It's time for truth, a ministry of truth family Bible church in middle tonight, Ohio. It's time for truth exists to glorify God through the edification of His saints in our local church and for the benefit of the church around the world. I'm your host Pastor Danny Steinmeier. Well, hello everyone. Welcome back to another episode of the podcast, wherever you may be, whenever you may be listening. Thank you very much for making us part of your day. Pastor Gabe Renders, Tom Mountain Baptist Church, Nampa, Idaho. Once again in studio working together on this content for all of you and we're glad to be together once again. Pleasure to be here, Kimosabi. That's right. That's right. Hey, I accept. I did it. You did it. You finally did it. Yes. I came. Alright, let's go. Hey, so this episode we wanted to talk about, we realized that the war's been going on for a little while and we haven't done a podcast on current events such as the the war with Iran and so nothing major to talk about. Yeah. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran. Oh wait, wait. You know, I thought about that earlier. I was like, could we start this podcast with that song or that'd be just, no, it's a pretty bad idea. Anyway, carry on. No, wait. It is what we did. You just did it. I just did it. Anyway, we wanted to just kind of speak about some of our thoughts, some of our evaluations of the situation, some of our our concerns and prayers and all the things that we're kind of thinking about. So yeah, we're just we're just going to chat about a little bit. Truth be told, we've been speaking to each other for the last like 45 minutes. Oh, yeah. Record too late. Yeah. So there was a lengthy podcast before the podcast. We had to we had to basically make sure we were all oriented like we we we hadn't talked about it with each other. Ourself. So we needed to make sure that we weren't at odds with each other. So well, more so that if we were at odds that we'd be able to speak about it. And it's really funny. Just hit the record button and like, wait, you think that? Hold on. Surprise. No, no, no, it was good. We I appreciate those conversations actually because it gets me thinking and then hopefully I can say it much more succinct and clearly when we actually hit record. So I appreciate it. Yeah. Yeah. Well, let's begin with let's let's start with the fact that we initiated a strike. Do we have any issues with the beginning of this war with how it how it began? Where would you start with that game and we can kind of kick it off from there? Yeah. So the concept that read off the gate that you just kind of have to talk about is like it is a preemptive strike quote unquote ever, biblically justifiable. Can it be considered a defensive maneuver, right? So a concept of like just war theory, even if even like pure Theonomics circles like the the Greg Bonson crowd recognizes I even heard Jeff Derben make this point is that there is a concept when there are actual genuine articulable threats that a forward strike actually can be a defensive and biblically justified maneuver. And so again, part of the challenge of this conversation is that we just don't have all the facts and even if we do have the facts are the facts reliable, right? But yes, weapons of mass destruction. Yeah. Which ones? There are there two weeks away from a bomb again. Yeah, again. Yeah. We've always been at war with Eurasian. I mean, we've always been at war with anyway. But so yes, I think that it can be biblically justifiable. And that if everything is at face value with what we've been told, can we can we recognize that there is an actual articible threat to the American people? Can we recognize that there is has been American blood shed by these people? Can we recognize that there are calls for death to America? Can that be reason enough? Can it be certainly? Is that necessarily the case that I think time will tell? I think that's been the hard part is the moving target of communication. I think that's been a major miss from this administration remarkably so. A case was not made in advance. Other than just the state, well, they're not allowed out of the nuclear weapon. Yeah, but we dealt with that last summer. I thought we took that out. Okay, we took that out. So then all of a sudden, we're bombing Iran. And I get that there was concern over the way the regime over there dealt with protesters that sounded like they killed tens of thousands of people. Yeah, heinous. Horrible. I mean, look, if you're going to say, and many of which may be Christians supposedly, so it's hard to say. And if you want to say, those people needed to be defended, at least, you know, you can make, I think you can make an argument for a significant genocide and protecting, protecting innocent people. You could make that sort of case. The challenge for me is just has been the issue of the moving target, the change, the changing narrative, the trickling out of new information that might be relevant and helpful, but it wasn't initially communicated. Like, so did we go to stop the nuclear program? Well, now we're going to stop to now we're going to free the Iranian people. We're liberating them. Well, we're also stopping their efforts at immunity, I think, as Rubio called it, the idea of all of their other conventional weapons were if that got too much, then they couldn't be stopped in their effort. It put up a force field. A lot of moving goal posts. Right. Yeah. And so you just continue to have the messaging. And I think that's, it gives you a lack of faith in the consistency of the why. Yeah. Right. And I think it's important to say at the front that, desiring war is never really something that we're after. Like, obviously, my concern is I don't want to see American lives lost. And I do think there are times where American lives being sacrificed in the line of duty is a righteous cause. The challenge is being able to articulate which situation is which. And so obviously, you know, sitting here, we are talking about even if it's only been a handful, any American life loss, and there's been at this point several, you know, as a tragedy and a sacrifice. And so the question really for me is, will time prove their sacrifice worthy? Right. Will it prove that it was a something just about? I mean, I know a lot of soldiers and that's always the hard thing for them is, is regardless of your opinions on any of our involvement in the Middle East over the past, you know, a couple of decades, one of the hardest things for me is when I talk to soldiers who lost their comrades, their friends, their, their, you know, squad mates, watched them die. And they get to come home and have to ask themselves, did they die for something? Like, do they actually die for a cause? Did they actually, was there, was there death meaningful? And so that's always one of my primary concerns when I try to shepherd people through these sorts of discussion is we don't want to take lightly that whether it's a handful of lives or hundreds of lives, anytime American lives are put on the line, Lord willing, it's for the benefit of protecting their nation. That's what they signed up for was to protect their people. And if that's what they're doing, then it can be a righteous thing that we should commend. But we need to think reasonably about that and wisely about that. And then there's the issue of Israel's involvement and whether or not Israel kind of forced our hand. The kind of the sound of the sound of things and different hints and different overt statements kind of gave the indication that Israel was going to go anyway. And if Israel was going to go alone, we were going to get dragged in. And so then we'd be just responsive. We would just be flat footed just responding because Iran would fight back. They would hit our bases, which they've done. So I think there's a little truth to that. But ultimately, that Israel was going to go with or without us. So they kind of forced us and we said, okay, if you're going to go, it's probably best if we go together entire selves at the hip. And we have the ability together to have greater success if we go actively instead of reactively. And so there's something to that. I don't think it all has to be just, you know, like Israel runs our country. Well, there's something concerning about it that we would just be pressured at because I think it's very possible that if we are more in charge and more wanted to be independent of this, that we would actually be able to communicate to Israel, no, you won't go when we won't let you go or there will be consequences for you. Like, you like, who's the big dog here? Right? And I think that there it does bring up more questions in these days about our relationship with our greatest ally. And I mentioned you beforehand. But can it be purposeful? Right? Sure. I don't have a problem like if we've said, if we said, this is what we want to do, Israel will you join us? Like, I think there's something to that difference. That's a different scenario than the whether or not we were, and that's we don't know all of the details of how it went. Certainly, there's concerns about the way Israel has leveraged influence and so forth. And I would I would share some of those concerns as well. Here's here's one of the things that I was explaining to you what I had heard as a view of trumps of the Trump doctrine, all right? Of his geopolitical. Yeah. And to me, I thought it was I thought it was interesting. I don't think it because I don't think it's just a matter of, well, Israel's just pulling our strength like we are, we are, you know, yes master, whatever you say, we must we must do whatever it's a fortification strategy. It's trying to bolster a defensive shield, it seems. Correct. So so, so, so, so Glenn Beck is the one that communicated this and I thought this actually made the most sense explaining trumps actions. Okay? So the first thing we did was we bombed the nuclear outposts in Iran. Okay, to care that. Then we go to Venezuela and we take out the dictator down there who has significant ties with China. He's a brutal usurper and a dictator and communist down there. And we we did an amazing thing down there to get him capture him bring him to justice, right? The best, right? And then so so we so we deal with South America. We also early on dealt with the Panama Canal. China get out of here, right? China, you've been overstepping. You've been kind of of inching into this hemisphere and we're taking control back of the Panama Canal. We're dealing with Venezuela and a communist government. We could be I could see us dealing with Cuba further. And then there's the issue of Greenland. So Greenland, why does Trump, all of a sudden, I mean Greenland came out of nowhere, right? Well, well, well, all of a sudden we're talking about we need Greenland. And no, none of us have even thought about Greenland for decades, right? So, but he says we need Greenland. It's strategic for us. What Trump seems to be doing, the argument goes is that he has a more of a hard to believe, right? More of an isolationist approached hemispherically saying we, all of the what look we Europe is lost. The Middle East is a quagmire. We are, Russia is a problem. China is a problem. But if we dominate, if we are the hegemonic power of the entire Western hemisphere, and then we have, keep talking, Trump keeps talking, we have a big ocean in between us. Right. That's a huge border, right? It's a huge border. That the idea is, is that we would be going into a place like Iran. We would be, if they're a threat to us, if they could have, if they had a ballistic missile, intercontinental ballistic missile, whatever else, couldn't stop it, or other other means by which they could, they could hurt us. It makes sense for us to be like, hey, that tree has gotten too big. It needs to be pruned back. It's got to be cut way back because as it grows, it becomes a bigger threat. But if we trim all the branches down and they're, they're way smaller than they used to be, then what that does sets up Israel to control and patrol as an ally of ours, they become the police. They become the hegemonic power of the Middle East. And then you really are, Europe is lost. But you have the eastern hemisphere being that which is isolated from us. We have a big ocean between us. And they can't really hurt us so bad, especially if we are independent in our oil. We have independent in our energy. If we have our missile capabilities, our defense capabilities, we can trade and so forth. But that's what Greenland's important is. That's why it used to barrier. That's a Western hemisphere defense mechanism that that shores up our ability to keep the eastern hemisphere at bay. And then China out of South America with its other communist partners, the canal, we can really be isolated from all of the other issues of the world and be like, hey, we can eventually finally get to the point where we say not our problem. Not our circus, not our monkeys. That's a you problem over there. We're doing fine over here. What's your problem? Right. What does that have to do with us? But the argument is, you got to get there. You got to get the argument is, oh, they're incremental. The argument is you have to, you have to take certain steps now to make sure that you actually have defensible borders. Correct. Correct. We got the ocean and Israel. Now you are the hegemonic power in the Middle East. You can now with Iran's significant haircut, you can take care of that region. And we don't have to continue to be the world's policeman. But in the meantime, we are the world's policeman. And that's what that's the way we're acting. And so I don't. The question is, is that it look whole for the civil magistrate of an individual nation to operate as the world's police? That's the age-old debate. Yeah. So if I was president, what I have done that, being in those positions, knowing what they know, I don't know. It's possible that I would. I think there's a reasonable strategy of that that say, this is the overall protection of our people and the overall protection of this hemisphere as the leader, the world's leader. And so you asked a question beforehand, like, hey, if Israel wasn't involved, would that change anything? I'm like, well, it might not change anything. It might be, it might be different. I think Israel, if it wasn't the partnership with Israel that I think it's kind of divisive, if it was purely this is in the best interest of our people and we're doing it of our own accord, I think it would be less controversial in the general perception of populace. I think there's that little means question. I think that creates a lot of, because here's the thing, you got like the hardcore right wing guys that are very concerned about that influence. And then ironically, of the hardcore left wing people that are just as concerned about Israel. And then a lot of people in between are not really sure what to think. And then obviously, you have your hardcore Zionist crowd that think that if we're not protecting Israel, we're not Christians. That's obviously an unbiblical position too. So you said something when we were talking earlier that I thought was really helpful is this idea of going back to a, I think you called it the Washington doctrine, the idea that you know, we get to choose who our allies are in any given circumstance and we don't have to make eternal packs with people. And I think that's really the thing is can we partner with co-bullidrants, other nations, for the betterment of our own people with a long-term strategy in mind to not be in forever wars, right? Like obviously, we don't want to be in those positions forever, you know, spending our people's lives. But when we become beholden in a sense enslaved to certain partnerships and agreements, whether that's Israel or any nation, that's where I think becomes a little more difficult. So I was trying to think like, what if it wasn't Israel and Iran? What if England is finally like we've had enough of the Islamic Horde and you know that they lit the beacons and called for gondors aid. You know, like what are you know, called the aid to gondor, right? What if they called for us to come in and help, you know, take out a neighboring nation or whatever there was a threat to a European country? How do we think about that? Well, is it in the best interest of America to protect these, or to help protect these nations? Well, it may or may not be, right? But that may or may not be is where I think the challenges is when it comes to Israel. In some people's mind, there's no question. You're not allowed to question it. There is no mayor may or may not be beneficial. It's like we're required. And I feel like we do tend to treat that alliance differently than we do a lot of other national alliances, you know, perhaps in Europe. So I do think it gets muddy for people and it's hard to ascertain what's true. Yeah, the issue of the favorite status in the the the closeness that is the the dual the dual allegiance and the the influence there is is just suspect. So yeah, the Washington doctrine ultimately is no permanent alliances. I don't have a problem. Let's just take this in isolation. If we were not, if Israel wasn't our greatest forever ally, we'll put quotes around that. And we just said, Hey, we think that we need to go against Iran. We because we see the common thread of Islam here. Would you join with us? And let's join together. I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with allying with people who we have shared interest. Like I said, co-bulligerence. The the issue becomes the the the the yoked the being unequally yoked. A Christian nation and a Jewish nation being yoked together is not actually not a wise thing in terms of a permanent alliance. In terms of long term like marriage alliance. So anyway, I think it's I think that was an interesting take and an interesting evaluation of the Trump doctrine. And then yeah, and then just the the moving message I think has been the most frustrating thing. But at the same time, look, I but bad evil things are also being destroyed. So that we have to weigh all that with that. Oh yeah, I'm glad you brought that up. So let's let's go there next. The issue of when you think about it, the even even in the providence of God to judge wicked people and wicked nations with other wicked nations. We are not the we're not we're not the pure pure is the wind driven snow nation. We have our own our own faults. And we think of a word of warning to us. Yes, Assyria and Babylon being used by God to bring judgment upon Israel, but then being judged, you know, woe to the one whom by whom judgment comes. That's a that's a way you think. And that leads us then to the other issue. I share beforehand. My big concern about our own country is the is the the arrogance that could be just do whatever we want. We can do it. We want a we were successful before. So why wouldn't I think I'd be successful again without consulting the Lord without really consulting considering the consequence that this is what people have been much more worried about here. Iran is not the Venezuela situation. Iran is even the Iraq situation. It's a much bigger country. It's a much more highly populated country. There's a lot more diversity here. If you think you could just get in and get out very easily, that could be a very significant over overestimation of our abilities and what what can happen. And like you were saying in all terms, kick it over to you. A lot of it is going to come down to well, the Lord is using us for judgment on them. And we can be thankful and grateful that some of the wicked are being removed and hopefully more righteous leaders and so forth. But it ultimately the outcome is get unknown and we have to really pray and trust the Lord. Yeah. And I mean, we can recognize that that Islam is a one of the if not the most concerning threat to the world. No matter how much the religion of peace is touted, we know that's not the case. We've seen it already in our own nation. We elect a Muslim in New York and then his own people are thrown bombs at people. It's great. It's totally peaceful protest happening all around us. So we recognize that this is a destructive, demonic religion. It is calls for the death of Westerners in general. It calls especially for the death of Christians. One of the things that you know, soldiers that I know that have served in the Middle East is it doesn't matter whether you're an Italian Catholic in the Marines or some, you know, butch, butch lesbian pagan. When they see a US flag, they're like, I'm fighting a Christian. That's how the Muslims think. And so when you when you talk to people that have served over there, we recognize that even though we are an unrighteous instrument right now in God's hands, nevertheless, he can wield us as an instrument of that is perceived at least by the rest of the world as the sort of Christ. And so when you think about that, that's a weird thing for us to kind of navigate perceptually. And I think I just have a little bit of cognitive dissonance in that I can at the same time accept that we are doing, there's a righteous thing done when we see evil men who are slaughtering their own citizens, who are corrupt, uh, mohamadins, you know, that is, I rejoice when the wicked are judged. But I also can be introspective and look at our own nation and say, oh, but I know God is not pleased with our our attempts at righteous acts when we murder our own children in the womb, when we are trans and, you know, people, when we have no idea what a man and a woman is like our arrogance. It should be a word of caution to us that God can use a crooked stick to strike a straight blow with us right now. But if we think that we're straight and virtuous on our own, caution, you know, because I'm with you, my concern is, oh, we're not trusting the Lord, we're trusting in our own power and our strength and our might and our own wisdom. Well, where's the national call to fast and prayer? You mentioned that earlier in our conversation, you know, Washington, all of our great leaders, even even the the Civil War, there's these moments of calls for prayer and fasting, even in world war one and two, it was still common. Let us take a break, let us pause. We are calling on you to pray. We are calling on you to besiege the Almighty. Where has any of that been other than a general, you know, thoughts and prayers? But I do think the rhetoric has been, yeah, very, very egocentric. And that's just kind of Trump's M.O. We get that. But I'm concerned, oh, I said the concern word, but I am genuinely concerned that if we're not checking ourselves, that we have, we should be concerned about what's going to happen to us in our own judgment. And we need to take care of our own house. So my biggest hope here is that if we see wicked regimes fall, if this opens a door for the for the gospel, if this does open a door for, you know, to make Iran a place where you could actually go safely, right? Where where there is Christian ambassadors, welcome. That's that's a win in sort of the great commission. And this is sort of a challenge for us when we think about the great commission. Obviously, all of us, and I'm a postman, guys, I like, obviously, I recognize that the way in which the kingdom of God advances is not by the sword, right? It's by the sort of truth, God's word, and the conversion of people worldwide. But I also recognize that in a world that hates Christ, that part of the way that God made me achieve an open door for the gospel, maybe through wars with the actual sword. And so how do I reconcile those two that the church is not called to pick up a arm to go to story pagan nations so that they might advance the gospel. But the civil magistrate might do that in some laws as nations as nations. So it's, it's trying to navigate that, I think song and dance that, you know, I recognize, you know, I've had brothers bring up, well, hey, you post, Milgeye, you should be all excited about this. This is an opportunity for for the advancement of Christendom. And I'm gonna like, well, I wasn't thinking of it that way, but, you know, so trying to weigh those two emotions in my own heart. And really, I do think it should be sobering to us ultimately that we have a lot to get an order in our own house before we should be concerned, ideally with sort of policing other nations that have their own problems. So I don't, I don't know, I want to see the innocence protected. I want to see the wicked judged. But I also want to make sure that we are acting in the best interest of our own people. And following the order of Morris. And yes, with that being said, what, what we need to say is, all right, let's take care of this Iran thing. And then let's get all the Muslims out of our country. Send them back to the Eastern Hemisphere. Go rebuild your country. We build, yeah, go do your thing. So we're saying if we actually follow through and do something, right? So it's one thing to remove a regime and then say that all your people are still welcome to come here. That's a very different scenario, right? Like, hey, we just liberated you, but feel free to come here. We'll just take care of you. That's that's kind of insanity, right? No, no, we need to, we need to deal with all the immigration issues, legal and illegal immigration. We've got to, we got to get that under control. And then you can have a sense of a proper protection, an order of Morris, a sense of nationhood, and a, and then a rebirthed missionary endeavor that you send people to evangelize the people of the nations. And that's, I think that's the, that should be the bargaining chip with Israel. All right, Israel, we will partner with you, but you need to not be an obstacle to missionary work in the Middle East. In fact, you need to embrace it in your own nation. There you go. Is that our bargaining chip? How would you feel about that? I mean, I, you're going to be the escort for the missionaries, not us. I don't know. Use your goi lasers. Let's go. No. Oh, well, I just think that I don't, I don't think we need a, I don't think that's the way that that's that's I'm having fun. We're good. We're good. We're good. I was just thinking, you know, in an, an idea of escort into all hostile nations for all Christian missionaries. No. Okay. Anyway, let's get less on hand. They got to, they got to get saved. We'll get back on time first, right? Yeah. Yeah. We'll send our Christian missionaries to Tel Aviv first. How about that? Right. Well, and, and I just think that there's a, a, a sense of this particular war that we have to, I think as the church pray about and, and be serious about, especially as our leaders are not serious, about consulting the Lord and, and acknowledging him and being dependent upon him, being humble, humble, for God in that way. So those are those are my main concerns. I feel like there was something else I was going to say, but yeah, I think that's where I'm mostly at. Oh, I remember I was going to say so. And then I got one thought too, but I do think. I do think it's important for us as people living with the respect of sphere sovereignty and an appreciation for those in authority. I don't think it's proper to revile or to just condemn. I, I think we need to acknowledge that there's a lot of things we don't know. I think there's a lot of responsibility and decisions that have to be made. Look, leaders in every sphere have to make decisions. And I would say I am, we don't know what intel they have. Man, I, I, I think it's also more important to know and recognize that I do believe that Donald Trump as the president loves this country. I believe that he loves the people of this country and that he wants to do right and to protect our country. And I don't, I can't say the same for people like Harris, Obama, at all. They don't. They hate the country. They're trying to actually ruin it. And so when, when you have someone who you might disagree with or you say, if I was there, maybe I would make a different decision. I would say my main thought is I want to be supportive and encouraging and, and praying for the success of our country in, in its endeavor. So I want whatever, that doesn't have to be in conflict. We want the best outcome. We're just saying we don't know and we're vulnerable and we're more vulnerable than our leaders might appreciate. And so just like in the church sphere, elders have sometimes have to make decisions that are unpopular, that, that make some people concerned. But at the end of the day, you want the people of the church to be supportive of their elders. And you know, look, I was told a couple times in the last week by someone who's, who's wanted to tell me, well, if I were you, this is what I would do. And it's like, well, yeah, it's kind of interesting how people think they know how to do the job and, and, and, and, but the Lord puts you in that position. Right. Yeah. Same thing with the Father, right? A father sometimes is going to have to make decisions that are not particularly even, even popular in his own household. But he's, and he's not always going to get everything right. But he's, if he's seeking the best, if he's loving his people, maybe seeking the honor of the Lord, then you need to submit to you need to get behind you, doing to be one who is for your leaders. And, and so I would say the main thing that I spirit I have, even though I have concerns about the way, so we don't love a lot of things the Trump does. Hey, ask a lot of areas where he is way off the mark. But you know what, he's the leader that we, he's the leader that we need and the he's the leader that we deserve. And while we would like to see better leaders, this is who God has for us. And I think again, he has a genuine love and desire to do right by our people. And, and that's not the same as saying that he can do no wrong. Right. Like, obviously we, you know, you and I both had very strong opinions about the way 2020 was handled, for example. Like, obviously, there is a time to question your leadership to, to, to actually, right, justly appeal to God's word to say, hey, you're out of alignment here. But on issues like this, I don't think there's one clear biblical definition that we can point to you to say, yeah, your name, one direction or the other, we need to try and think about this more comprehensively. And really, that's just kind of my pastoral of management, you know, for this, this topic is we just need to have more charity, one for another, a more great posture. Right. And one to another, we just need to take a position. Look, right now, the, the church is under attack, Christian values under attack from every direction. We, if we divide over, and this is not an unimportant thing, but if we divide and allow these things to continue to drive wedges within the church, you know, that's, that's a tool of the enemy against us. And so, look, we can agree. Good Christians can agree to disagree on some of these things. Some, good Christians can have very strong emotional responses, negative or positive towards this. And, and my just encouragement to us is that we should think about this. We should be cautious about entry mores. We should be cautious about, you know, wanting our leadership to be slow, slow to speaking quick to here. Like, absolutely, those are all righteous things. And we can simultaneously appreciate what good is happening while questioning the things that we still have problems with. That's a great, you know, stance for and posture for us to take. But what we should do above all those is to remember, when we're looking at our own brothers in Christ, to outdo one another and show honor to us, team others is more righteous than our own ourselves. And to be slow to speak and quick to hear, because right now, I mean, if you look at, I mean, you know, online rhetoric is always more bombastic. But there is, it's easy right now for the church to be very divisive over this and divided. And so I want to call us like speaker opinion, challenge one another. Let's go to scripture, let's reason one another. But do so with a posture like you said of humility and with submissiveness and love and grace towards one another so that we can, you know, walk through this with wisdom and exercise wise judgment. And that puts us in a position as the church, then to speak prophetically to the civil magistrate, to speak prophetically to our president in a way that is much more commitmentable and respectable. Because when we as leaders are, you know, some people worship the ground that Trump walks on within the quote unquote church, those are the people that he's going to gravitate towards. He's, you know, just like in the Old Testament, the Old Testament, King's well, I don't want to go to the actual prophet of God. I'm going to go to the other prophets. I'm going to flatter me. Yeah, I'm going to go to the ones that tell me what I want to hear. Well, of course we should expect him to do that. He's a sinner, right? So I think we need to be more unified in speaking prophetically and truthfully. And I think the Lord will use the church to get through that. Oh, it's good. Well, that's, we hope that's helpful for you. But that's all the time that we have for truth today. And we want to thank you for joining us. And until next time, we hope that you will grow in your loving commitment to Christ and His church. As we are sanctified in the truth, God's Word is truth.