Josh Hawley argues that “man’s mission” is to combat evil. Defining men in this way makes evil necessary, and it transforms every political, social, and cultural disagreement into a moral conflict of cosmic significance. In this episode, Dan shows how this leads Hawley to distort the “modern culture” and “liberals” he opposes. He also looks at the ways in which Hawley, and those who share his worldview, accuse their opponents of doing exactly the same things they do in practice, and he discusses why understanding this is so important. Take a listen to hear more!
Subscribe for $5.99 a month to get bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 1000+ episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/StraightWhiteJC
Order Brad's book: https://bookshop.org/a/95982/9781506482163
Subscribe to Teología Sin Vergüenza
Subscribe to American Exceptionalism
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
And even though my dad tried to fix it, nothing would work.
Unlike my bike, Policy Genius can help give your family a gift that could last a lifetime.
Security.
Policy Genius makes securing your future easier and more affordable than you might think.
Policy Genius has thousands of five-star reviews on Google and TrustPilot from customers who found the best policy fit for their needs.
Secure your future before the new year begins.
Lock in your life insurance today.
The licensed team at Policy Genius will help you get what you need fast so you can get on with your life.
Policy Genius helps you find your most affordable policy that meets your needs.
With Policy Genius, real users have gotten 20-year, 2 million policies for just $53 a month.
Don't wait until next year.
Give your family the gift of security today.
Head to policygenius.com to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save.
That's policygenius.com.
Hello and welcome to It's in the Code.
Series is part of the podcast, Straight White American Jesus.
My name is Dan Miller, professor of religion and social thought at Lamar College.
Pleased to be with you as always.
And as always, want to begin by saying thank you to all of you who listen, all of you who support us in so many ways, subscribers, everybody who tells other people about us, all of those of you who, if you're not a subscriber, but you have supported us in other ways, we thank you so much.
We cannot do it without you.
This series in particular is driven by you and your ideas and your feedback.
So I want to invite that.
Please reach out to me, Daniel MillerSwadge, Daniel Miller, S-W-A-J at gmail.com.
Feedback and response to episodes, ideas for new episodes, topics, questions, series, anything and everything is fair game.
Have some things built out for the future.
Always looking for more.
And again, can't do it without you.
So thank you so much.
And without further ado, I want to dive in today.
We are continuing just to kind of situate where we are, continuing our exploration of what the sort of cultural slash religious slash political right envisions under the banner of manhood and masculinity.
And we've been doing this by looking at Senator Josh Hawley's book by that title, Manhood.
And we've been spending time in the second chapter.
Actually, I think it's the third chapter.
I think I misled myself in my notes.
I think it's the third chapter of the book called A Man's Battle.
And we're going to finish our discussion of that chapter in this episode.
And I think it's worth remembering where we've been because we've been here for a little while and it's going to be relevant as we come into the topic I want to kind of hit on today.
Last episode, we spent time looking at the God that Holly worships.
Holly positions this whole thing as this kind of Christian social vision.
And so I was looking at the question of like, who is this God that he worships?
And I suggested that his is a God who is defined by power and radical insecurity, a radically insecure God.
And again, we're not looking at Holly because he's unique.
His God's not the only one like this.
That God of high control American Christianity is radically powerful and radically insecure.
And I try to show that that's a terrible mix.
Okay.
And I did have a looking at the passages he suggests, the passages he points us to to try to understand the nature of that God.
And I said that we find a divinity who is so worried and so insecure about human beings challenging his status and power that he's willing to go to extreme lengths to keep them in their place, which is to say to make sure that they stay below him.
So we talk about the snake leading the first man or woman astray by telling them the truth, essentially.
And so God punishes the human couple, the first humans who build a city.
And God's like, oh, if we let them get with this, they might be able to do anything.
So he scatters them and curses them and so forth.
Okay.
And in the episode before that, we looked at the nature of the battle Holly suggests defines men.
Again, this chapter is man's battle.
And so what is that chap, that battle that defines men?
And again, he hasn't had anything so far to say about women at all.
It's the battle against chaos and evil, which are the same thing for Holly.
Disorder is by definition evil.
Got to hold on to that idea.
That's an idea that I think is going to move forward all the way through this book is that basically he's going to say anything that challenges the established social order is bad.
It's evil because the social order is put in place by God.
Okay.
That's what he's going to say.
Haven't read the book yet.
I'm only reading it as we go, but I'd bet money.
That's what he's going to say.
And so I said in that first episode on this chapter that that makes evil necessary, that the meaning and purpose of men is to fight against and confront evil.
There has to be evil to fight.
He just made evil necessary.
And I suggested that the result of this is that people like Holly will find evil everywhere.
And I think that's significant for a lot of reasons.
But I think the most pressing one here is that that view, that view that there has to be evil, it transforms every disagreement about politics or policy or spending or culture or whatever into this kind of cosmic battle between good and evil.
Everything is escalated.
And in a world like Holly's, we can't only have simple like political opponents.
It can't just be that somebody has different political views than you or different cultural views than you, even deep-seated, significant differences.
No, they can't just be difference.
They have to be evil and we have to be good.
You're constructing a society where those are your options.
And that view transforms what could be robust political or cultural discussions and real debate and real sharing of views and so forth into all or nothing battles to the political and cultural death.
That's what it does.
And so for that reason, a worldview like Holly's, and I think everyone on the right who shares that worldview, I find that worldview inherently violent.
Why?
Because violent confrontation is the only remedy for social and political conflict.
All you can do when confronted with evil is eradicate it.
That's the heart of his view.
And as we've talked about before, we're going to see it in this episode.
Everybody he calls liberals, everybody for liberal, liberals for Holly is everybody who's not him, everybody who doesn't share his views, everybody who's not a MAGA touting Christian nationalist is a quote unquote liberal.
They are evil.
They should be eradicated.
That's his view.
That to me is inherently violent.
Because anything less would represent a capitulation to evil.
So that's where we've been so far in this chapter.
Those are the themes we've looked at.
And it's this dynamic, okay, the dynamic of needing evil to combat and of therefore transforming social and political opponents into evil enemies that have to be combated at all costs.
That's the dynamic I want to pick up on and kind of carry forward today.
Because in this chapter, the last sort of theme in this chapter I want to look at, we see exactly that dynamic at work.
And Holly continues his work of transforming liberals, quote unquote, every time you hear the word liberals here, it belongs in quotes.
He uses that word a lot.
And again, he means everybody who doesn't support his MAGA-infused Christian nationalist political theory and social theory.
He transforms everybody into evil adversaries to be confronted at all costs.
And so in Christian terms that I think Holly would understand, he literally demonizes his opponents.
We use that language all the time of demonizing your opponents, but here you are literally transforming them into enemies of God.
And what could be worse than an enemy of God?
And I think here there are two elements that are worth noting.
And neither of them is going to be surprising.
If you've been kind of following along as we've discussed this, maybe you've read Holly's book.
Maybe you've just paid attention to the discourses on the right in contemporary culture.
No matter what, we're going to see how all this works for him.
And these themes aren't going to be surprising.
The first is that he has to present a caricature of those he opposes.
Why?
Well, the so-called liberals, he simplified the complexity of the social and political world, which is real, the complexity.
He has simplified it into the dichotomy of good and evil.
And so he can't acknowledge any ambiguity.
He certainly can't find anything of value.
He can't say, well, you know what?
Liberals recognize is this, but they go around doing it the wrong way.
Or, you know, what conservatives do well is this, but we're bad at this and we could learn from the liberals.
He can't do something like that because anybody to the left of him socially, which is the majority of Americans, is evil.
They're enemies of God.
They're demonic.
And the second theme, which I think is related, is what I'm just calling the projection on his part.
You could call it projection.
You could call it hypocrisy.
You could call it a double standard, but I'm going to call it projection.
That is, what he routinely accuses liberals of doing are the very things that he and those who share his worldview do.
So he accuses them of doing things that he does all the time, including in this chapter and in this book.
We're going to talk about that.
So if Holly wants to define those aspects as evil, fine, whatever.
But he should take a good long look in the mirror because he's doing the same things.
So let's take a look at this.
Okay.
So I want to start briefly where Holly's been spending a lot of his time.
The story in Genesis, the story of Adam, the first human man, and all of that.
And for Holly, Adam failed in his mission to oppose evil.
Man's mission is to oppose evil.
And right from the get-go, Adam fails.
He let down his guard, Holly says.
He let the snake into the garden.
The Bible never says that the snake came into the garden from somewhere else.
It says it's one of the creatures that God created, all that stuff.
Talked about that a little bit in prior episodes.
But he let the snake into the garden and he gave into the temptation to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the one that God said not to eat from.
And in doing so, he let evil loose in the world.
Now, Holly says he didn't create evil, but he sort of turned it loose.
And this is what traditional Christians, conservative Christians like Holly call the fall, the entrance to sort of sin into the world.
Why does all that matter?
Well, because for Holly, he says that Adam's essential failure was inaction.
He failed to do what God called him to do.
This is what he says.
He says, Adam chooses the path of least resistance, which is to say, he does nothing as men are often tempted to do.
And the consequences are catastrophic, not only for Adam, not only for men, not even for the whole human race, but I think even more importantly for Holly, they're catastrophic for America.
And we'll see that as we go along.
So Adam, in doing nothing and then lying to God about it and saying initially that they didn't eat from the tree, and then he blames Eve and so forth, Adam essentially abdicates his responsibility.
He flees from the responsibility God has given him.
Why does that matter to Holly?
Because that, just like Adam, that's what liberals do.
Liberals do that.
He says, Holly says, the question is, what are we going to do about it?
All this evil and so forth.
And here, liberals who somehow control everything, like this is another thing you get, these discourses of the right is like liberals have this, this almost omnipotence, despite the fact that they don't control any of the branches of government, despite the fact that they don't control the judiciary, despite the fact that they can't seem to like get a clear vision of what it is they want to do in the world and so forth.
There's always this notion that they kind of control everything.
Okay.
So he says, liberals follow Adam in abdicating their responsibility.
He says, our modern culture.
Sorry, another aside here.
Christians like Holly, they always present themselves as somehow not being part of culture.
They always contrast them with culture as if culture is something that they're not a part of.
Anyway, he says, our modern culture absolves us of personal responsibility and urges us. to blame someone or something else.
This from a dude who blames a snake for bringing evil out into the world and who blames women following a long misogynistic Christian tradition, it's Eve that the snake first talks to and then she tells Adam to eat of the fruit.
And then Adam tells God, says this woman you put here with me fed me the fruit.
So this guy whose whole origin story is about blaming someone else, he says, liberals absolve us of personal responsibility, urge us to blame someone or something else, society perhaps, or the system.
And then he says that this abdication of personal responsibility is today's gospel.
He goes on and says this.
We hear it rehearsed in school lessons and television shows and self-help books and movies.
We hear it in the cadences of modern liberalism, which contends that the greatest evils to be defeated are found in social structures, structures in quote, social structures like the family or Christianity or manhood, end quote.
Okay.
Holly says more, but that's about all I can take.
And it gives us plenty to look at.
Because both themes that I mentioned, they're already on display in those statements.
We're already getting at how this actually works.
So he says, first, that all the evils confronting us at present are laid at the feet of modern culture and liberals.
And in trying to bring this indictment against modern culture and liberals, and I'm really hammering on those words for a reason, he repeatedly projects his own views and actions onto those opponents.
So let's start with this notion of responsibility.
Holly says that by emphasizing things like structural inequalities or systemic racism or social justice or whatever, liberals and modern culture are denying personal responsibility.
If that sounds familiar, it's because it is.
We hear this all the time from the right.
This is a piece of traditional GOP talking point material that has been with us for decades.
The problem is it's just false.
And anybody who cares to actually think about these issues and would actually talk to the people that Holly is busy demonizing would know this.
There is no shortage of people to the left of Holly who absolutely fundamentally believe, and I'll put myself in this camp, absolutely, fundamentally believe that it is necessary for every individual to work for an American future that is more equitable and just.
Absolutely believe in changing structures and institutions.
There's no shortage of individuals to hold responsible for the way the world is either, and it is a responsibility of individuals.
So there you go, Josh Hawley.
A liberal just said it.
But here's the point.
Holly already knows that.
Holly and everybody like him, they already know that.
And that is why they are working to erase African American history or lessons about slavery or education about sexuality and gender or whatever from public life and most specifically from education at every level.
They know that the people who disagree with them believe in individual responsibility and shaping individuals, which is why they're responding the way that they are.
And it's why they're targeting all of those kind of public venues and institutions and educational, educational models and everything else, because they know that those are where the moral lives of individuals are shaped.
So liberals, as Holly defines them, they teach these things.
We teach these things because we want our children and the public to learn these things so we can have a society of more informed and moral individuals, more civic-minded individuals.
And they know this.
They wouldn't target what they target if they didn't know this.
Jumping ahead of myself, I'll also point out what are they targeting?
Institutions and structures, higher ed, education models, the Department of Education, the Office of Civil Rights Enforcement, all of those things.
Don't target all of those and then pretend the institutions and structures aren't real and that you don't have a problem with them and that you don't think that they shape individuals.
They know, Holly knows full damn well the liberals are not what he says that they are.
So Hawley and people on the right generally, they like to say that those they demonize and oppose don't believe in individual accountability, but they attack them in the way they do because they know that isn't the case.
And in fact, I'm going to go further and say the reason they attack them, the reason they respond the way they do is because they feel that they as individuals are being attacked by quote unquote culture or liberals.
Of course they know that the people they oppose believe in individual accountability because the people they oppose are trying to call them into account as the individuals they are.
So when Holly goes whining and crying and says, they don't believe in individual accountability, he knows that they do.
He's a liar.
He knows it.
He's just trying to make us think that he doesn't.
Okay?
So it is simply not the case that culture or liberals are not fighting to remake American politics and culture into something they see as moral, just, and inclusive.
It's not true that they're not doing that.
It's not true that they don't focus on individuals.
They don't believe, typically, that everything can be explained only in terms of individual beliefs and behaviors, but they absolutely hold individuals and specifically individuals with views like Holly's responsible.
Absolutely.
So it's just, it's just not true.
Okay.
So Holly's definition of them is just evil.
They're just evil.
Evil incarnate.
It is both defensive and completely self-serving.
He says that they're evil because, like Adam, they don't want to do anything.
They're inactive.
They're not taking action.
They're not holding individuals responsible.
He knows it's false, number one.
And number two, the reason he's saying it is because it's self-serving.
He accuses them of abdicating their responsibility.
Why?
To deny his own responsibility, to deny the responsibility of the right, to deny the responsibility of the people that he's writing for, the people he represents, both in Congress and as he writes his book.
And this is one of those instances.
So all of that's the demonizing of your opponents.
Here's an instance of what I'm calling that projection that I promised we talked about.
He projects his abdication of responsibility, the abdication of responsibility that has defined the political and religious right for generations onto liberals and modern culture.
Hell, the American religious right started because of a defense of segregation.
It started in an effort to abdicate any responsibility for racial justice and to put it onto somebody or someplace else.
That's what he's doing.
So he projects that.
He says, oh, they're abdicating their responsibility as a mechanism for abdicating his own responsibility.
And sort of, I'm saying Holly stands in here for the rest of the right that does the same thing.
So in doing this, again, he levels that most trite and empty attack on the right that, you know, he essentially mocks liberals and modern culture for being critical of systems and structures.
But here we see that projection even more clearly.
And this drives me nuts.
And if you've listened to me, you watch me, you know my tells, you know this drives me crazy.
And you've probably picked up on this by now.
It blows my mind that Josh Hawley with a straight face or anybody like Josh Hawley can affirm something like individual responsibility and condemn people who blame systems and structures.
It blows my mind that he can do that with a straight face.
It blows my mind that people like him can continue to say this without a sense of irony.
I really do think that he says it without a sense of irony.
And here's why it's mind-blowing.
His entire social vision is built upon a condemnation of systems and structures.
His entire book, this entire book, where is it?
Here it is.
This entire book that we are looking at, his entire model in here is built on a condemnation of what he calls systems and structures.
He never looks to individuals for the cause of American malaise, for the problems that confront America.
He never looks to individuals.
He always looks to systems and structures.
So let's just look at a few obvious examples of that.
Here's one.
It's why I've been emphasizing the phrase, modern culture.
What could possibly represent more of a system or structure to condemn than something as abstract and amorphous as modern culture?
What exactly is this, Josh Hawley?
He doesn't tell us.
How do Christians like Hawley exist without it being complicit in it?
Josh Hawley, how are you able to live in the world as a modern person and not be infected by modern culture?
Doesn't tell us.
When did it become modern?
What does modern mean here?
We don't really know.
He does kind of intimate this at a few places.
I haven't talked about this a lot.
I think it'll come up again, where he routinely talks about the Roman Empire.
So you often get this notion for the Christians that somehow, like, after the Roman Empire, everything went downhill.
So maybe he's going there.
I don't know.
So that's one.
Modern culture.
There's a system.
Here's another one.
You ready for it?
Liberalism.
Anytime someone critiques an ideology, as Hawley does, and speaks of it as a way of as a kind of person, liberalism thinks this.
Liberalism teaches that.
Liberalism does this.
Liberalism tells us, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
They're critiquing a system.
Hawley is critiquing a system throughout this.
He calls it liberalism.
He calls it modern culture.
He calls it Epicureanism.
Whatever he wants to call it, it's a system.
Or how about, wait for these, the concepts of manhood or masculinity, the core concepts of his book.
Those are abstract terms.
They have no reference to specific individuals.
He's not just talking about individuals.
He's talking about a system or a structure.
The whole point of his theory is that he's not just talking about individuals.
It has to be.
Why?
Because he's putting forward a universal theory, a theory that he says holds for all human beings, that holds for all men, that holds for all American men.
So he can't just talk about individuals.
He has to talk about manhood as such.
Folks, that's a system or a structure.
So over and over and over again, Hawley's entire theory is presented as a critique, or in some cases, an affirmation of institutions and systems and structures.
He couldn't have a book or a theory without it.
And again, this isn't unique to Hawley.
The discourse of the right is like this all the time.
Just listen to them next time they talk and they blame people, whether it's wokeness or Antifa or whatever.
These things that are not individuals, they're not even identifiable organizations.
They're abstract systems, structures, beliefs, what have you.
They do this all the time.
So his problem with those he demonizes, it's not really that we critique systems while he holds to individual responsibility.
No, it's that he doesn't like which systems we're critical of.
He's right.
I'm critical of his view of the family.
I am critical of his view of Christianity.
I am critical of his view of masculinity.
I am critical of his view of manhood.
I am critical of almost everything about the social model he puts forward.
He's absolutely correct.
But it's not because I'm not talking about individuals and he is.
It's because he likes and benefits from the systems and structures of which people like me are critical.
That's the issue.
That's the projection that I'm talking about.
Okay?
One final point I want to do here in terms of this projection or this way that, again, you could call it hypocrisy, the way that he's critical of something he does all the time, sort of to blind us to what he's doing.
He also mentioned it again, but he's done this throughout.
It's a weird move to me.
He links liberalism as he defines it to the ancient philosophy of Epicureanism.
And he specifically links it to Epicurus' understanding of the gods.
Okay, this philosopher Epicurus.
And he says correctly, he notes that Epicurus had little use for the gods.
Epicurus did not have a vision of like the Christian God.
He didn't really like the gods.
He felt like if the gods were present, they were distant and so forth.
And he says that the chief role of appeal to the gods, when people appeal to the gods, all they're really trying to do is inspire terror in the part of human beings.
That's what Holly says about Epicurus, and he's right.
That's a very Epicurean perspective.
Epicurus said that.
His later Roman interpreter Lucretius says that and so forth.
Okay.
So he's critical.
He's going to say, there's a bad view of God.
He says all that the gods for is to terrorize people.
Talk about projection?
What the hell else is Holly's appeal to God but an effort to inspire terror?
He proves Epicurus' point all the way through his book.
His God creates a world where we are constantly threatened by evil.
Evil is a constant pervasive threat.
And I'm sorry, this is an old, debate in Christianity.
Where does evil come from?
And Christians usually want to make God not responsible for evil.
But I'm sorry, if you're going to create humans and make us other purposes to fight evil and combat evil, then evil has to be there.
Evil has to be as primordial as God.
It has to define what God is.
So God creates a world where we're constantly threatened by evil.
His God stands ready to punish us for anything he arbitrarily decides as a departure from his will.
How's that for inspiring terror?
His God creates human beings with innate desires and propensities and then condemns them to eternal torment if they follow through on them.
I've talked about this before.
You want to talk about a disproportionate response?
No finite act could earn an eternal punishment.
It's just, it's so disproportionate.
It'll literally be like doing something in the blink of an eye and spending the rest of a human life in torment, except that the torment never ends.
It makes no sense.
And we've already talked about how capricious this God is.
Remember, he talks about the first human civilization that's irredeemably wicked.
What did they do?
They built a city.
That's what the Bible said.
They built a city.
So God's like, nope, God can't have that.
Can't have that.
Nope, they built a city.
It's his God.
And we're going back to an early episode.
Remember when he said that, you know, we all have a purpose, but there was that whole problem that the Bible doesn't actually tell us what that purpose is.
It's to be like a co-creator with God and so on.
Be like, cool, but like, what does that mean?
We get no clear answers to that, but we can be condemned for not getting it right.
So everything Holly condemns Epicurus for, right?
And the supposed ethos of liberalism and modern culture, that he all calls, you know, Epicurean, everything he condemns it for is exactly what his own system is built on, the terror of God.
But to an exponentially greater degree, for Epicurus, at least, he would say people like terrorize the vision of the God for worldly power or whatever.
I think Josh Hawley is a believer.
I think he really believes that if you don't get it right, God is going to torture you for eternity.
That's a shitty view.
It's a shitty God.
It's a terror-inspiring God.
It's the purpose of that God.
And Hawley has the gumption to say, oh, Epicurus believes that God's just about inspiring terror, all the while weaving a tale in this book of the terrors that will befall us if we don't obey his God.
The entire Christian edifice upon which Holly builds, again, it's not an edifice he created.
This is high control American Christianity.
It is in the code.
It is baked in to that religious model.
The entire edifice is structured around fear and terror.
Everything on the contemporary right is structured around fear and terror.
And the more somebody ties that to the Christian religion, the more pronounced that is.
So these two themes, Holly has to demonize his enemies and present a caricature of them that just doesn't line up with reality.
And the things he's most critical of people who don't agree with him for doing, he's just projecting onto them his own actions.
He's projecting, and this is a standard thing that the right always does.
It's been intensified in the Trump years.
Trump always takes like whatever criticism there's leveled at him and he levels it on somebody else.
You want to say I'm a racist, you're a racist.
You want to say I'm not smart, you're not smart.
It's that kind of thing all the way down.
So we need to wrap this up.
Let's take stock for just a minute, okay?
Holly offers a social, political, and theological account that requires enemies.
And it has to define those enemies as evil.
And so in defining them this way, he necessarily distorts their interests, their teaching, their core components, their ideology, et cetera.
This may surprise folks.
I can sit down with somebody who's conservative and we can talk.
I can empathize with them.
And I can hear the real concerns that they're responding to.
And we could have a discussion, if they're willing to do it, about why it is that I think that their responses to those concerns are not well-founded.
Or in cases, maybe why I think those real concerns aren't as pressing as they think.
I could do that.
Holly can't because everybody's an enemy.
Everybody's evil.
He has to distort their teachings.
And that's not going to be surprising to anybody who follows the cultural and political battles being fought in America at the present.
What Holly shows us in his book is a part of why that is and a part of why that is so intractable of how deeply set that kind of move and that kind of ideology is.
But what I think is more interesting, and that's maybe the obvious piece.
Somebody listening to this or watching this, you're like, well, thanks, Dan.
No kidding that the people on contemporary right demonize people on the left.
Okay.
But the more interesting point for me is the way in which they construct their enemies in their own image.
They construct their enemies as doing exactly what they're doing.
They see in their enemies what they should see in themselves.
And I think that's their abdication of responsibility.
I think it's a way that prevents them from not only viewing or understanding their own shortcomings, but from making sure that nobody can give voice to them.
And again, I'll just direct you to all the work that goes on in the right right now in censoring what it is that we can talk and supposedly even think about in this society.
That's it for this chapter.
Got one more chapter in this section of Holly's book.
He breaks his book up into two main sections.
And I think this first section, the first four chapters, is this like kind of overview.
It is, for lack of a better way of saying it, his theological anthropology.
That is his account of the nature of specifically man and men, but the human person.
And so we're going to pick up in chapter four, next episode, man's promise.
I've only skimmed the chapter so far.
I'm kind of waiting for a clear statement of what that promise is.
We'll see what it is.
It has something to do with leadership.
Look forward to talking about it with you.
Until then, again, thank you for listening.
Thank you for supporting us.
We mean that.
Please tune into the things that we do.
This series, obviously, you're listening to it.
The weekly roundup, the interviews that Brad does on Mondays, the live streams that we do, lots of new things coming out all the time, stuff with Access Mooney Media, the things we continue to develop with Straightwide American Jesus.
Please keep listening.
Keep telling friends.
Keep telling others.
If you're not a subscriber and that's something that you might be in a position to do, I would humbly ask you to consider doing that.
And again, Daniel Miller Swedge, Daniel Miller, S-W-A-J at gmail.com.
Would love to hear from you about anything related to the series or anything else.
As always, please be well until we get a chance to talk again.
