've been following my show, I've been thinking about a lot about where we're going, what the future is going to look like.
And one of the things that seems to me happening is we seem to be going through a period of real sexual confusion in many, many ways.
And Carl traces a lot of where that came from philosophically in the rise and triumph of the modern self.
So I thought he would be a good person to talk to about where we go from here and maybe how we get back to some more sane version of sexuality and sexuality in terms of religion.
What I didn't realize when I asked him that, in fact, I didn't realize until I started to prepare for the interview yesterday, was that he has already written a book that looks forward to a better world with the church, a better relationship with the church called Crisis of Confidence, Restoring the Historic Faith in a Culture Consumed with Individualism and Identity.
I only had a chance to dip into it, so we're going to find out together what he's talking about for the future.
Carl, it's great to see you.
Thank you for coming back.
It's great to be back on, Andrew.
Thanks very much.
And always a pleasure to interact.
Yeah, no, I just started, because I didn't know this book existed, I just started looking at it and was immediately sucked in.
You write great, and you also are thinking on a level that I just don't think enough people are thinking on when we talk about these obviously highly charged subjects.
To begin with, you talk about some of the ways the church has gone astray and obviously the church is losing its grip on our culture if it hasn't already lost its grip in its culture.
And you say there's a need for a creed, a code, and a cult.
What does that mean exactly?
Yeah, well, creed, code, cult, it's the way I try to teach students at Grove about what it means to be a Christian, what it means to be a church.
I'm a Presbyterian minister, as you mentioned, and typically I would say that as Presbyterians, we do creed well.
What do I mean by creed?
Basic Christian doctrine.
We place great emphasis upon preaching.
We place great emphasis upon teaching the doctrinal core of the faith.
But we need more than that in the church.
We also need a code and a cult.
I'll deal with a cult first, actually.
When I'm using the word cult here, I'm not meaning some sort of scary group like the moon is or something like that.
I'm thinking about a form of worship.
When we gather as a church on a Sunday, we sing hymns, we hear the word preached, we engage in a liturgical form, and that shapes our imagination.
Yes, we hear Christian teaching from the pulpit, but there's more to church than just hearing a lecture from the pulpit, if you like.
The singing of the hymns, the music, the structure of the service shapes the way we think about the faith and shapes the way we think about ourselves.
And code, the third part of that is we have to have a way of living during the week.
There are ways in which as a Christian, because of what we believe and because of the way we worship, that will shape how we interact with other people.
And I would say one of the big things, for example, about the Christian code, which I think will be very helpful in what's confronting us in the culture at the moment, is something like hospitality, the opening of our houses to others, to strangers, in my case, often to students or to other people in church on a Sunday.
The giving of kindness, the giving of hospitality to others, that also shapes how we think about our faith and how other people think about our faith.
So what I'm calling for in this book is a richer approach to addressing the culture than just exchanging arguments, just doing the creed part.
I think the way we worship and the way we live is also very, very significant for how we shape our own way of thinking about religion and how we shape the thinking of those around us.
You know, I have to say, not to give running commentary as you're speaking, but about three years ago, I entered the Anglican Catholic Church and it really has fulfilled those things.
And I haven't had the words to put to it, but the fact that it's a very liturgical church, that there is a cultic, as you say, in the good meaning of that word, that has transformed my worship.
And because the people there are sympathetic with me and that we can invite each other over and things like that, it has really been transformative.
It is an amazing, amazing thing.
There's no question that has deepened my relationship, not just with the religion, but with God.
You're absolutely on point about this.
And I think it is something that I have not found in more loose churches where, you know, you sort of play guitar and wave your hands around, but not really.
Now, you talk about something.
You've talked about this in your previous book that, but this idea only struck me as I was reading it this time.
You talk about expressive individualism, which is the people feeling that there's a real me inside and the real me is based on my feelings and has to come out.
But you make the, I think, really important point that that's a bad version of something Christianity actually does, right?
There's something that Christianity does that does involve the real you.
Yes.
I mean, I think when you think about expressive individualism and this authority we grant to our feelings, I think one thing to note about it, first of all, is it does grab hold of something that's true.
You know, our feelings are important.
We get hurt.
We fall in love.
We enjoy things.
We hate certain things.
They're very important to who we are.
But the key thing with Christianity, I think, is that those feelings are never allowed to be ultimately authoritative.
One of the texts that I point students to in this context is Psalm 73, where the psalmist wrestles with why is it that the good die young and the wicked seem to prosper and die peacefully at a good old age.
And the psalmist says, you know, when I was thinking about this, it was winding me up.
And he says, I almost, my feet almost stumbled.
In other words, I almost lost my faith until I went to the sanctuary.
And then their end became clear to me.
And what the psalmist is saying there is, my feelings are important, but ultimately I had to bring them under the authority of God's revelation.
Now, think about what church does for us when we, you know, we live in a world where we're told that our feelings are critically important.
We're told that we are free, autonomous beings, that all our relationships with others should really be contractual as to whether they bring us pleasure or not.
Well, when you go to church, I mean, you mentioned you're part of the Anglican Catholic Church in the United States, and you use a liturgy, you sing hymns.
Well, what do we do when we use liturgies, when we sing hymns?
We have to coordinate with other people.
We cannot go to church and scat sing.
It doesn't work that way.
We have to sing as a corporate body.
We have to say the same words in the liturgy, otherwise it's chaos.
Well, think about how that's shaping our imagination.
That's shaping the way we think about ourselves as those who are obliged to others and dependent upon others in worship.
That worship only works if everybody, to use the cliché, is literally singing from the same hymn sheet.
So to me, the worship of the Christian church is, it's not an argument against expressive individualism so much as it is a way of experiencing what it means to be truly human, a way of experiencing that actually we're not autonomous.
We're designed to be members of community.
And the church is the greatest community of them all.
And its worship helps, I would say, constitute that in a very, very profound and meaningful way.
You know, it also brings you into the body of Christ.
I mean, I feel, you know, when I was reading your description of the expressive personality, expressive individualism, I was thinking there is this person that I know I was created to be that I'm not.
And that it's in moving toward Christ, you sort of become more like that person.
There is that guy inside I know who's supposed to be there.
One of the really fascinating points you talk about is that the church kind of assumed that people might reject its theology, might not believe in miracles, might not believe in angels and the resurrection, but basically that its morality had won the day.
But it turns out Nietzsche was right that once we stopped believing that the actual, there was a shadow there for a while, kind of held up in the air, but it was just floating there and it finally seems to have collapsed.
Why is it?
I mean, I just totally agree with this, that we have to accept the supernatural facts of Christianity in order for the morality to make sense.
Why is that?
Well, I think that's what the Bible itself teaches for a start.
I mean, Paul makes the comment that if Christ is not raised, then our faith is in vain.
So the Bible itself makes the explicit claim that there's a connection between, we might say, historical supernatural events and the truth of the gospel.
And I think Nietzsche is right in his comment when the madman runs into town in the gay science and proclaims God is dead.
And all the polite atheists standing around sort of laugh at him.
They don't know what he's saying.
He says, no, you don't understand what I'm saying.
If God is dead, everything changes.
If God is dead, we might put it this way.
If God is dead, if we're not made in God's image, then we are not exceptional beings.
We're not exceptional creatures.
And then you could jump forward to the 21st century and you have somebody like Peter Singer saying, well, if we're not exceptional human beings, why is it that we think killing infants is wrong when we would kill a calf at the same level of intellectual development for no other reason than we want a decent hamburger?
And Peter Singer really puts his finger on it.
If human beings aren't exceptional, then all of the traditional morality based upon human exceptionism collapses.
And Nietzsche is the man who says, and that exceptionalism is built upon the supernatural reality of God.
If you get rid of God, you've got to get rid of everything else.
And this is why, you know, recently Richard Dawkins makes this comment to the extent that, well, I don't believe in God, but I'm a cultural Christian.
But what he's really saying there is, I like some of the stuff that Christianity gave us, but I don't believe it's true.
Well, Nietzsche's response to that would be, hard luck, sunshine.
If it isn't true, then none of the stuff built upon it is true either.
Faces of Disagreement00:14:31
And as you pointed out in your question, it takes some time for these ideas to migrate from the classrooms of the intellectuals to the streets of Philadelphia.
But we are at a point now, I think, where these ideas have migrated into the popular moral currency of our day.
A great way to get to sleep is Beam Dream.
I have tried it.
It really does ease you into sleep.
And even before I tried it, I went and tested and researched the ingredients.
It's got this all-natural blend of racey, magnesium, l-theanine, apigenin, and melatonin to help you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up refreshed.
And before I would even do the ads, I researched all of them, and they are all recognized as being helpful to falling asleep.
And this also means that this is not just your run-of-the-mill sleep aid.
It's a concoction carefully crafted to help you slip into the sweet embrace of rest without the grogginess that often accompanies other sleep remedies.
Sleep is the foundation of your mental and physical health.
I can't even say it because I only fall asleep when I drink this stuff and then I wake up again.
You must have a consistent nighttime routine to function at your best.
Today, my listeners get a special discount on Beam's Dream Powder, their best-selling hot cocoa for sleep with no added sugar.
It's now available in delicious flavors like cinnamon, cocoa, chocolate, peanut butter.
That's the one I like in mint chip.
Better sleep has never tasted better.
Just mix Bean Dream into hot water or milk, stir or froth with the fun machine they give you and enjoy before bedtime.
If you find yourself battling the bedtime blues, give it a shot.
Your weary self will thank you.
If you want to try Beam's best-selling dream powder, take advantage of 40% off for a limited time when you go to shopbeam.com slash Clavin and use code Clavin at checkout.
That's shopbeam.com slash Clavin with my promo code Clavin for up to 40% off your order.
Now you know how to spell Beam, but do you know how to spell Clavin?
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
No ease.
I just make it look this easy.
There are no ease, extra bad way.
Well, speaking of that, I mean, the last time we talked toward the end of our conversation, we started to talk about sexual deviance and this kind of how prolific it's become.
It's become sort of the elites, the clarity, our cultural, you know, gurus, are basically selling it to us.
I have noticed every day in the New York Times, if not every day, every other day, there is an article about some weird sexual practice and how it has no moral valence.
In the New York Times, sex is the only willed action human beings can take that apparently has absolutely no context, moral context that it takes place in.
And they'll say things like, recently there was an article where they were writing about strangulation as a sexual practice, admitting that it could be dangerous, so they were concerned.
But the woman writing the piece said, I don't want to kink shame or anything shame.
No shame.
Supposed to be any shame.
You can't be doing anything wrong.
So they're selling porn to little children, you know, in school, homosexual porn, but just porn to little children, bad enough.
My question to you is, is this the disease or is it the symptom?
Is this the thing that we have to fix?
Or is there something underneath that that we have to fix?
Yeah, it's a good question.
And I think, hey, I'm English.
I'm going to give you a nice compromised answer here.
I think it's both.
I think it's the disease and the symptom.
I certainly think it's symptomatic of a world where, as you use the term expressive individualism, grips our minds, where to be a human is to act on my inner desires.
And to be prevented from acting on those desires renders me less than authentic.
But we also live in a world where that has come to be focused very much upon sexual activity, that the way of self-expression has become a dominantly sexual one.
And there are historical reasons for that.
And I think, therefore, sexual morality is the area where the battle is going to be most dramatically engaged.
And I would also add, you know, what's interesting about the New York Times is that so much of progressive thinking on this sort of wants to have it both ways.
On the one hand, progressive morality wants to say, well, well, as you say, sexual acts have no moral valence.
We could boil it down to as long as everybody's agreeing to what's going on, that's okay.
Yet at the same time, we know that sexual crimes are worse than other crimes.
I was teaching a class on this this morning to the students and I said, you know, somebody could slap me in the face and do quite a bit of physical damage.
And if the police arrested them, they might be fined.
Maybe they'd go away to prison for a short time.
Somebody could sexually assault me and maybe do less physical damage, but they're going to go away for a long time.
Why?
Because we know that sexual assault is more significant and more damaging than simple physical assault.
And then I asked the students why.
If sex is just one physical activity among others, why do we apply this particular cachet to sexual crimes?
And my answer to that is, it's because we all know at the end of the day that actually sex is more than just a recreational activity.
It connects with the human self and the human identity at the deepest level possible.
And a sexual violation of a person is not simply a violation of the body, like a slap in the face.
It's a violation of the self as well.
It's very, very deep.
So, you know, the New York Times is very interesting.
It gets outraged about Harvey Weinstein and yet, you know, telling us that sex is just recreation.
Well, if sex is just recreation, then Harvey Weinstein is just one physically aggressive person among many.
But no, he's a peculiar kind of monster.
And the New York Times knows that.
Yeah, yeah.
It is truly amazing.
But the blindness, you know, it's interesting.
Recently, Spencer and I are having this email exchange on this substack, the New Jerusalem.
And what we're talking about is transhumanism and faith in this time when they're saying they can improve us and change our bodies and maybe add things to us.
How do we know whether we're moving deeper into our humanity or away from it?
And, you know, I brought this up last time.
My son is gay, openly gay, and in a steady relationship.
And we were talking about the tension between the paradigm, the idea of what a person is, the kind of mythic idea of what a person is, and humanity and about the idea that Jesus is the true myth, as Lewis said.
He is living in the paradigm.
He represents the paradigm, but he also is human and he forgives people who veer off the paradigm.
Is there a problem with that in dealing with people like Spencer, who's a very good man, an incredibly honorable person, a very deeply faithful person, but feels that this is his best way forward and is happy in what he's doing and acts morally within that construct.
And my feeling too, as an artist who hardly knows anybody who's not a freak of some kind, like I'm the only person I know who's like a totally vanilla human being, you know, but who doesn't want to pick on people, you know?
Is there a serious problem for the church in interacting with people like that?
Yeah, I think there is the, I mean, part of the issue is we all tend to deal in abstractions.
And when, you know, when you and I are talking, let's say about the sexual revolution, we're not putting faces to the people involved in that.
We're talking about principles and abstractions.
And it's very tempting, I think, for the church to deal with abstractions without realizing that there are concrete human examples here.
And I got to know Spencer a little bit on email.
I've done a bit of writing for him at the Clermont Institute and found him a very delightful person to interact with.
And I think when you put a face to the issue like that, then it becomes, I won't say theologically more complicated.
I think the principles remain the same.
It becomes more personally difficult to navigate because most of us want to be affirming of other people.
I don't mean affirming in the technical sexual sense, but most of us want to be kind to other people.
Most of us want to be able to affirm other people in who and what they think they are.
When you're faced with somebody that you dearly love and you can't give them, you can't affirm them in the one thing that they really want your affirmation in.
I think it's right that we feel that that's difficult as human beings because that's a reminder to us that we still think of them as a human being.
So I want to suggest, first of all, that the stress and tension we feel in, say, holding the line on this while talking to somebody who profoundly disagrees with us on it, if we feel that tension, that's a good thing because it means we realize we're not dealing with abstractions.
We're dealing with real human beings here.
Second thing, if I was talking to somebody, a friend involved in something like a gay lifestyle, I'd want to go into areas of, well, what does it mean to flourish as a human being?
What does it mean to be truly human?
And maybe look at some of the health statistics, for example, that touch on certain kinds of lifestyles.
But I would always want to do so in a concrete way where the person I was talking to knew that I cared for them as a person.
And if I sort of circle back to my very first point, you know, this is where hospitality is important.
You know, it's easy to scream and shout at each other from either side of a picket line.
It is much more constructive, I think, to be in a real human relationship with somebody and to be able to talk to somebody as a person.
And I'm sure that your engagement with Spencer, which must cause some tension and difficulty at times, but you're never going to treat him as an abstraction because he's your son.
And it's in that kind of context that I think that the hard conversations can be had.
And we can listen to each other and try to find a way forward.
It does seem to be something, I mean, because he gets such abuse from conservative Christians who seem to have memorized Paul's condemnation of homosexuality, but have never read Jesus' preachments on charity and love.
You know, it's just like interesting skipping around the Bible.
But there is this thing about the privacy of people's lives where you just, I myself have never been comfortable judging the privacy of people's lives.
And yet I go to a very conservative church, but I would never bring that kind of condemnation into my dealings with all the people around me.
I mean, I just feel like if they have a problem and they come to me, I might say the way I feel about it.
But if they don't, there is a certain live and let live idea that seems to me built into Christianity.
Or am I wrong?
Yes.
And I think there's a certain element there that I don't think the New Testament teaches us that as Christians, we're meant to be going out and getting in everybody's face about everything all the time.
I was on a panel at Grove City last night and the issue of evangelism came up.
And I pointed to the students to, I said, you know, evangelism is the task of the church.
Not everybody has the gift for walking up somebody in the high street they don't know and sharing the gospel.
But that's okay because it's the task of the church.
And some people do have that gift.
And I pointed to the verse that says, you know, be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within you.
And I said, that means that maybe you're sitting in a cafe and you're chatting to a friend and they suddenly ask you, why are you so cheerful in this very dark period of your life?
I said, that context, they're opening a way for you to talk to them.
And I see that very much as a kind of principle for the sort of thing you're talking about.
I don't see it as my task to go to every gay person I know and get in their face about their gayness.
But if a gay person I know says, hey, and I've had this mess, I'd like to sit down and talk to you about why you think the way you do.
I want to know why you address these issues in this manner.
And I think that's an opportunity.
Sadly, we live in a world where, it was interesting you use the language of private life there.
We live in a world where private life is very difficult now because everybody performs everything in public on social media.
So the old safety mechanisms of, okay, well, what goes on behind closed doors?
I don't know about it and I don't have to address it.
The loss of the private sphere, I think, is very significant.
And not just in the realm of sexual ethics, I think in the realm of political disagreements and all kinds of other things.
The need to perform the private in public is an unfortunate aspect of 21st century life.
That's a really good point.
It does change the nature of even private life that there is no private life, basically.
Yes.
Yeah.
So you're writing about what the church needs to do.
Can the church come back in our hyper-scientific world, I guess?
I mean, my reading of science, and Spencer, I don't know if I guess he hasn't shown it to anybody yet, but Spencer has written a brilliant, brilliant book about the changing face of science in regard to faith.
But in my reading of science, we've actually moved back toward faith, but the public hasn't caught up with that.
Can the church come back into this world where you can have yourself operated on and become entirely different?
Does the church have a way of speaking into this world that the world can understand?
Yeah, that's a very interesting and a very difficult question.
I think of the sections of the brothers Karamazov on this.
Think of Ivan's great speech, not so much the Grand Inquisitor, but the chapter before that, Rebellion, where he's talking about human suffering.
And there's a sense you can read that chapter in terms of he's saying, you know, he uses the language of Euclidean geometry, saying, I'm a Euclidean scientific kind of guy, and I cannot come up with an explanation for suffering.
I do think that we are aware today that the biggest questions we face in life are ones that science doesn't deliver an answer to.
Ivan's Rebellion00:06:28
Now, that doesn't mean that we always ask them.
In COVID, it was very interesting that the phrase the experts say always meant medical experts.
And they were there telling you how to save lives, never telling you why lives were worth saving.
We miss that part.
But I do think things like COVID raise some interesting questions that allow us to make those points and to point to the limitations of science.
Now, the bigger question of things like transhumanism, I think this is where the church can play a critical role because medicine can be good.
Just because you get cancer, it's great to be able to be healed of cancer.
Now, so we have technology that we could say can stop nature in its tracks, and we would say that's a good thing.
The question, of course, is where does the stopping of nature in its tracks end from being a good thing and become a bad thing?
And I think to make that judgment, you have to have a normative understanding of what it means to be a human being.
So, you know, if you think that human beings are normatively have two legs and a human being is born with one leg, I have no problem in providing that human being with a second prosthetic leg.
We are restoring something that should be there but isn't there.
The question comes, when do you cross the line from, I would say, restoration of true humanity into transformation into something that isn't humanity.
And that's a difficult line to draw, I think.
But we're going to stand no chance whatsoever of drawing that line unless we have some way of understanding what normative humanity is.
And that's a theological question.
That's not a scientific question.
Science can tell you how.
Theology tells you what.
So I'm actually hopeful that we may see some positive conversations emerging in the next generation relative to religion.
And you can see this as somebody like Dawkins effectively saying, science can't answer the big questions that I'm now worried about.
So I want to grab those bits of Christianity that are helpful.
I'm going to leave the God bit to one side, but I'm going to grab the rest of the stuff.
I think we could be living in a moment when there are going to be some very interesting conversations developing.
And that's where I think the church needs to be focused, particularly at this point in time, on thinking about what does it mean to be human?
We need to go back to the very kind of questions that C.S. Lewis was raising in his little book, The Abolition of Man, in the 1940s, and think about how we can address those.
I'm not necessarily thinking about the head of the National Institute for Health, but when our friends and neighbors come and ask us questions, that's where we need to have a good answer for them.
Yeah, this is my last question.
I'm sorry to dump a complicated one on you at the end, but it kind of brings everything together that you've been talking about.
When you were talking about Ivan, one of the things Ivan says is he says I believe in God.
I just, I'm not willing to play in his game because of the suffering.
But there seems a difference here that people instinctively now, or whatever, culturally, when you say to them, the first thing people asked me when I told them that I had become a Christian was, do you believe in the resurrection?
Because they thought like, you're not that crazy, are you?
You know, you can't be that silly.
And as you said before, without that, you really do not have the moral structure.
The moral structure is actually standing on the shoulders of that.
Is there a voice in which the church can speak, they can communicate that to a people living in this hyper-scientific age?
Well, I think so.
And I think in part that comes down to the fact we need to remember always that the church is not just one natural human organization among others.
The church is supernatural.
And I think as Christians, we believe in the supernatural.
We believe that God can act supernaturally here and now.
That faith is ultimately the result of God's supernatural action upon us.
As an Anglo-Catholic, Andrew, you have a high view not only of the word of God, but also the sacraments as well.
And that we don't see these things as merely the equivalent of a drinking club or an all-male choir or some other group that we might join in order to feel good and feel part of a community.
We genuinely believe that God acts supernaturally in and through his words and in through his sacraments.
So I'd want to lay that down as a foundation and say we don't need to worry too much about everything resting on our shoulders because God has attached certain promises to his word that I think we can rely on.
Having said that, I think God also normally works through means.
And that means that we should have good answers when people speak to us.
And again, think of the brothers Karamazov.
You have Ivan's great speeches, but then you have Father Zozimus remains there as well.
And I taught this just yesterday as Zozimer is really answering Ivan in many ways.
He's pointing to beauty in the world.
He's saying, you know, it's not just about children suffering.
There's tremendous beauty in this world.
There's tremendous good in this world.
There are things such as love and forgiveness that one cannot simply reduce to Euclidean geometry.
And they're good and beautiful things.
And I think a lot of those things give us, I would say can give us ways of, put it this way, bringing people into the church, seeking community, seeking love, seeking beauty, and then finding themselves under the supernatural preaching of the word of God.
So I would say in some ways, our game is, you know, we can persuade no one, but what we can do is bring people. under the means of grace.
And that's where I think our hope lies.
It's a great answer.
I've always said that I think that they always publish the Grand Inquisitor chapter of Brothers Karamazov without publishing the Zosimo chapters, which are in fact an answer.
It really is interesting.
Carl Truman, if you haven't read The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, terrific Crisis of Confidence is the new one, restoring the historic faith in a culture consumed with individualism and identity.
It's great to see you, Carl.
Thank you so much for coming on.
It's been a pleasure, Andrew.
Always great to talk to him.
Just a brilliant, brilliant guy.
If you haven't read his books, you have to.
If you want to see another brilliant guy, come to the Andrew Clavin Show because I'll be there.