Why I am not a Calvinist
Once upon a time, there were two men who were similar in many ways. Both were powerful and creative. Both were kind and loving. Both were well-respected in their towns. Both were fathers. And both were exceptional artists. In fact, the artistic community argued all the time as to which was the greatest, and the general consensus was that their crafts surpassed mere human judgment.
The first man announced an art show to be held in his private gallery at his home. He invited all the most prominent artists and art critics in the world, and promised that the revelation of his latest work would surpass all he’d done before. The night of the show arrived, and the artist’s home was truly a who’s who of the art world – everyone who was anyone was there. As the evening progressed, everyone agreed that these pieces were truly astounding, that they far surpassed the artist’s previous works. Frequently, guests were found weeping as they viewed various pieces, so moving was his mastery of his craft.
Several hours into the evening, the gallery door swung open and the artist’s young son came running into the gallery, clutching a piece of paper in his hand and saying, “Daddy! Daddy!” The artist was in front of the central display piece of his show, and when the son ran up, he excused himself from his conversation and bent down to his son.
“Yes, my boy,” he said softly, “what is it?” The boy excitedly waved his paper in front of his father.
“Look, Daddy! I did it just like you!” The artist took the piece of paper and turned it over. On it was a finger-painting, clearly crafted with all the patience and skill of a five-year-old.
“This is very nice, son. You did a good job,” the artist said, with the patronizing kindness unique to parents. “Why don’t you go show it to Mommy?”
“Put it on the wall, daddy! Put it by yours!” the boy begged.
“Son, this is a serious art show,” the artist replied. “Your daddy is a very important person, and he makes art that is beautiful and praiseworthy. You’ve just done a finger-painting. It wouldn’t be right for me to hang it in here, with all these glorious pieces of art that I’ve created. To display anything you’ve created in here would demean and devalue all of the glorious things I’ve done. I’ll hang this in my office.”
Dejected, the child left, finger-painting now crumpled in his small, unskilled fingers. As he shuffled out of the gallery, the crowd – which had been silently observing – began to whisper their approval. It would be a shame, they agreed, to tarnish the obvious brilliance of this room with such amateurish work. It was clear that the boy would never be half the artist his father was.
Shortly thereafter, the other artist also announced an opening, and he too promised work to surpass all that he’d done before. And once again, the cream of the art community crop gathered in a home gallery to experience an opening of epic proportions. And, as promised, the pieces were brilliant… each more beautiful and breathtaking than the last. And the final piece, the grandest of them all, the pinnacle of the opening surpassed everyone’s hopes. It was quite clearly one of the greatest masterpieces ever committed to canvas.
And once more, several hours into the opening, the door to the gallery cracked open, and this artist’s young daughter ran in, also with a painting in hand. “Daddy, Daddy!” she cried, “Look! I did just like you!”
The father swept his daughter up in his arms and with a growing smile looked down at his daughter’s crude, unskilled finger-painting. “It’s beautiful, honey. Simply beautiful. I know just where I’m going to hang it.”
With that, he set her down and handed the painting back to her. Then he walked over to his masterpiece, the central exhibit of his opening. As he approached it, the whispers in the room – which until now had been muted – grew into a low hum. The father grasped his painting and pulled it down off the wall and cast it to the floor, then turned to his daughter. “Honey,” he called, “may I have your painting?” The child brought her paper over to him and handed it up. The father took it and mounted it in the place where his crowning achievement had once stood. As he did so, the murmering grew to a dull roar, the outrage of the guests clear as they eyed the abandoned masterpiece.
Still smiling, but eyeing the crowd with comprehending eyes, the Father picked his daughter back up. “My dear child,” he began, never taking his eyes off of her, but addressing the crowd with his voice, “you are my greatest creation, the crowning joy of my life. Nothing else I have ever or will ever create could compare with you.” As he continued, voice choked with love and… yes pride, tears filled the corners of his eyes. “You made something the same way I do, and you did it as well as you could. Nothing could make me happier, or bring me greater glory and fame than this beautiful, talented person you’re becoming.”
The girl never left his side for the rest of the evening. And the father never ceased to display his most glorious masterpiece.
On top of this, I have never, and I venture to say no one in the history of mankind has ever, experienced the tenants of Calvinism. It has always seemed to me that I make my own choices. It has always seemed to me that I want to pursue God, even though I push myself away from him by my actions and choices.
I experience a completely different world than the Calvinists say I should.
First, I really like Henry’s appeal to experience. Protestantism’s neglect of experience as a theology shaping reality has really handcuffed our theological reflection. In the end, our common experience and thoughts concerning things like deliberation and luck demonstrate the extent to which we do not believe things are really determined. What’s the point of deliberation if there is only one real possibility in the end? What’s the point of saying, “I just got lucky” if even yout luvk is predetermined? In other words, our common, popular rhetoric demonstrate that we do not experience what Calvinism says we should. Good work, Henry.
Next, while I like JR’s post, I don’t know how much a Calvinist will disagree. That is, they will certainly say that this is true for a believer (a true daughter of God) – our most feeble efforts are still honored by God and bring him glory.
BUT, for an unbeliever, this analogy won’t work for the Calvinist – they would say the daughter doesn’t want to please the father – the daughter wants to come in the art gallery, insult the guests and spit on the Father. She never had any designs on impressing him. (Interestingly, though, the Father determined before hand that she choose nothing but hatred for him…but that’s another story!)
Let me give two things I appreciate about this narrative, though:
First, I like the move toward doing theology in narrative form. This a great first attempt and we need more of it. There are truths which get brought to the forefront much easier in narrative than in logical syllogisms. Furthermore, a logical syllogism could never evoke the kind of emotion I experienced when that first father ripped the heart of of his daughter! Emotion has a key place in our theology, and narrative theology helps revive this.
Second, I like that JR doesn’t assume attempts to please the Father are equivalent with merit. Literally – that works do not produce merit. Rather, JR assumes that someone does good works, not to get into the Father’s good pleasure, but deomonstrate their love for the father – if you love me, you will keep my commandments! I think the distinction between works for merit and works as a result of daughtership is demonstrated nicely in this post.
In my view, Calvinists teach that God does everything for his own glory, and that nothing can or should detract from this.
I have a gut-level, emotional reaction to this before I even approach the scriptures, because I think glory is like love – the more you share it, the more there is. In the second show, the Father is more glorious precisely because he shares his glory, he doesn’t hog it all for himself.
Is that coming through? Or do you think this is not a proper reading of Calvinist tenants?
JR,
I wasn’t going to even comment on this post because the narrative you present did not reflect back to me my own theology. It came accross more as a polemic like C.H. Spurgeon’s Arminian Prayer and not presenting any kind of real argument. Then Honzo spoke about how he doesn’t experience what Calvinism teaches what humanity experiences. To that I would say this highlights the difference in worldview and epistomology between a Calvinist like myself and my dear cousin and fellow blogger.
But your comment really helped me to see what you are geting at in your narrative (The more I think about it, the more I agree with the need to use narrative/stories to communicate theology). Here is where my Edwardsian/Piperian Christian Hedonism comes into play. I would not say that the more one shares glory, the more there is. God’s glory is infinite and there cannot be anymore glory. And this glory God created man not to share it with God, but to enjoy it. The more we seek God’s glory and the more we enjoy it, the more clearly it is seen by those around me–both saved and unsaved.
I also wouldn’t compare glory to love, but rather beauty and radiance and majesty (Read Psalm 96 and how the Psalmist there associates glory and beauty and majesty together). It is to be seen and enjoyed, not only in a one-on-one sense between the beholder and the Beheld, but also with fellow beholders around me. I do not fully enjoy God in all of his glory and beauty and majesty apart enjoying it together with fellow believers in Christ (also that glory is made known only in the face of Christ and it is Christ that sin and Satan has blinded us from to keep us from seeing that glory; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4-6*).
Thirdly, I would say–on the subject of love and glory–that by seeing glory we experience love (cf. John 17:24-26). But God loving us is God showing us his glory (Exodus 33:18-34:7; cf John 11:1-7). God shows his glory by loving his people. The way we see God in all of his beauty and perfections is by seeing his love, most fully expressed in the propitiating death of Jesus (1 John 4:7-10; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4-6). By us experiencing God’s love and enjoying him in that love, we show the true worth and magnificence that is Yahweh, the triune God. His glory is seen in the love, again not abounds or increases. Otherwise I have misunderstood what you meant by “the more you share it, the more there is.”
* Please do not think that I am throwing verses around at people; I expect some readers of this blog to want to see the biblical support for my position and I am merely providing that support for their benefit. I know how some around here feel about throwing verses around.
Hank,
thanks for your thoughts.
I don’t see the universe as a closed system… I think glory and love are being created constantly (and also destroyed constantly by sin and evil). And I think we as human creatures have a very real part to play in that. When we live as we were intended, we bring create more glory that is given to God (Matthew 5:16), but that glory is created and ascribed to God precisely because he made us such magnificent creatures capable of producing glory and love ourselves.
When we (in imitation of our God) give that glory to those whom we serve (both human and divine – Mark 12:28-32), create even more glory and love than was previously there. Glory and love are like humility in that way – the more we try to get the less we have (we destroy it by sinful self-focus). The less we try to obtain it and focus on others, the more we end up with (Jesus, Mother Theresa, even a non-believer like Gandhi). I think this is precisely because that’s how God works and how s/he created us to work.
“When we (in imitation of our God) give that glory to those whom we serve (both human and divine – Mark 12:28-32), create even more glory and love than was previously there. Glory and love are like humility in that way – the more we try to get the less we have (we destroy it by sinful self-focus). The less we try to obtain it and focus on others, the more we end up with (Jesus, Mother Theresa, even a non-believer like Gandhi). I think this is precisely because that’s how God works and how s/he created us to work.”
But this is very much the opposite of what God does. God loves us by showing us his infinite glory in the face of Jesus. It is the most loving thing God can do. It is why Jesus stayed two more days when Lazarus was sick. Jesus said that Lazarus’ illness was for the glory of God and did not end in death. So instead of going to Lazarus right away, he waited, because of his love for Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. He loved them so much that he waited until Lazarus died so that his sickness wouldn’t end in death but show his glory (cf. John 11:1-7). Jesus prayed that we might see his glory because in that glory we experience the love of the Father for the Son. God does what is necessary to show us his glory because in him doing that, we experience his love for us. He is seen as glorious and I am loved. God’s focusing upon himself is the most self-less thing he could do and indeed does (cf. John 17:24-26).
JR, dude, I have missed you around here and I was saddened to hear that you weren’t able to come to Chicago with my bro and Honzo. It was a lot of fun–although I still wish I met Alex Ross and got the autograph rather than watch Batman: Gotham Knight. I hope you’ll be blogging more often here. Also, Adam Christenson (SP, forgive me), m part of the time supervisor at UPS, says hello.
I’m a Calvinist, and the only real problem I have with the post is the title. I see nothing in this post that criticizes Calvinism. Of course, you left out something important, which is that our works can only be loved by God if they are done by God’s grace to begin with. But Tom 1st has already made that point, and it’s not a positive thing wrong, just something missing that I think would need to be present for a Calvinist (or any Protestant) to agree with it fully.
John Piper happens to be a Calvinist, but he’s not representative of Calvinism when he reduces all of God’s motivations to the seeking of his glory (and I’m even suspicious of his claim that this is Edwards’ view, but I’ve never pursued that suspicion). But even Piper doesn’t deny that God acts out of love. God loves because his loving brings him glory, so you won’t see Piper denying that God loves the grace-enabled works that we do that still fall short of perfection. Piper would say that God’s other motivations derive from his glory, not that God has no other motivations. Piper would insist that God is more glorified because he loves others, just as you’re insisting. I’m sure he wouldn’t agree with you on ever nuance, but I don’t think the view you’re targeting is even his view, and his view is certainly not representative of Calvinism anyway. It’s definitely not a central Calvinist claim, which is not about God’s motivations at all but about the role of God’s sovereignty in salvation.
So, while I think this narrative example is very helpful for illustrating the point you want to make, I don’t think you’ve identified your target correctly. I would say that it’s more of a way to prevent a Piperian view from going too far, since I’m not sure Piper would even disagree with your main point. I do think there are people who take it that far, but I don’t think Piper does so himself, and I certainly wouldn’t want anyone to think such an extreme position is typical of Calvinism.
Jeremy, I think Piper would argue that this is Edwards’ view from the book A Dissertaion on the End for which God Created the World. There Edwards argues both philosophically and Scripturally that God created the universe to display his glory. There are some of Edwards’ sermons and miscellanies as well that PIper quotes from. But one has to also remember that Piper has been influenced by CS Lewis, who was also a Christian Hedonist as well. Piper says one of the most influential books for him was Lewis’ Weight of Glory.
Most Calvinists I have read would agree that God seeks to glorify himself by the means of the doctrines of grace. I’m thinking of guys like Al Mohler and James R. White and John MacArthur. I’m no fan of MacArthur and Mohler has a good school but sometimes I think he’s too narrow. White on the otherhand is great. He would agree with Piper on the issue of God seeking to glorify himself–I can’t tell how Hedonistic White is but I’m not seeing much disagreement about it between them.
Jeremy, I have to agree with Hank. My post addresses, I believe, the God that Calvinism implies if its tenants are carried to their logical conclusion.
I think the emotional reaction readers are clearly having to the first father are telling, to say the least.
“Christ in you the hope of glory.” Glory like love is of God. God is love. His very being is love. Love can not be found apart from God. It can not be separated from Him, it can only be expressed by Him. The fruit of the Spirit is love.
In the story the daughter and the son reflect the fact that their father is in them expressing himself through them. In their being is the desire to express what their fathers expressed and in the same medium their fathers used. The son and daughter were choosing to receive what their fathers had for them. One father rejects that expression to his own detriment and to the detriment of his son, the other accepts his child’s gift to his glory because he recognizes it as from Him, to his child’s benefit.
We are created by God to choose. We choose to be either ruled by a fallen spirit, sons of perdition, or we choose to have Jesus as Lord, adopted sons of the Most High God, directed by the Holy Spirit. We are never independant beings with the ability to create what only belongs to God. We can only derive from what he has created. We are spiritual beings only able to express the spirit that is in us. One father is evil in his rejection while the other loving according to the spirit in him.
“He who is joined to the Lord is one Spirit.”
First, please explain to me how TULIP implies this view. I don’t see it.
Second, Edwards does think God created for the sake of his glory. That’s not the issue, though. Of course God’s glory is one of his motivations. I can’t figure out how to read the Bible carefully and yet deny that. The issue is whether that’s the basic motivation that explains all the others. Edwards may well think that, and as far as I know so may Lewis. I’m not going to accept it of either of them unless I see it in them the way I’ve seen it explicitly in Piper. Piper thinks he sees it in them, but he also thinks he sees it in Augustine, and I’ve read enough Augustine to think it’s definitely not true of him. So I’m withholding judgment on Edwards and Lewis until I see an explicit statement of it in their writings.
By the way, the names you named are all Baptists and all relatively recent. I don’t take that as a representative list by any means. I also wouldn’t think of any of them as among the most careful thinkers in Calvinism. I’m apparently a lot less of a fan of James White than you are. If you can see statements of this sort in John Calvin, John Knox, Robert Dabney, Charles Hodge, Louis Berkhof, John Gerstner, Meredith Kline, Francis Schaeffer, R.C. Sproul, Richard Mouw, John Frame, J.I. Packer, Ligon Duncan, Roger Nicole, Michael Horton, David Wells, Doug Moo, and others from a wider range of the Calvinist tradition, then I’d be a bit more willing to think you’d read widely in Calvinism as a basis for your claim. I’m not sure you’d even find it in Baptist Calvinist D.A. Carson.
I’m not exactly sure what your point was? And how this story provides evidence against Calvinism? Is it that God doesn’t want to share his glory? But then you are comparing apples and oranges. You were comparing amazing art with crappy art. The comparison would be more like God created the entire universe you created and dinky little painting with a part of that universe. Guess what, the Mona Lisa may seem amazing to Western audiences but show that painting to someone from an African tribe somewhere and it would probably look kind of scary to them. But look up at the stars and that creates a sense of awe in anyone and everyone, African tribe or Western audience.
Also, Calvinists aren’t Calvinists because of emotionally charged narrative stories. They are Calvinists because they believe the Bible teaches that paradigm of thought (the question then is do they actually have biblically sound arguments). All your emotionally charged narrative is going to prove is that the Calvinist is right: Arminians or whatever don’t base their views on the Bible but on emotion.
So really, you’re just speaking to the choir. Reminds me of Richard Dawkins.
Now if you wanted to use this as an analogy for a previously established biblical argument, then I think using narrative theology is awesome. But beginning and ending with this? I’m not so sure.
i’m having a hard time making the calvinism connection in this story (even after reading through the replies). are the fathers supposed to be representations of God, who either accepts or rejects us as his children? or is this post nothing at all about free will vs. God choosing us and rather the focus is on where the father finds glory (in his children vs. his livelihood)?
Rob,
First, JR has already argued his position endlessly in other posts. This is not his first attempt.
Second, that you don’t understand what JR’s doing certainly means you should not criticize his work as a piece of “emotionally charged” writing done by one of those Arminians who don’t base their views on the Bible. JR’s not appealling to emotion – though emotion is involved. All you’re doing in such a statement, then, is revealing your own bias…that, and demonstrating that you simply don’t understand what this is all about.
The comparisson to Richard Dawkins is assinine. Dawkins is a complete jerk who criticizes Christianity on a 5th grade level. JR is respectful in this post, first of all. Second, his criticism come from actual knowledge of the subject matter. Though is post won’t speak to all Calvinists (as I noted earlier), it will to many.
And, again, he’s not “beginning with this.” I’d suggest you 1. understand his post a little better before you come jumping in with your accusations, and 2. Be a little more gentle, even if you did understand his argument and thought he was wrong.
Maybe I’m being a little to straightfoward here, but I just think this needed to be said. You can disagree with JR’s conent, but for goodness sake, don’t be mean about it from the other side of your computer screen.
Tom 1st,
I happened upon this blog searching for reviews of the NRSV. For some reason one of the results took me to a post on JR’s blog and I saw on the side “Why I am not a Calvinist”. I read the post then made my reply. I’ve since found his 5 part series as well as another post. I think it would have been helpful for JR to have referred back to previous posts he had made on Calvinism. Maybe he doesn’t because it is kind of tedious, but I think it would be a good help for newcomers to his blog.
Just because I may not fully understand the argument JR is making doesn’t mean I can’t tell that it is emotionally charged. If someone comes up to me and starts talking to me in a loud voice and with an ecstatic expression on their face, even if they are speaking Swahili, I’ll be able to tell that what they are saying is emotionally charged. It is similar with JR’s post. It is meant to evoke emotions. However, the purposes of why he wanted to evoke those emotions were not entirely clear to me. But knowing the purpose behind the emotion is not necessary to recognize that the emotion is there.
He is appealing to emotion and that is the primary purpose, whether he consciously thinks so or not. If emotion wasn’t involved then the post would lose most if not all its power. What makes narratives so powerful in the first place is the emotion they create. That’s why people use (and like!) them instead of logical syllogisms. They just resonate more with our souls.
My comparison to Dawkins was used as an example of someone who mainly speaks to the choir. Maybe it wasn’t the best example but at the time when the only argument I had read from JR was this emotional narrative the comparison seemed fitting.
Touche.
“Maybe I’m being a little to straightfoward here, but I just think this needed to be said. You can disagree with JR’s conent, but for goodness sake, don’t be mean about it from the other side of your computer screen.”
Maybe you should take your own advice from the previous paragraph (:
Rob, I don’t think the argument in the post is pure emotion. I think there’s argument here. It relies on the moral intuitions that we have and draws a conclusion based on those moral intuitions. The rhetoric of the post is designed to show people that they already have these moral intuitions as part of their basic belief structure. The argument against what he mislabels as Calvinism is not mere emotion. It’s a critique of a view that many people would morally oppose based on basic intuitions about morality. Now this isn’t a biblical argument, and you’d be right to point that out, but it’s simply not true that all arguments that don’t rely on the Bible are mere appeals to emotion. Most philosophical arguments have nothing to do with the Bible, but ethicists have used them for millenia without just appealing to emotion.
Thanks Jeremy. That’s what I was trying to say – you said it much better and more succinctly.
I have argued repeatedly that God’s central, core attribute is love (described specifically by Jesus as self-giving/self-sacrifice). This is taught clearly by at least the New Testament (Mark 12:28-32, the whole of 1 John, etc.) If this is true (as I believe it to be), then we have to ask how to frame all of our Theology (and by proxy, the rest of our theology) in light of this self-giving love.
TULIP – to reply to Jeremy – makes no sense within this system. How can God give Godself to God’s creation when God has ordained that any of those creatures are separated from God for all eternity (despite verses that claim God does not desire this damnation/separation)? The only way contemporary pop Calvinists (like Piper) have been able to make sense of this classic Calvinist problem is to say that God’s chief motivation is his glory, and that somehow the damnation of these humans brings greater glory to God. I have encountered no more compelling explanation either in the Scriptures or from self-procalimed Calvinists of the failings of TULIP than this, and I have expressed above why I feel this explanation to be entirely insufficient.
As for the so-called ‘emotionally charged narrative’: I was not trying to construct an emotional appeal, but rather a narrative theology. Are Jesus’ parables emotional appeals, or are they just a different way of doing theology that moves beyond the more Johanine/Pauline argumentative discourse? I think both are great ways to do theology; narrative is more difficult but also more egalitarian. Narratives tend to be more accessible than drawn out arguments (even well-constructed ones); they also tend to use less academic (and therefore exclusory) language. Anyway, this is my first attempt, so it’s pretty rough. But I would like to say that I did my best to paint the first father as nicely as possible. I didn’t want it to be polemical.
Finally, let me say at no point does the child compare her work to her Fathers. Rather, she offers her imitation up to her Father and is glorified by her father because of her work. I recognize that we have to hold this idea in tension with the fact that all of our works glorify God (Matt 5:16, but I think everyone’s positive reaction to the second father illustrates that point admirably, if I do say so myself
). But I see this as the ultimate failing of Calvinism… the God we get when we follow Calvinism to its logical ends is not a God we’d want as a dad, let alone as a God.
JR,
I think that this is the real weakness to theology as narrative. It runs a very high risk of coming across as polemical and an appeal to emotion. I appreciate the effort and think that more can and should be done. You should continue to develop theology as narrative.
In terms of the glory of God being an insufficient explanation for what you perceive as the shortcomings of TULIP the glory of God is the highest a Calvinist (who follows in the footsteps of one like Piper) can go. That is the highest form of argument the Calvinist will rise to: God’s honor and majesty and name. Jeremy might go somewhere else. To me, this just shows how different in thinking a Calvinist is from an Arminian/Open Theist (I thought I remember you saying you held to a lot of Open Theistic tenets).
Your final line really grabbed my attention–as you intended it to by underlining it. You said, “the God we get when we follow Calvinism to its logical ends is not a God we’d want as a dad, let alone as a God.” I would respond with, “the God we get when we follow Arminianism/Open Theism to its logical ends is not a God that can be trusted to save us because we don’t know if we have done/believed enough to get in and stay in.”
As a funny side note for Mark’s gospel, in my more recent readings of Mark one theme that has truly stood out to me is the issue of holiness. Much of Jesus miracles of healing involve people sharing in his holiness. He is acting in a loving fashion, no doubt. But the issue that is really being driven to is our lack of holiness and Christ coming to give it to us. We’ve discussed that before but I just find it funny that love and holiness can’t really be separated. Also, I don’t know who you hold to writing Revelation but if it is the same author as 1 John, Revelation has an extremely high view of God’s sovereignty (Revelation 4:8 comes to mind).
Jeremy,
I don’t know if you heard Sproul speak of Piper as this generation’s Jonathan Edwards a year or two ago. In terms of Piper’s theology and preaching, R.C. Sproul said Piper would make his “mentor” proud. As for the names you’ve listed, I’ve heard Sproul, Packer, Carson, David Wells make similar claims about the centrality of the glory of God. I’ve seen Calvin speak of the centrality of the glory of God in his exchange with Cardinal Sadolet in 1538-39. However with Calvin I wouldn’t say that it is as controlling for him as it is Edwards and Piper, sovereignty is more of Calvin’s thing.
As a very strong (probably 7 point) Calvinist, I came to this post thinking that I would see more of the same old proof-texts violently wrenched from their context (which, arguably, are in a few of your other papers on this topic ;) )… more of the same age-old arguments… and more of the same blah, blah, blah against the cruel God of Calvinism.
I was unprepared for such a thought-provoking post.
I’ve been writing for quite a while… but am just getting a site up and getting my material online… otherwise I would link you to some of my (as yet unpublished) works of genius in defense of the Calvinistic way of thinking. For the meantime though, I wrote a paper on The Divine Obsession God has with His own glory that I’d like for you to check out and let me know your thoughts on.
And I’d love to engage with you more in the future. Iron sharpens iron, after all!
Christ for Life,
Michael