Dan Miller analyzes Senator Josh Hawley's book Manhood, exposing how the host sanitizes Joshua's biblical command for ethnic cleansing by recasting Canaanites as mythological monsters. Miller argues this rhetorical strategy dehumanizes enemies to justify violence, linking masculinity to the destruction of opposition and forcing a dilemma where affirming biblical inerrance requires accepting divine genocide. Ultimately, the episode reveals how Christian nationalist circles use such narratives to reinforce authoritarian violence under the guise of fighting chaos. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello and welcome to It's In The Code, a series as part of the podcast Straight White American Jesus.
My name is Dan Miller, professor of religion and social thought at Landmark College.
Pleased to be with you, as always.
And as always, thank you for listening.
Thank you for chipping in.
Thank you for sharing the ideas.
Thank you for sharing the feedback.
Thanks for those who participated in my office hours.
All these different things.
Can't do it without you.
Thank you so much.
I want to dive into this week's episode.
We are continuing to learn about the contours and characteristics of authentic manhood.
Of course, that's why you listen to this.
You want to know about authentic manhood.
And we are learning from our guide, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley.
And we have been exploring his book by that title, Manhood, and have begun looking at the specific roles that he says men are called to play.
And we are continuing another episode on the third of these roles, that of warrior.
It tells us the men are called to be warriors.
Started talking about this last episode.
We're going to continue today.
And in this context, when someone on the right says that men are called to be warriors and they insist, as Holly does, that they're drawing their images of masculinity from the Bible, there's one name that looms especially large.
If you grew up in this context and somebody starts talking about warriors, there's a name that sort of stands out here and that you know about and that you can be aware of.
And here it comes.
It's the name Joshua.
Not Joshua Hawley, not Josh Hawley.
We're not talking about that Josh.
We're talking about the Joshua from the Bible.
And it is the biblical figure of Joshua and the stories around him that represent for many people who are into this vision of warrior manhood.
I would say militant manhood.
And we're going to get into that today's episode, but we're going to revisit this next episode as well.
If there's one name that comes up, it's this figure, Joshua.
He is the quintessential example of this.
And so for somebody like Josh Hawley or Uncle Ron or your pastor or anybody else who's going to talk about, you know, you say, well, show me who the warrior is in the Bible.
Joshua is a great example.
Biblical Joshua and Masculine Virtues00:15:24
Okay.
So that's what he's talking about.
If you happen to know anything about the story of Joshua, I mean, if you don't, I'm going to fill you in.
I'm going to give you a quick rundown in case you're like, I don't know what you're talking about with Joshua or I haven't been to church in 40 years or whatever.
Okay.
I'll fill you in.
But if you happen to know anything about the story of Joshua, you probably already know why this is a really problematic appeal to make.
And it's so problematic that it's something that we have to talk about.
I mean, I really, sometimes I run into these things and I'm like, this is such a predictable critique.
The critiques of appealing to Joshua, again, if you're sitting here listening to it and you're like, well, yeah, everybody knows what the problem with Joshua is or the problems.
It feels really predictable, but there are other times where you're like, you know what?
I just feel almost like morally obligated.
I have to talk about the problems of Josh Hawley, our Joshua, talking about the biblical Joshua.
Okay.
So that's what we're going to talk about.
It's just not an issue I'm willing to ignore.
So we're going to take a dive into that today.
And I think we're going to uncover some things that are really important.
So for those of you who might not be familiar, or maybe you've got other things to do besides remembering parts of the Hebrew Bible, or maybe you didn't grow up in church or whatever, here's a quick rundown on this guy, Joshua, that we're talking about and the biblical book that is named after him and some important context.
Okay.
So here's the Bible story in sort of broad contours up to the point where we are.
The Bible story is that the descendants of Abraham, same guy that Holly talks about, he's Holly's model of a father and a husband.
Abraham eventually does have a family and he does have lots of descendants and so forth.
They did become numerous, but they eventually leave their land behind and they go into Egypt because there's a famine.
There's a whole story and it's Joseph and his brothers and all that stuff.
If you are familiar with it or remember it or want to go look that up.
And over time, centuries, they essentially become slaves in Egypt.
They become Egyptian slaves.
And so eventually God raises up a leader.
That's this guy, Moses, another famous figure in the Hebrew Bible, raises up a leader to lead them out of captivity back to the so-called promised land, essentially going to return the people to the land of Abraham.
So they're delivered from Egypt, and that's the 10 plagues and the parting of the Red Sea and all this kind of stuff.
If you're of a certain age and you remember Charlton Heston or the animated movie, what was a prince of Egypt or something like that?
It's those stories.
So the people are delivered from Egypt, but they're disobedient to God.
And so they're forced to wander in the wilderness for 40 years.
Basically, the generation that came out of Egypt is punished by not actually getting to the promised land.
So they wander around the desert for 40 years.
In the meantime, Moses, their leader, he gets on God's bad size, bad side, pardon me.
God tells him to speak to a rock so it will have water come out of it.
And he gets upset and he hits it with his stick instead.
And so God says, up, sorry, Moses, you don't get to go to the promised land.
So he doesn't need to go to the promised land.
So at the end of the 40 years, Moses' second in command, this guy Joshua, becomes the leader of the Israelites as they are poised to enter the promised land.
And he is tasked with taking them in.
But here's the problem.
After centuries away, the land isn't empty.
It didn't just sit empty or idle this whole time.
There are lots of different groups of people who now live there.
And they are idolaters.
That is, they are not members of the Israelite religion.
They don't worship the Israelite God, Jehovah, and so forth.
So the Israelites are going to have to take back the promised land in a military campaign.
And the person tasked with doing this is Joshua.
Okay.
That's the background.
Now, multiple times in, so there's the book of Joshua, the biblical book called Joshua that gives the, you know, the primary stories about Joshua.
Multiple times in that text, God admonishes Joshua to be strong and courageous.
And this is what Holly grabs a hold of.
Strength and courage is masculine virtues.
Okay.
Again, Holly has this habit of not really telling the masculine virtues are.
We talked about this last time.
He decries the American Psychiatric Association being critical of things like emotional stoicism or aggression or violence or things like this.
He implies that these are masculine virtues.
But then here he says, well, you know, they want them to be strong and courageous.
And he tells us the liberals don't believe in strength or courage, you know, whatever.
His story now is at this point in the chapter that strength and courage, as when Joshua is told to be strong and courageous, that these are masculine virtues that are embodied by Joshua and they need to be cultivated by all men.
Okay.
And we're going to see more about how that cultivation is supposed to happen in the next episode because it's another place where Hawley's whole shtick doesn't make any sense.
But here, basically what he says is that Joshua is a good, faithful, manly man, a man defined by courage and strength, leads the Israelites in the retaking of the promised land, thereby fulfilling God's will and serving as a kind of warrior model for us all, if we're also men.
We're going to run into the same thing of like why these are masculine virtues.
Would Josh Hawley say that women should not have strength or courage, especially as he's going to define what those actually mean further in the chapter?
Again, we're going to talk about that in the next episode.
It's worth holding on to.
He's promised us masculine virtues, but he keeps giving us virtues that sound like things that people could do just by being people.
They don't feel specifically gendered.
Okay.
At any rate, that's the story.
That's why Joshua stands out as a warrior model, because he is called in the biblical text by God to be a warrior, to initiate a war, to go into the promised land and engage in warfare against all the people who are living there and reclaim it for God's people.
Okay.
There are a lot of problems with this biblical account.
And in my view, with Hawley's appeal to it, there are reasons why this is a problematic account.
First of all, very broadly speaking, within the book of Joshua, if somebody reads it carefully, there are multiple competing theologies of the land.
That is, he's told to go in and retake the land.
But if you sort of tease out and take a careful, close look at the book, there's not one account of kind of how that happens or exactly what they're called to do or how successful they are or what have you.
So sometimes the book makes it sound like Joshua and the Israelites were successful in retaking the land.
And sometimes it sounds as if there were portions of the land that never, that they never actually took control of.
And that becomes a problem later in other biblical books when there are still people living in the land with them and so forth.
And then sometimes it makes it sound like having other people living in the land was like a plan, like that was an intention.
And other times it makes it sound like it was a failure, that Joshua and the Israelites failed to fully bring about what God wanted them to do and so forth.
So there's that.
The text, if you read it with any care, if you read it with more care than Josh Hawley, it doesn't seem to tell a single story with regard to that.
Hawley, as he does with everything, he needs it to tell one story.
Historically speaking, there's just also the issue that the conquest described in the text, it never happened.
The so-called conquest, I mean, historians and archaeologists and anthropologists and others have been exploring this region in light of this story for a very, very long time.
And it appears that the so-called conquest of the land, it was a long, drawn-out process that did not simply come as a result of war.
It was a much longer period of conflict and migration and the merging of different peoples.
In other words, there were people groups who moved into this region.
There were some conflicts, but they didn't simply push everybody out.
And you had the merging of different kinds of people groups.
And eventually you get the emergence of a group of people who have this sense of shared kinship.
They call themselves the Israelites.
They have this shared sense of stories of creation and having been in Exodus and so forth.
But the idea that the book of Joshua is giving this straightforwardly historical account, it can't stand up to historical scrutiny at all.
But we know that Josh, our Josh, Josh Hawley, we know he's not going to let something like facts or historical accuracy stand in the way of a good story.
So we'll set that aside.
Okay.
Those are real concerns about it.
He doesn't read the book carefully because there's not one account of what actually happens.
And then there's the whole historical accuracy piece, but we're going to set that aside.
We're going to go with him in the assumption that one, this really happened.
There was a group of Israelites that came out of Exodus.
They are told by God to go into the promised land and retake it and they go to do so.
And number two, that they were successful in doing that.
Okay, we're going to go with that.
Those assumptions bring us to the second, much bigger problem with the book of Joshua.
Multiple times, Joshua and the people of Israel are commanded to, a typical English translation is to utterly destroy the inhabitants of the land, their cities, and all that they possess.
In other words, to wipe everything out, not just everything, not just the cities, but the people, to utterly destroy everyone.
And this idea reflects an idea that was not uncommon in the ancient Near East in the context in which this book is produced.
And it's the idea that in an act of sort of consecration, of rendering something fit for ritual use, of rendering it pure for a divine purpose, it has to be devoted.
Okay, that's another one of these translations of the word that's behind this.
It has to be devoted to the service of God.
But in this case, in case like something like the land, the quote-unquote holy land, to render it suitable for God, it has to be cleansed, as it were, of all of the polluting influence that's there.
Okay.
And that means all the non-Israelites, their idolatrous practices in their cities, it has to literally be cleansed.
To render the land fully holy, to reclaim it for God's purpose, it has to be wiped clean.
Imagine if you want a cheesy example, an etchetch.
I hope people still know what an etchasketch is, the thing with the little dials and like you draw a picture and you just sort of shake it and like eradicate the picture, wipe it clean, you start over.
That's what has to happen.
And the Hebrew word for this concept, I'm probably not going to pronounce this right.
It's been a long time since I took biblical Hebrew, is cherem.
And this word, again, it's a word that's common in the Hebrew Bible and represents an idea that is common in the ancient Near East.
This idea that you have to radically purify something for a divine purpose.
And if you're talking about a physical space, it means literally like clearing it out.
Okay.
So it makes sense in an ancient Near Eastern context.
Not a weird idea, not a foreign idea, but it is out of place.
And it is problematic in our context.
Okay.
Because as described in the Bible, it is a command for literal ethnic cleansing, for literally purifying the land by eradicating or driving out all of the people who are there by utterly destroying them.
It is literally a demand for ethnic cleansing.
Not metaphorically, not it amounts to, it is literally that.
And what that means is that within conservative Christian biblicist circles, those circles that say that the Bible is true and accurate and so forth, the book of Joshua raises some tremendous ethical dilemmas.
Okay.
And I've been pointing about, talking about a series that I'm planning to do after we finish with Josh Hawley called you, questions I wasn't allowed to ask in church or questions I wasn't supposed to ask.
Folks, this is one of them or a whole cluster of them.
Like if I think of questions I wasn't supposed to ask in church or that I got into trouble or I ran into conflict for asking, stories about the book of Joshua are in there.
Did God really command genocide?
Are we conservative Christians who believe God is the ultimate good in the universe and so forth and the judge of all things and infinitely righteous and loving, etc.?
Are you really going to say that this God commanded genocide?
If so, does that legitimate other acts of violence like this?
How can we possibly criticize efforts at genocide or ethnic cleansing if we're like, yeah, well, God did it.
Is it just a one-off?
And that was the typical response.
No, no, this isn't a typical practice.
This is a unique instance.
It's only for the taking of the promised land.
It's only in this, this one time and place that God commands this or says it's okay.
But how do we know that?
How can we actually say that?
It doesn't tell us that.
The rest of the Bible, as conservative Christians read it, isn't a one-off thing.
It's about messages for here and now and so forth.
What do we do with that?
Can God really claim to be good and give commandments like thou shalt not kill if he undertakes acts like this?
It's just on and on and on.
These are questions that literally kept me up at night.
These are questions that I would ask my, let's say, sort of spiritual advisors or superiors.
I would ask seminary professors, and sometimes I got better answers.
Sometimes I got worse answers.
But these are the questions I wasn't supposed to ask because there are no good answers because even lots of good card-carrying Bible-believing Christians are really bothered by the idea that God tells Joshua the only way to retake the land is to go in and utterly destroy all the inhabitants of it.
Were they all evil?
Were they all bad?
If it's bad that they don't worship the Israelite God, why don't they just go tell them about the Israelite God, right?
And so on.
Those are the kind of questions that came up.
So why am I bothering with this?
Because Josh Hawley is going to reach out to Joshua, quintessential a vision of a godly warrior man.
But there's a lot of baggage, really problematic baggage that comes with an appeal to Joshua.
So that's why, even again, for a lot of Christian conservatives, it's problematic to simply point to Joshua and say, yeah, we need to do what Joshua does.
Yep, that's our guy.
That's our exemplar.
There are problems with praising genocide Joshua as your moral exemplar of what it is to embody masculine virtue.
Okay.
Now, to be clear, as I said, this is a problem even for conservative Bible people.
There are ways that conservative Bible interpreters will try to blunt the force of the book of Joshua.
They'll try to blunt these criticisms or concerns.
Blunting the Force of Darkness00:13:17
One is just to contextualize it.
I just did that.
I just said this is a common idea in the ancient Near East.
It's a form of warfare.
It's a common understanding of divinity and ritual purity and so on and so forth.
And that's fine.
That's accurate.
It's a true statement.
But that only sort of blunts the force if you're not assuming that it's true or that it applies to us or so forth.
For conservative Christians who say the Bible is not just about the past, but it's about here and now.
And it tells us how to live.
And everything in the Bible is intended to be a message for us and so forth.
Contextualizing it doesn't do anything because you're kind of like, well, okay, cool.
But we're not in the ancient Near East.
We're not in that culture.
We're not trying to retake a promised land for God and so forth.
Sorry, I'm getting sidetracked as I think about this because, of course, that discourse has picked up in sort of xenophobic and anti-immigration directions at present.
But we'll say that you're like, but you just contextualized it, but we believe the Bible's for here and now.
We believe it's a message for us.
We don't think it's just about what was going on thousands of years ago in the ancient Near East.
So to me, that way of blunting it, the criticism doesn't really, if somebody's a Christian who believes the Bible is true and authoritative and so forth.
Another way to do this is just to say that these were not literal commands.
God did not literally mean to utterly destroy everything, that they were sort of hyperbolic or exaggerated representations of the demand that the Israelite community should remain faithful to God.
Like utterly destroy idolatrous practices, utterly destroy your desire for idolatry or false worship or so forth.
Okay.
I guess that's okay.
Except again, for the biblicists, for the people who say the Bible's literally true and it's God's authority, it's authoritative on our lives.
The text doesn't say that anywhere.
And that's weird for people who say the Bible is true and so forth to kind of try to qualify the text in ways that it doesn't say it.
And it also is a problem because those are the same Christians who say everything the Bible says is without error and is historically accurate and so forth.
You start running into trouble if you start in and say, well, it's everything historically accurate, but this is historically accurate as an overstatement, which means we shouldn't take it as literally true.
So that doesn't seem to work.
Another is just to point to the actual historical and archaeological record, as mentioned this earlier, where it's clear that this kind of cleansing never occurred.
In other words, you try to kind of give your Christian community good conscience and saying, well, you know, that sounds terrible and that's really bad.
Yikes, eef, eeh, cringe.
But it didn't actually happen.
But in that case, all you're doing is saying that this divine exemplar, this exemplar of obedience to God didn't actually obey God and do what he's supposed to do.
You don't actually address the fact that God is supposed to have given this command for ethnic cleansing or genocide.
Okay.
So for those people, for people who claim that the Bible is historically accurate, that it is without error, the word for that is inerrant.
I've talked about that a lot.
For those people, this had to have happened as described.
That's what their belief in the Bible means.
So to deal with the problem by claiming that it didn't happen, it threatens the authority of the Bible.
And preserving the authority of the Bible commits one to affirming a purported example of genocide.
It's the horns of a real dilemma.
You either give up your claim to the Bible's authority or you accept that God said commit genocide and ethnic cleansing.
So against that backdrop, how does our Josh respond?
How does Josh Hawley respond to this?
How does he solve this riddle?
It's simple.
He just doesn't talk about it.
Nowhere in his discussion, nowhere, anywhere in this chapter does he look at these commands to utterly destroy the Canaanites and their cities, etc.
He doesn't talk about it at all.
And it pisses me off.
One of the things that drives me nuts is when people like Josh Hawley want to preach to the rest of us and tell us how biblical they are and how much they have the truth and how much the rest of us are avoiding the truths and hard truths and whatever.
And you're like, here's this obvious thing that you're just not going to talk about.
You're just going to leave out the fact that it says multiple times, utterly destroy everyone.
He doesn't tell us anywhere.
Instead, what he does is he sanitizes the story of Joshua in two ways.
One, and this is really important, one is to turn it all into a metaphor.
Not to read it literally.
Josh Hawley is the kind of Christian who will say that he's a biblical literalist, that the Bible is true and so forth, but he's going to turn this whole thing into a metaphor.
We're going to talk about that next episode.
That's going to be our whole focus.
The other one is to take some of the language from the book of Joshua and sort of use it strategically in a way so that he can just sidestep these issues and pretend that they're not there.
Okay.
And here's how he does this.
What he does is that there are kind of metaphorical descriptions in the text about these people who are in the so-called promised land, these Canaanites and Amorites and other kinds of groups that the Israelites are being called to go in and fight.
He picks up on some of that language and then he emphasizes these.
So here's an example, an example of like where he sort of sums it all up.
It's on page 108, if people wanted to know.
Here's an example.
It's a few sentences.
It's a little long.
Just bear with me.
This is what he says, quoting Josh Hawley, quote, the task before him, Joshua, was daunting.
The story says the land before him and the Israelites was filled with enemies.
The monstrous Rephaim and Nephilim, names that in ancient Hebrew evoked the shades of the dead.
Hebrew spies sent to search the land reported that giants dwelt there.
And the scripture says elsewhere that the breath of the place was filled with wild beasts.
It had become the province of dark powers.
It fell to Joshua to confront those powers and to do battle with them.
End quote.
Now, the text does have allusions, usually allusions, not explicit references, to groups like he mentions here the Rephaim and Nephilim.
Who are those?
They're this kind of mythological group of beings referenced in the book of Genesis.
And so here he says they call them the monstrous Rephaim and Nephilim that provoke the shades of the dead.
And he talks about giants and beasts.
Now, it's true.
The text, there are places where they describe the land in this way.
It's full of giants.
But here's what he leaves out.
The text explicitly and repeatedly names the groups of actual people who are to be utterly destroyed.
When it talks about the giants and the beasts and the forces of darkness, these are all descriptions of real groups of people.
So what Hawley is trying to do is he's trying to make the conflict, just trying to sidestep the issue that's about real people and talk about, you know, the shades of the dead and giants and beasts and forces of darkness.
Oh my, that's what he's doing.
So what he does is he turns this into a kind of fairy tale so it isn't offensive or morally problematic anymore.
We're not talking about going in and fighting people.
We're going to fight the shades of the dead or we're going to fight these mythological creatures or beasts or forces of darkness.
And he uses this language over and over and over again in this chapter, insisting time and again that Joshua as a warrior is confronting these monsters and beasts.
And I think what he's trying to do is to mask how offensive and morally problematic this account is.
They're fighting giants and monsters and forces of darkness.
But here's the issue.
By doing that, he doesn't sidestep the issue.
He actually makes it worse.
Because what he actually does is he enacts a completely common practice within authoritarian regimes all over the world.
It's a common practice within his own Christian nationalist circles.
It's a common practice among today's religious and political conservatives.
It is a common practice we talk about on Straight White American Jesus all the time.
What he does is he literally dehumanizes every perceived enemy of Joshua.
He takes all of those real groups and those real people and those real civilizations who are living in that land and he reduces them to mythological monsters, to wild beasts, to nameless forces of darkness, to the shades of the dead.
He literally renders them non-human.
So what he tries to do is he tries to justify the story of Joshua.
He tries to make Joshua's actions justifiable.
He tries to make God's command to commit ethnic cleansing and genocide justifiable by denying the humanity of those against whom he urges war.
That's what Josh Hawley does.
No, no, no, no.
They're not people.
No, God's not telling them to go attack people.
Those groups living there, they're not people.
They're monsters.
They're the shades of the dead.
They're wild beasts.
They're forces of darkness.
They're not soldiers and they're not men and they're not women and they're not children and they're not cultures and they're not histories.
They're none of that.
No, they are beasts and monsters and dark forces.
They are forces of chaos that must be eradicated.
at all costs.
And folks, that is the language that he's picking up from Genesis.
It's the language that runs in his book.
We are reading Josh Hawley because he is typical of the right.
He illustrates that he is not unique.
That is language we hear on the American right all the time.
They, whoever they are, they're not really human.
They're forces of chaos.
They're forces of lawlessness.
They're forces of disorder.
And therefore, anything we do to them is morally justified.
That is exactly what Josh Hawley does in this story, in this chapter, when he appeals to Genesis, or excuse me, to Joshua.
What I think he's trying to do, this theme that I keep coming back to, is he's trying to present a kinder, gentler vision of the warrior.
A warrior who's okay because he's fighting monsters and beasts and forces of darkness.
But he knows.
The reason he has to emphasize that language is he knows that the text says to utterly destroy real human communities and cities and entire civilizations.
He knows that and he's trying to hide that.
But in attempting to do this for me, he makes it worse.
He reveals the dehumanization that lies at the heart of every effort to label them as subhuman and monstrous.
Whoever they are, whoever the they is in that sentence, they are subhuman and monstrous and forces of darkness and forces of chaos and forces of evil.
So we are justified in attacking them.
All he does, what he does here is bring out all the discourses of the right.
So far from representing a kinder, gentler vision, he actually gives us a vision that reinforces every authoritarian excess and every autocratic leader who claims to act in the name of God and who appeals to divine authority to punish everybody that they don't like or they don't trust or who isn't like them.
That's what Josh Hawley gives us.
That, for Josh Hawley, it sounds like, is what quote-unquote strength and courage is supposed to look like.
I knew when I saw the title warrior for this chapter, before I ever read it, I knew he was going to talk about Joshua and I wondered how he would approach it.
And here we see, in my view, one of the darkest strategy he employs anywhere in the book.
And again, the irony is that I think he's trying to diffuse the violence and the ethical implications of this text.
And instead, in my view, he simply reveals who he really is and who the people on the right who use this kind of language about society, who they really are.
Now, I guess we're fortunate that next episode, we're going to explore his other strategy.
That's his strategy of just turning this all into a metaphor.
And it's one that I think softens the force of the Joshua story, essentially by refusing to take it literally.
He's going to do what biblical quote-unquote literalists do.
He's going to try to preserve the Bible and the claims that it's literally true and so forth by not reading it literally.
This is why I always say there's no such thing as a biblical literalist.
Metaphor Over Literal Truth00:02:07
We'll talk about that next episode.
And I guess maybe we can feel better about this because we'll see that other strategy.
But for now, we see Josh Hawley revealing not just his true colors, but for me, giving his voice or giving voice to the vision and the desire that drives, drives Christian nationalism and high control religion and the cultural and religious right in this country.
Drives them and the vision that links masculinity to the destruction of anything that is believed to stand in the way of men tasked with a divine mission.
Masculinity is the utter destruction of anything that we decide stands opposed to God's purpose.
Anything we decide is a force of chaos or darkness.
As I say, we'll revisit this chapter next episode.
We'll look at it some more.
For now, need to sign off on this.
It's a heavy episode and I realize it.
I want to thank you for listening, subscribers in particular.
We can't do what we do without you.
Those of you who have gifted us, you know, one-time gifts or occasional gifts, thank you so much.
I understand not everybody's in a position to subscribe.
Just continue telling folks about us.
Continue linking episodes.
Continue giving us thumbs up and all of those kinds of things.
Continue listening to the ads and supporting us in that way.
As always, this is a series that depends on you, that is driven by you.
So if you have feedback on episodes, idea for up ideas rather for upcoming episodes, new series, please let me know.
Daniel Miller Swadge, DanielMiller, S-W-A-J at gmail.com.
Would love to hear those.
I mentioned it earlier, referenced it.
The next series is going to be on questions that I was not supposed to ask in church.
Keep those coming.
People are emailing me those.
Put it in the subject header, questions I wasn't supposed to ask so that I know to be looking for that.
I really look forward to reading through more of these.
I think we'll revisit some Joshua stuff when the time comes.
Keep those coming.
Thank you so much.
And as always, please be well until we get a chance to Again.