My Position on David Gray & Revisiting the Chicago Statement

Conversations That Matter podcast. My name is John Harris. We're going to talk about a few things today, mostly, though, the

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and what I see as a concerning trend in some quarters of institutional evangelicalism to revisit that, modify it, change it.

I don't think it should be changed, but I'll save that for the end. I'm not going to get into the weeds, but I am going to just give you some basic, obvious, in my opinion, observations on this.

And then I also want to talk a little bit about the David Grace situation. I want to put a cap on it. I don't really want to talk about it anymore. I'm a little sick of it, but I think that there's a few things that I need to say just to kind of cap this off.

I've already said them in so many words, I think, some of this, but one is what my position is.

I want to just state it very clearly on this because some people seem to be misunderstanding what my position is. I know I said in both videos that I've already talked about this on that.

I don't know if he's innocent or guilty. And so I'm just going to say that clearly right now. I don't know if David Grace is innocent or guilty. I don't know.

Some are taking that as I'm defending him and I'm defending an abuser.

And this just makes sense because that's who John is. He defends abusers. He's a terrible person. And they all go ad hominem on me.

And to me, that's silly. It's not interesting. If you want to deal with the facts, deal with the facts. Let's talk about that.

And I'm open to correction. That's the thing. If I got something wrong, you know, let me know. But you know, it's desperate when someone just goes ad hominem.

Let's impugn John's character somehow and instead of dealing with the actual issues, let's deal with the issue.

So the issue in my mind is this. Did John MacArthur knowingly support an unrepentant pedophile?

That's the issue. And I don't think we have the evidence to support that claim. Not even close.

And that's been my contention. That's what I spent an hour and a half on, just going into the details of this to say at the end, we don't have the we can't produce that charge.

It's really impossible to produce that. And yet there's ultimatums now being given to organizations that would host

John MacArthur as if they are somehow in there. They're supporting someone who supports a pedophile.

It's it's kind of insulting. And it just it's so outlandish.

But this is what I often see with social justice crowd, because I've studied that now somewhat and written a few books on it.

And the way that they tend to think is everything gets connected to some kind of oppression. And it's the ideology thing.

It's where reality kind of gets reduced down to you're either on the side of the oppressed or the oppressor.

And if you're even sometimes one step out of line somewhere, or it could be thought that you might be,

I mean, you become a target. And and so and everything just gets connected to you. And you're never able to escape it in the minds of people affected by that ideology.

And so that's kind of what's happening. You know, how could like Ligonier or the Gettys or I don't know,

G3 or anyone who hosts John MacArthur for something be connected with you support somehow pedophilia of some kind?

It's such a stretch. You think that's such a stretch. But it's all these jumps that are made and all these assumptions in between them.

And so what I was doing for the hour and a half video I put out there on this was just trying to knock down some of those assumptions or at least question them and say, look, some of these assumptions we just can't make we don't have the information to make these assumptions.

So that's my position on it. Number one, don't know if he's guilty or not. Number two,

I don't believe that the evidence is there to say or be sure that John MacArthur knowingly supports an unrepentant pedophile.

That's the that's the extent of it really. Behind that, an assumption that I have is that there were possibly legitimate reasons that people at Grace Community Church had for drawing a different conclusion than the jury reached.

And so I've already spent a lot of time on that. But I do want to go through just a few broad push pushbacks

I've gotten over this. And I haven't seen everything. But here's a few that I just thought would be worth my time because it doesn't take long just to respond to.

One of them is that I didn't mention that Grace Community Church broke confidentiality because of their church discipline and supplying court testimony.

The thing about this is when you go to a pastor for counsel, you're going there with the assumption, especially if you go to Grace Community Church, which does believe in church discipline, that you're not just with a counselor, you're with a pastor, you're with someone who has responsibilities to the church.

And it wasn't publicly put out there that there was a problem with a spouse not allowing the husband to come back into the relationship and live in the

That was not put out there publicly. That was put out there to the church. So this would have been a situation known to the church because they were involved at the church, the

Grays. I don't see how that really fits. But the second one is the court testimony.

And, you know, I don't have all the details with what why they supplied court testimony or what the circumstances were for that.

But generally, that's that's not an uncommon thing from the little bit of research I did this afternoon on this, that that's actually fairly common for counselors to do that kind of thing.

And, and of course, there are situations that are within the purview of the law, which counselors should report.

And this is taught, by the way, because I know this, I went to Master Seminary, and this is actually taught in counseling that there are certain situations, you call the police.

For instance, we talked about suicide. And, you know, if you suspect someone's going to commit suicide, you call the police.

So there are situations for that. And, and, you know, people, I've already talked about this in the other video, but people ask, well, why didn't

Grace Community Church call the police? And I can't answer that for you. I do know that there was already an order of protection. And progressively throughout the course of counseling, the those who were involved in that came to the conclusion that the danger was not there, at least not like it had been at the beginning.

So that was a conclusion they came to. Maybe they should have called the police just to at least have it on the record.

I don't know. I just don't have the information to be able to make that assessment. But there was a mechanism in place, at least initially, for protecting the wife and the children.

And Grace Community Church certainly supported that. And they do, by the way, report on abuse situations to the police.

That's something, you know, again, I know that from going to class there. So it's not like it's something that they're just, their theology is holding them back from ever going outside of the confidentiality of the church office or something like that.

Here's the other thing, that Hardy had no, Hardy was the counselor for the

Grays. He had no counseling credentials. And that I didn't,

I guess, make a case that he did. And the thing is, I guess maybe I just assumed this, but so just one thing about Grace Community Church, I remember this from going to counseling there, you could get

ACBC certified. In fact, I started that process that I kind of trailed off and I just didn't complete it.

But to become a counselor at Grace Community Church, you're going to be ACBC certified if you're going to be in that role.

And Hardy actually teaches counseling right now. And he has an MDiv. He teaches counseling. So he has to be certified.

If you're going to teach it, there's no, so, you know, he had some kind of credential and he certainly had some kind of counseling classes before entering into this.

So I figured I'd just mention that to you. I mean, it's a little minor detail, but you know, some people are getting worked up about it.

So, and the other thing is someone had commented and there's a number of comments like this.

I don't know if this is a big group of people. There's just a few that I saw, but the same kind of general trend that I'm on Team JMAC and I support the innocence of David Gray.

I've already made my position clear on this and I made it clear in the first video. I'm on Team Truth. You know, if here's the thing, if John McArthur, let's say

John McArthur knowing knew at some point, or let's say he's informed now he didn't know, but now he's realizing, oh man, okay, this guy was guilty for whatever reason.

He comes to that conclusion. I think he should say something about it. That's my opinion. I think he should say something about it.

It's become a big public spectacle and just say, you know what? Hey, I goofed on this one, or I didn't know. I don't have all the information and look, big church,

I'm relying on other people to get, you know, I think he should say something if that's the case. But when you look into the details of this, when you look into just what other people have said about this who are close to the situation at the church, the detective and the testimony from the detective and the child, the psychologist who thought there was potential confabulation going on or evidence of it, and you know, church workers who were watching the kids interact with their dad in a positive way, you start looking at all these things and you think, okay, like I could see how someone might come to the conclusion that there's, that the other side, that the jury went with, and it's all based on testimony.

There's no hard evidence that I saw that I'm aware of that, you know, they didn't think that that was the proper route to take, that the jury came down wrong and sided with the wrong testimony.

I could see how someone might come to that conclusion, but that doesn't mean that that's the right conclusion. I don't know whether it is or not, but at least

I think presenting that, at least allowing people to know, hey, there is, there was this other side.

Okay. That's, that's important in my mind, rather than just producing material and then cherry picking things for one side.

That's, that's what I don't like, you know, try to, all the available information, come up with a paradigm and present the available information.

You might have to summarize. Yeah, sure. But, but at least let people know it's there so they can access it.

All I'm saying. So I don't think this is, should be becoming as blown up as it is right now.

I wanted to, there was one email. I was going to show you this. Let's see if I can pull it up. Okay. I finally found it.

So I'm going to read for you part of this email. I'm not going to display it on the screen just because of the email addresses and some, some names, some proper names that are in it and stuff.

I'll just summarize parts of it and then convey it to you. You don't have to even believe me that this email exists. That's fine.

I mean, I, I'm just using it as an example and those who follow me and do trust me, you'll, you know, you'll believe that what

I'm saying to you is the truth. There's no reason I'd have to mix up something like this. Usually I don't do this kind of thing.

I won't read an email like this. I want to do it on this just to show you one thing.

And it's, it's that there were people who knew the Grays, who knew, who were closer to this situation, shall we say, that did not agree with the, the verdict of the jury.

And they're not crazy people. That's what I just wanted to relay to you. They're just not crazy people. They're not people who are knowingly supporting child abuse or think that we should be soft on that or that they're, they're sexist in some way and they just don't believe women or, you know, these, these are people who for logical reasons, for rational reasons, because of the tendencies that they saw and things that they, they witnessed and knew have decided, you know what, we, we don't believe that.

And I think that's probably the position a lot of people at Gray's Community Church were in. They were closer to the situation. And for whatever reason, there were two different conclusions reached.

There was one by the jury and there was one by the people who knew the family well at the church. And it doesn't, there's no indication or evidence that those at the church who ended up reaching a different conclusion were doing so because of some blindness to abuse or some kind of willingness to protect it.

And that's really the only thing that needs to be out there. It's David Gray may be guilty. But then again, there's people who think he's innocent and disagree with the jury and they're not unreasonable people necessarily.

So at least, at least in the, the reasons they're giving, they're, they're not these wild -eyed sexist or pro -abuse stuff.

So here's, here's the, the email. I just want to, let's see, read it here. So the person's name is

Kathy and they, sent me this email saying that they stumbled on the

YouTube and they're, they're basically grateful for the video. And they, they knew that there was male, you see some of this,

I don't even know how personal I want to get with some of this. They have intimate knowledge of, of the Grays. Let's just put it that way.

They knew them well. And they knew of, and I'm going to be purposely a little bit vague with some of this, but they knew of a previous accusation that the wife had made.

And they, they relayed to me what the wife had said to them at the time about her, her own credibility and what she thought of her own credibility.

That she had Lyme disease at the time and that she questioned her own sanity. And I mean, this is all stuff that they're saying, they're eyewitnesses to.

So that David wasn't the first one accused of this. And then they, they give a lot of other details about how close they knew them.

I mean, they know stuff that only someone who knew the person intimately would know. And this is what they say about them.

They're, they're praying about, you know, coming forward and talking about this, I guess, just because of probably,

I don't know if it's because of what I said, they're not saying it's that, but I did say in the video that like, look, if Grace Community Church doesn't make a statement, if people that were closer to the situation, maybe could describe why they came to a different conclusion in the jury, that would be a helpful thing.

I can, I can only piece together things from all the documents. And I think I can see why, but if someone closer to the situation came forward, that would be, that would be nice.

So I don't know if they heard that or not, but they prayed about coming forward and sharing some of what they knew.

And they do not believe that Elaine's testimony is credible. And they believe that there's too many inconsistencies.

And they, they even talk about how they don't even agree with some of John MacArthur's theology, but they, they, after knowing her, just don't think that this was a, this was credible.

And so anyway, this is someone who knew them at the time. It's from,

I won't give the last name, but it's someone named Catherine. If they want to go public with it, that's up to them, public in the sense of, they gave me permission to read this on air, but I, I just don't think that it's necessary for me to give you all the details.

Just know that there are people out there like this who think that way.

And they're not doing it from some kind of misogyny or some kind of pro -abuse or, you know, blind allegiance to MacArthur or anything like that.

It's not the cult thing. It's based on previous experience. It's based on knowledge.

And so what do you do with something like this? And, and the thing is the responsible thing to do is when you don't know for certain is just say,

I don't know for certain. And that's kind of where I'm at. I don't know for certain, but there's no reason to then assume that John MacArthur knowingly supports unrepentant, an unrepentant pedophile or something like that.

And that's kind of where I'm at. So that's a cap on that whole situation. And it's not like team

MacArthur or team, you know, bloggers or whatever. It's just team truth, you know, and it's a serious charge to level against someone that, that is a pastor like that.

It really is. And so I don't know if this will develop any further, even if it does, though, it's not something that I'm probably going to spend a whole lot of time on.

At least that's my plan at this point. So we'll see what happens. Let's talk about the main topic of this, which is the

Chicago statement stuff. I want to talk about this. I really do, because this is concerning.

So Baptist News Global on March 14th put out this article, How the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy Became a

Litmus Test. And I'm going to read for you part of this. I don't know if I want to read the whole thing.

It's by Rick Pidcock. If you don't remember, Rick Pidcock is the guy who went after Vodie Bauckham, brought his daughter into it, went just full on nuclear.

And this is how the article starts. Do you affirm the doctrine of inerrancy as articulated in the Chicago Statement?

Demands Denny Burke, professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Bringing up the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy is a common tactic.

The Theobros, that's a pejorative, used to simplify their control of a conversation down to a false dichotomy of being in or out based on your affirmation of an unrelated document.

It has become a litmus test for orthodox belief. Thankfully, historians such as Barr of Baylor University and Kristin Dumez of Calvin College are not falling for these tricks.

It's pretty funny. Much could be said about the weaponization of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, but where did the

Chicago Statement come from? What is it? Does it accurately communicate what the Bible is? Can it be signed in a non -weaponizing way?

So, I mean, this is ridiculous. This is so nefarious. Chicago Statement, for those who don't know, you can just go online, you can find it.

Here it is. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, 1978. And you had like James Boyce and Norm Geisler, R .C.

Sproul, I believe, signed it, and John MacArthur, and Francis Schaeffer, and just a lot of guys,

Carl F .H. Henry, all these big guys, these big names came together. And really, through a period of 10 years, they put out three different documents.

You have the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. You have a statement on hermeneutics. And then there's a third one.

I forget the name of the third one. Maybe it was interpretation. The one on hermeneutics I've actually quoted in Christianity and Social Justice Religions in Conflict.

And I quote it in regards to its, to liberation theology and how it goes after the horizons approach to interpreting scripture.

And it's very helpful stuff. I'm like, wow, this is applicable to today. But here's the original

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. So there's affirmations and denials. There's a little history here.

But here, you know, here, article one, we affirm that the holy scriptures are to be received as the authoritative word of God. We deny that the scripture received their authority from the church tradition or any other human source.

And it's a series of these affirmations and denials. And they're very helpful. They really do very sharply distinguish the orthodox teaching from teaching that's in error and sometimes common.

Here's another one. Let's just read another one. Article six, we affirm that the whole of scripture and all its parts down to the very words of the original word given by divine inspiration, we deny that the inspiration of scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts or of some parts, but not the whole.

So someone says, I believe the Bible. I think the Bible's inerrant. But you know, I doubt some of these particular writings in the

Bible that, you know, I don't think Paul should belong in there. Or, you know, I think that, you know,

I don't know that it's on a level, a specific level that we can say things should be taken literally, but as a whole, the

Bible, right, you can't do that. And so there's all sorts of things based on scripture and reason.

And John, where's the scripture? Well, that's where you come down here and you get the theology, the exposition, which I think was written by Norm Geisler, if I'm not mistaken.

And it goes over some of that. So it's a helpful document and it's become more popular over time and more relevant over time.

And it's more important now than perhaps it's ever been. But this guy is saying it's nefarious.

It's trying to club those who are not, who don't sign it as being somehow outside the fold.

Well, you know, if you're not going to affirm the Bible, you know, and it's inerrancy, then yeah, I mean, you are, you're outside the beliefs of institutions have to have beliefs, right?

If you don't have beliefs, then, you know, would you hire a Muslim? Like, where does this go? How far do you take this?

Or it's fine to have a statement like this. So talks about these statements.

And then it says, let's just get down, let's get down to the brass tacks here.

The inerrancy of white male supremacy and the invisibility of the rest. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy originally was signed by 334 people.

After looking up every name on the list and asking some of my seminary professors to review the list, I was able to confirm four

Hispanic men, one black man, one Asian man, and five white women who signed the document. But those 11 people are merely drops in a sea of white males.

Hmm. It is a conspiracy because the statement was signed in 1978. The vast majority of those white men were theologically trained decades earlier in segregated seminaries.

Oh, by other white men who had created theologically fueled systems of white supremacy.

Where are the, this is serious. We can't laugh. I want to laugh. I'm like, are you serious? Like the jumps that people make that are infected with CRT, the assumptions that they make, and it's not just CRT.

It's the feminist stuff too. It's all the critical theories. It's the social justice stuff, the jumps they make to connect something to oppression.

The assumptions that must be made to get to the point of we can tar and feather that document or that person or that institution.

It gets more and more and more ridiculous. Where are the Hispanic, black,

Asian, or Middle Eastern women? Where are the LGBTQ Christians? Hmm. Why are there not more Hispanic, black, Middle Eastern, and Asian men?

And this is the highlighted quote here. In the world of the Chicago Inerrancy Trilogy, anyone other than the straight white men is virtually invisible, nowhere to be seen.

Hmm. What's the assumption there? Well, you can't have a correct perspective if you don't have these other perspectives represented for the interpretive process.

Well, it's standpoint epistemology. That's all it is. It's postmodernism. You know, what their social location gives them an extra set of,

I don't know, senses that they're able to ascertain knowledge that others can't? Like, what is it?

Why is that so significant? The leather -bound single book with Holy Bible stamped on it front and printed in the language of the common people didn't exist until the 15th century.

Ooh. In the tradition, he's citing a book here by David Bentley Hart.

I've not read, but he quotes a quote from it. This is not faith. It lacks even the dignity of honest superstition.

It is fideism, the most decadent of religious states, and it always is a state of desperation. It goes basically just saying blind faith.

That's what it is. It's blind faith. That's what the Chicago Statement is about. When one examines the 13 articles of affirmations and denials in the

Chicago Statement, the clutching and clinging to authority and certainty in the face of reality become quite apparent.

Article 1 denies that the Bible receives its authority from the church, but falls, fails to recognize what Olson referred to as the widespread disagreement within the church about which books should be included.

Of course, I think Kruger actually is probably the best source, contemporary source, to go to on some of this stuff, and I don't even necessarily know.

I agree with everything Kruger's done in the past few years. He's, in my opinion, not been the greatest with the woke stuff, but he wrote some good books on inerrancy, or at least church history and the canon.

How am I going to go through all these? Let's just get to the next highlighted quote. Article 10 affirms that inspiration applies only to the original text of scripture, while denying the fact that these texts no longer exist is problematic.

Not if you understand biblical criticism. It's not. All right.

Let's go to this one. Liberation of Theology. Quotes from that book. Juan Luis Segundo says that the prevailing interpretation of the

Bible has not taken important pieces of data into account. The Chicago Statement was written overwhelmingly by conservative evangelical white

Western men at the height of the most powerful social location in world history. There it is, social location. This just gets more and more and more ridiculous.

It ends with, look at the Southern Baptist universities. The ones that are, interestingly enough, going sort of in a more liberal direction in my mind, but this is probably one of the things that are holding them back from going full bore.

The Chicago Statement. He's saying, look at Southwestern, Southeastern, Southern, Midwestern.

They require the Chicago Statement. You got to sign that to be part of their faculty.

Man, isn't this so horrible? I think people sign it, and then they put their own spin on it, or they don't think they're contradicting it when they bring in the woke stuff, and that's a big problem, but at least they're requiring that you sign it.

And Rid Pickock has a big problem with that. Well, not to be outdone, the Gospel Coalition put out an article.

So this is March 14th, March 15th, the next day, updating the Chicago Statement on biblical inerrancy, a proposal.

Okay, now Bill Roach went through, actually, there was two responses I want to show you here.

Well, yeah, Bill Roach, and then there was one from the Defending Inerrancy, all right, by, who is this by?

By the editorial staff at Defending Inerrancy. All right, so there's two responses to this particular article, and I'm not gonna go through all that, the technicalities of it.

I just want to point out one thing about this article, okay? They wanted, this guy, this fellow, wants to update the

Chicago Statement. Now, I want you to think with me, what's the biggest threat to inerrancy today? What would it be?

What do you think? You know, on the horizon out there, what's the most popular threat to inerrancy right now?

And the sufficiency of Scripture, and really just the whole basis for Revelation itself. Would it not be the social justice movement with its standpoint theory?

Wouldn't that be the problem, like the big thing? And that's not what you find in this. And I thought that was interesting.

To me, that was enough, right there. You have a guy who wants to, you know, a little thing here, a little thing there, we got to update this, update that.

But like, what about like the big elephant in the room? What about the Trojan horse that's been let in?

Like, what about that? If you're going to update it, which I don't think it needs updating, by the way, I mean, this is why I included the

Chicago Statement on, not inerrancy, but on,

I guess, interpretation in my book, Christianity and Social Justice, because I was like, it fits, you know, it already answered this stuff years ago.

But if you're going to update something, and you want to strengthen something, and you're concerned about something, I would think that would be the thing you'd be trying to strengthen.

And when that wasn't even mentioned, I was like, yeah, I'm just not, I'm not buying this.

I just don't know that this is so, you know, so here's the thing. It's kind of like the, some people are really about the

Convention of States, right? We're going to change the Constitution with the Convention of States. And one of the things that some people have pushed back on is like, well, what happens?

You could have a colossal mess when you do that, too. You could change the Constitution. And then after it's changed, you actually change it for the worse.

This could be really like, right, and there's arguments going back and forth about that. But the thing is, if this is opened up, and some of these articles, like this article, and Bill Roach also say, basically, that wasn't the intention.

It was, this shouldn't be reopened. People have tried to do that. The framers are dead, or they're very elderly, the ones who are still alive who signed it.

And it would be a new generation. And they tried to make it as evergreen as possible, timeless as possible.

And it was very purposeful the way they did it over a 10 -year period. And there's no reason to update it.

That's kind of the argument. But the thing that I'd be concerned about is who's going to sit on that committee? Who's going to be the one updating it?

Go to, so this is a Twitter post that's by SBC Underground, and they catalog some of this stuff.

Check this out. Griffin Gutledge, who, I don't even know where he works. He was at Southeastern.

He's in the SBC, and he's very, I don't know what you'd say. He was very involved at the convention last year, especially with the

Hannah Kate thing and all that. But anyway, Griffin Gutledge. All right. For my part, Chicago Declaration is what he's talking about here.

Not the Chicago Declaration, Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. It needs some updates. What we need more is to throw the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics away and start over.

Whoa. And that's the one I quoted from. Sorry, not interpretation, hermeneutics. That's the real conversation.

Then we can stop collapsing every doctrinal disagreement into a fight over whether you really are an errantist. That is dangerous.

To throw away the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. The only thing I can think is, I know Griffin Gutledge has a kind of a woke bone in his body, and I'm wondering if that's,

I mean, is it to get in the standpoint theory, the liberation theology stuff, the horizons approach? What is it?

What is it? Gadamer and Heidegger? Where are we going with this? Here's Derek Vreeland asking someone, are you pro or anti the

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? It's so 1980s that it's like asking someone, do you prefer VHS or beta for your

VCR? Oh, it's just so old. It's just so 1980s. Let's see what else was on here.

Beth Allison Barr, PhD. Litmus tests of faith like the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy have been another way white evangelicals have sought to control who is and who isn't a true

Christian, Barr said. The boundaries they're drawing are putting themselves at the center. Um, there was one here, if I can find it.

Christian Dumez quoted the whole, you know, it's like a VHS or beta for your VCR.

She says, the Bible is, this is the author of Jesus and John Wayne. The Bible is still a contested book, and we must rise to meet the contest.

It is just that the contest has changed. And a lot, I mean, she's definitely on the woke train.

So what's the thinking behind all this? So it's just interesting that this is being thought about as, and I would submit to you, this is just part of the,

I don't know if you want to call it deconstruction or the liberal advance or what term you want to put on this, but it's definitely breaking down objectivity.

And it's, I would be concerned if we throw this thing away, and start over, who's going to sit on that committee?

And what's the statement going to look like at the end? There's no reason to change it. Um, so anyway, uh, you can

Google that or Bing it. I wouldn't, I Binged it, I guess you probably should DuckDuckGo it. I don't recommend using those other search engines, but you'll find a lot of stuff on it.

Just Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, interesting history, interesting stuff. Uh, go check it out for yourself and, uh, realize how important this document was, uh, especially for the battles of that time.

Uh, and more importantly for the battles of this time. And so I just wanted to bring that to you that that might be something we hear more of in the coming years.

And we've got to stay strong on this. Uh, this, this is a good litmus test to use whether or not someone actually has the same thinking on the authority, the inerrancy of scripture that Orthodox believers have.

All right. God bless. Hope that was helpful for you. I'm going to put some resources in the info section if you want to know more about the Chicago Statement and this whole thing.