DEBATE: Should Christians Use Preferred Pronouns?

Preferred Pronouns, Pastoral Sensitivity, and the Debate Framing

Whatever pronoun they want me to use, I would use in deference so that I can have a conversation.

I come across it differently. The vast majority of times, I wouldn't use it.

The conversation over preferred pronouns looks something like, well, say my pronouns or else. And if you don't, then that automatically means you don't respect me, you hate me, you're seeking to hurt me.

LGBT people very often want something that they're not willing to give us, which is to be truly listened to. Isn't it more reasonable for both parties to be willing to find a way to proceed without violating either of your convictions?

Should Christians use preferred pronouns? We've got a fresh debate that just took place between two Christian professors on this very issue. In the one corner, we have Dr. Tim Muehloff, who is going to argue that Christians should use preferred pronouns.

In the other corner, we have Dr. Sean McDowell, who will clash with Dr. Muehloff. They're going to give their particular positions, and then they're going to go to an unexpected place in the scripture for support, and we are going to listen to it and break it all down in order to determine who has the better position.

This is not a debate, Teacher Reacts, guys. I'm actually going to tell you my position on this issue at the end of the video. But first, if you're brand new here, welcome to Wise Disciple. My name is Nate Sala, and I'm helping you become the effective Christian that you are meant to be, which includes navigating this issue on the use of preferred pronouns.

Make sure to like and subscribe, and if you think this video is helpful, share this with somebody else. It just helps me to get the word out about this ministry.

Using Preferred Pronouns in Sensitive Conversations

If I'm having more of a sensitive conversation with a person, by the way, providentially, just a week ago, I had a conversation with a set of parents who are raising a child in gender dysphoria who does not believe this child identifies as a boy or a girl.

So, the parents would ask, would you refer they them? Okay. I've raised three children. Immediately, my mind is exploding with the prophetic voice, the persuasive voice, but I've not gone to the pastoral voice yet.

I think what I've learned from teaching communication is you got to start with the pastoral ritual view of communication and seek to have bonds. So, I would, with that person, I would use whatever pronoun they want me to use, I would use in deference so that I can have a conversation about God's view of sexuality.

Now, in this...

Okay. So, we're seeing the two sides of this issue. Dr. Muehlhoff just said that he would use preferred pronouns with a trans person out of deference for them. He brought up a unique example of this, and he wants to do that because he intends to have a conversation with them at some point in the future about God's view of sexuality.

So, for him, it's like a way of getting the foot in the door, so to speak, towards having that difficult conversation later. Whether you agree with that or not, that's Dr. Muehlhoff's position, and I take it Sean is going to give some pushback, take the other side of this issue, which is that we should not use preferred pronouns as Christians.

Let's see how this plays out. In that particular case, that conversation would.

Have stopped on a dime. Okay. If I would have said, yeah, okay, can we just have a quick talk about the pronoun quickly? I just, in good conscience, can't do that, but I really do want to talk about your child.

I really do want to talk about you, but just know that I can't do that. He literally said to me, then this conversation would end. Now, I have a choice to make at that moment. Do I end it because I put preconditions on the conversation, or do I continue it and give deference to him where I can unpack?

So, can I make one quick point? You just made about seven.

Points that I need to respond to. This is my favorite strategy. I'm going to run out the clock. No, go, go. Okay. So, you were talking about, if I understood you correctly, that the time you wouldn't use it is like in a debate, which almost never happens.

That's.

One example. So, Dr. Muehlhoff does say that, you know, his use of preferred pronouns would only be in private situations and more interpersonal settings, one-on-one stuff, but on stage in public, he would not use preferred pronouns.

And I take it, probably the distinction there is because of how much more difficult it is in public, rather than in private, to ensure that his communication is properly understood. Now, in a few minutes, I'm going to tell you where I stand on this issue, but let's just see where.

This goes. Or, in the conversation, I pick up that a person is really reading into that. Like, because I'm using your preferred pronoun, you think I'm supporting. I agree with A, B, or C. I would step in right then and say, hey, in fairness to me, I think you're reading a lot into my pronoun usage.

And let me just say, I don't read, we're having this conversation right now. I would correct that if I perceived it was happening.

Got it. So, the vast majority of times, you would use it.

I probably would.

As a whole. Okay. So, for me, I come across it differently. The vast majority of times, I wouldn't use it. There are only certain exceptions I could possibly think through in which I might. I can tell you, I certainly wouldn't with kids.

I would not use it with kids, especially with a minor, probably ever. I can't think of a scenario in which I would. Possibly in certain business, professional settings for people, we'd have to flesh out what that looks like and what it costs them.

I do think with that said, we, as Christians, need to develop what John Stone Street has said, a theology of getting fired. In other words, there are certain things that are going to cost us and we have to be prepared for.

That. I don't know if you just felt the heat coming off Sean's words there, because that is fire, what he just said. As a matter of fact, I need to go find a fire extinguisher. I'm in the studio, might go up in flames here.

We absolutely, as Christians, need to be, look at me, we need to be prepared to lose our jobs, our careers, and our reputations because of our faith in Jesus Christ and our obedience to God's word. I suspect that a lot of us get worried.

We get anxious about this idea because we don't fully trust God. I'm speaking to myself at times. I get anxious sometimes about the future. You realize the kind of work I do here on this platform that other Christians, a lot of them friends of mine do on this platform.

Longevity is not something that we can all count on. I mean, you realize that, right? The way that this whole thing works, the way that it's not fully explained how this platform works, the way our culture is going right now.

We all need to be prepared for God to allow us to lose our jobs, our careers, and our reputations, because we will not budge on the truth of God's word. And if that day comes, we have nothing to fear because the same God who saved us, he will never leave us nor forsake us.

Amen. I could anticipate possibly if I'm in a relationship.

With somebody and I've been able to hear out their worldview, where they're coming from, sympathetic awareness as best as I can. And then they're willing to hear out where I'm coming from and really understand what it costs me to use a preferred pronoun.

Then in relationship with that person, I might consider doing so. Oh, I might. I'm just giving you ways that I'm open to being persuaded to, but as a whole, those are very few and very far in between.

So give your example,.

The parents with a child. So Sean says in the vast majority of cases, I'm not going to use preferred pronouns, even when in private one-on-one conversations, I won't do it. The only way I'm going to consider the possibility is if first and foremost, the person I'm talking to hears me out about what it costs me to alter my language in such a way that violates what I know to be true, which let's face it is not happening right now.

Okay. The conversation over preferred pronouns looks something like, well, say my pronouns or else. And if you don't, then that automatically means you don't respect me. You hate me. You're seeking to hurt me.

All of these important assumptions about those of us in the church who have a much more developed reason that has nothing to do with any of that. The fact is many of us are ready, willing, and able to show our LGBT friends that we love them.

While at the same time, we're coming to conversations from completely different perspectives, completely different values and worldviews, but they are not. Why? Because the boundaries that they create do not allow for us to be understood.

By the way, this is not a complaint. Okay. So don't hear what I'm not saying. This is an observation. LGBT people very often want something that they're not willing to give us, which is to be truly listened to.

And that provides an impossible barrier towards productive conversations for a lot of folks. I've had these.

Kinds of conversations and I don't think it's either just, Hey, here's where I stand. Sorry. Conversation is done. My principle is to be as charitable as I can be and lean in as much as I can without violating my conscience.

So I would try to lean into that person. I would say something effective, and I don't know exactly how the scenario play out for you. I'd say, do you mind telling me about that? How your parents and your kid, why your parents in this way, why this is so important to you in terms of being in relation to me, I would love to hear you out.

And I can tell you where I'm coming from. You've requested me something, but I just have to understand where you're coming from. Now that person goes, sorry, you're out. Tell me. To me, I'm being as charitable as I can be without contributing to something this couple is doing to their child that I think is.

Profoundly harmful. So this is what, that is so great. That is so great. And it's, it's, it's a very similar approach to one that I've recommended. And at the end of this video, I'm going to try to circle back around and tell you how I recommend to folks to approach the issue of preferred.

Pronouns in conversation. The parents said to me, they can sniff it out in a second that you're not being charitable in two ways. One, you never mentioned my child's name, which is clearly a name that goes counter.

Second, you never use a pronoun. You never use a pronoun. And they would see that as being uncharitable. So, so if in this scenario, the parents make it clear, out of respect to us, would you, if we're going to talk about my child, would you refer to my child as you would not bite and draw an end to the conversation.

So we're talking about being.

Charitable and you can talk about respect and talk about showing dignity. And there's a clash of worldviews that might be taken here in terms of how people interpret charity, how they interpret respect, how they interpret dignity.

I am going to be charitable according to a Christian worldview, right? If somebody doesn't receive that and grasp that I can't force them to do so. So the way you frame that was, this is not being charitable.

I'm going, I mean,.

As charitable as I possibly can within my own world. So by the way, this is a very unique situation, right? Parents who approach you to talk to their child is not the way that preferred pronouns typically come up in regular conversations.

In regular conversations, when you're talking to someone, it's going to be the LGBT person and they're going to bring it up so that they know what, or that, you know, what they prefer, like when you refer to them.

So, I mean, I get this scenario. I get that it actually happened to Dr. Muloff. I just don't think it's very helpful because it's not illustrative of typical encounters. And also I'm in full agreement with Sean.

Like if someone claims that I'm not being charitable, I'm not going to automatically assume that they're justified in this claim. You know, what do they mean by charitable? Right? You know, do they mean violate your own conscience in the name of charity?

Because that's unrealistic for anyone to ask. Like if you reverse this scenario, right? They wouldn't even be willing to do what they're asking of you. What if you ask the parents in the name of charity that they refer to biologically appropriate pronouns?

That would be an example of charity to you as a Christian. What do you think these parents are going to say? Nope. So is it reasonable for them to require you to do something that they're not? Isn't it more reasonable for both parties to be willing to find a way to proceed without violating either of your convictions?

Acts 16, Acts 17, and the Question of Conscience

So, Act 16, you get Paul going on his second.

Missionary journey. He's going into synagogues. He's taking Timothy who is not circumcised. He has a Greek father. He's not circumcised. Paul is going into synagogues. He's going to want to address a bunch of different issues.

One being, what does it mean to be a Jew? Well, you got to file food laws, you have to be circumcised, and fidelity to the Torah. Paul is going to say to these Jews, listen, there's now going to be a different circumcision, right?

This is him going to Colossians. There's now a circumcision of the heart, not done by human hands. It's done by God. Okay. I want to address many things in these synagogues.

Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. He lost me. He said that Paul would go to the synagogues and appeal to them. That's true. He brought Timothy who was the product of a Jewish mother and a Greek father.

That's true. As a matter of fact, take a look at this. Acts chapter 16, verse one. Paul also came to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek.

He was well-spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Okay. And that's all well and good. But then Dr. Muloff says that Paul is teaching the Gentiles in Colossians about the circumcision of the heart. In this case, he probably means the circumcision made without hands, which is in Colossians chapter two.

By the way, this is a good time to remind you. I've partnered with Logos Bible Software. That's the app that I'm using right now to read the Bible here on YouTube. I actually use Logos every single day with my own Bible studies and it's a game changer for the serious student of scripture.

Check out the discounts you can get through Wise Disciple. Go to Logos .com forward slash Wise Disciple for more. This is Colossians two verse 11. In him also you were circumcised. Here it is with a circumcision made without hands by putting off the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.

Okay. I wonder if there is an assumption being made here and it's implicitly being communicated and that is that Paul believes that being a Jew is not all that important. That actually the salvation being extended to Gentiles nullifies the rituals of the Jews to obey God from the Torah.

That is not the case. All right. As a matter of fact, if you pay close attention to Acts, the early Christians who were originally all Jews had no intention of abandoning Jewish rituals. They were perfectly content living as what we now refer to as Messianic Jews.

That is Jews who still observe Torah, but also had found their Messiah. The first council in Acts unpacks this whole issue very well. Remember the issue in Acts 15 was that the disciples were wrestling with what to do with all these Gentiles who also want to follow Jesus.

You remember this? The solution was not that the Jews needed to abandon Jewish practice. The earliest Christians had no intention of doing that. It's the solution was that the Gentiles should not be obligated to become Jews just to follow after Jesus.

That's the point. How this relates to Christians using preferred pronouns is beyond me because I don't think this parallels very well at all. If Timothy, having a Jewish mother, wanted to live as a Jew moving forward, that's not the same thing as giving.

Deference to sinners living in sin. The Messiah has come to the circumcision thing. I'm going to be challenging these entry points to God, Yahweh, right? But I'm going to, in deference to you, Acts 16 .3, I'm going to circumcise Timothy.

I will do that. Now you can imagine the objection right.

Away when Paul is talking about this spiritual... Again, I mean, is this a parallel scenario to someone using preferred pronouns? That's the question you should be asking. Is this a good example of a biblical text that justifies the argument that Christians should use preferred pronouns?

I don't think it is because I don't see the two situations as being parallel. I get the methodological parallel, but I don't get the situational one. Jews without a Messiah is not the same thing as LGBT living in sin.

And so the accommodation to circumcision does not necessarily violate conscience in the same way that it would with preferred pronouns. So, which by the way, I'm curious, like at this point right now in the video, do you agree with Mule off here?

Am I way off? Like, where are you at? You know, I'm curious to get your thoughts. This is a, I just want to commend both professors. This is a wonderfully substantive discussion. Okay. And I want to thank both of them for letting us have this opportunity to wrestle with what they're talking about.

I strongly encourage all of you.

To watch the whole thing. The link for that is below. Circumcision, the Jews are going to say, well, wait, you don't believe that because you had him physically circumcised. If your argument was the spiritual circumcision is what the most important thing is, why would you circumcise Timothy?

You're actually going against your argument. Paul's answer. I didn't circumcise him to bring him to God. I circumcised him so that I could speak to you in deference to you is why I circumcised him. So go to the Judaizers right now we're in Galatians and the Judaizers are Jews who.

Have converted, but they're saying, but again, the difference is has Timothy affirmed something anti-biblical in getting circumcised? Is he, is he somehow not capable of worshiping God because of his circumcision?

And the answer is no, because he can easily fellowship with all the early Christians who, by the way, we're all Messianic Jews. So again, I just don't see that there is a clear violation of conscience in this scenario.

And that's what I think it boils down to is a.

Violation of conscience. And we're keeping the same entry points. We're keeping circumcision and food laws. Paul says, yeah, Timothy's not getting circumcised. Uh, Titus. Titus is not getting circumcised.

Can't happen twice, meal off. Yeah. Yeah. Titus, you're not getting circumcised. Why? Because these are people claiming to be Christians and I'm really disagreeing with their, so only thing I want to say principle wise, he had the flexibility to do both.

Circumcising Timothy is fascinating. That is interesting. It's interesting. Why? Because he wanted to be in the synagogue and he wanted to have these robust conversations. Could that circumcision be misunderstood?

I think in a heartbeat, by the way, jump to Acts 17. We know what he thinks about idols. They literally turn his stomach. We know that. Then he gets up and I'm a rhetoric professor. So we study Acts 17, Mars Hill.

Brilliant. He gets up and he says, men of Athens, your idols are abhorring to God in a front. Why are you smiling? Because I preach on that passage. Exactly. He said, men of Athens, I observed that you're religious in every way.

Stop right there. Now, if all,.

If that's all he said when the shortest speech. Yeah. Again, I get the train of thought. We should be flexible with how we approach varying groups and types of people. Agree to a hundred percent, a hundred percent, but should we violate conscience in the name of being flexible?

I don't think so. And I don't see how these scenarios reflect that idea. Am I the only one here? Do you agree with Mule off again? I mean, I appreciate the opportunity to wrestle with this, but I just don't agree with the conclusion.

He teaches a Paul. He's feeding.

Him to probably a false narrative. He never explained it. He just said, men of Athens, I observe a religious in many ways. He goes on to give a brilliant defense against idol worship. He does. But what was his entry point was men of Athens.

I observed that you're, I observed that you're religious Jews. Okay. Timothy circumcised in deference to you. Now let's have a conversation about spiritual circumcision. Okay. So first off, this is one of the best arguments I think I've heard for this.

Can we stop right now? Can we, are we out.

Of time? You can take that clip and we can go. I is by starting with act 17, actually give a talk.

On act 17. I bet you kill it, but I actually give a talk on act 17 as well. It's a very popular.

Passage. Amen. It's based upon the four things that I learned from you about starting with understanding a position. So Paul is in the city, gets clarity on what they believe. And he quotes their prophets.

So we understand it's second common ground. So he starts by saying, men of Athens, I see you're very religious. That's just an observation that we are both religious and he's building common ground within his audience.

He's not saying anything false or conceding any particular world view by doing so. He's just building common ground and recognizing where they're coming from. That would be my take on act 17. Right. Am I wrong with that?

Before we move on?

He is man. He is, uh, as, as one, uh, uh, act scholar said an unnamed.

Best way to do it. I can give it to you. I can give it to you. Keep going for a second time.

Keep going. It's Craig Blumberg, right? Who, who we both respect. He said, this is Paul expressing cultural sensitivity. Oh, I think he is really going, but, but, okay, but go to, go to act 16. Okay. But you just, but there's a chance that he would be, there's a chance that he would be.

Greatly misunderstood. Oh, I observed that you're religious. Anybody can be misunderstood. I just sensitivity. That's just wise, great communication. That's very different than the issue we're discussing here.

Would Paul stand up? So I have a hard time believing Paul would stand up and affirm pronouns to have the conversation with people today. Do you really believe Paul or Jesus?

We know that he's not, uh, that's a good question. It's a good question. Sean is cooking.

With some olive oil. That's a really good question of this position. We know what Paul, we already got the cliff notes. We already got the, right. We know what he thinks about these idols. We absolutely know what he thinks.

We know what he thinks about gender, right? Calling into question God's view of gender going all the way back to the garden. We know, but we still give an interesting way to frame the conversation that I start with this point of contact that less, yes, you are being religious without a doubt, but we're about to unpack that.

So no, no debate about that. We're going to get the, we're going to get to act 16,.

Fair enough. But he unpacks it. So if I use a gender pronoun and all I do is use the gender pronoun and there's no conversation, I would say, be very careful with how much you're buying into this, how much you're feeding into it.

But I'm using it as my entry point to have a robust conversation that the person can receive on God's sexuality. Paul is absolutely setting the stage to be able to talk about idol worship by being sensitive, linguistically hospitable.

He doesn't come out swinging. He comes out with a compliment and even quoting one of their poets. So we have.

So much in common in terms of like, try to be winsome, try to find common ground, be sensitive, have minimal barriers to conversation that we can. I think we agree with that. We're just differing over how far would Paul accommodate this?

So before we go to act 16, do you think Paul or Jesus would use preferred pronouns? And by the way, since you brought it up, do you think they would? You brought up Paul on act 17 as an example. Do you think they would use preferred pronouns?

If it was a condition, if it was a prior set condition to have a conversation.

Careful, careful now. I'm clenching up here. It's a legitimate question, but is he really going to.

Say it? I think back based on act 16 in deference, he would use a preferred pronoun in order to have the conversation, right? Because do I get in the synagogue or not? If you're not going to allow me in the synagogue because Timothy is not circumcised, which surely is the case, I'm circumcising Timothy.

Let's go in. I'll have the conversation. I think in principle, that's the preferred pronoun argument.

In principle. Okay. So this actually raises another issue and I don't think we have time for this to explore. So if you want to like explore it in another video, let me know. But if the argument was we should use preferred pronouns because it shows respect to the individual, which is, I think what I heard Dr. Muloff say, what happens when that individual or the family members, they finally hear our true position at some point, connect the dots to realizing that we've been using pronouns that we don't actually truly believe in or affirm.

Won't they realize that we've been disingenuous to them? I mean, whether the goal of the disingenuousness was a good one or not, won't they realize that we're not being real with them? See, to me, this actually is a problem, whichever way you cut it.

It's a problem, right? There's ditches on both sides. That's why it's important how you navigate these conversations and not try to defer anything when you can do some work to address it meaningfully right then and there.

So in a moment, I'm going to close, but I'm going to continue this discussion actually over on my Patreon, where let's face it, I can be a lot more free with my language and my ideas that I want to communicate to you in ways that are not welcomed on this platform.

So I encourage you, if you're not on my Patreon, join the discussion over there, because I'm going to provide my very practical advice as to how to respond when someone wants to use their preferred.

Pronouns. We'll get there. I'll let that settle. We can come back to Jesus or Paul, but I do not think either of them would in any circumstance, period. I can't think of hardly any chance where I think Jesus or Paul, especially in a public setting like that, would use a preferred pronoun.

Okay, agreed. Unpack table fellowship. Unpack. Okay, so let's go. So let's go to this one.

Timothy, Titus, and the Limits of the Circumcision Analogy

Okay, so this is where Paul is bringing Timothy with him to meet with the Jews. They know Timothy has a Greek background and it's not Jewish. Paul doesn't affirm that you need circumcision to be saved or part of the covenant community.

They do. So he has Timothy circumcised to be in conversation with them. Is that fair? I don't have the text in front of me. Did I capture that?

Uh, yeah, let's go with that. I like how you brought it up. I'm trying to make sure I get.

Right. I guess I would say, do we today still have the freedom to be circumcised or not? Is circumcision in itself a sin? The answer of course is you can or you can't. This is an area, the scripture says and talks about that is not a requirement.

It's not the sign of being a part of the covenant community, but we would have the liberty to do so for health reasons or for religious reasons, maybe tying to the old Testament. I would argue that there's some liberty there that we have with that.

That's different than the issue that Paul is doing here, where he just recognizes a barrier to a community that was doing something.

Commanded by God distinctly for that season. There it is. There it is. That's what makes this scenario not parallel to using preferred pronouns. Circumcision was commanded by God and the early Christians decided to continue to obey God by getting circumcised.

That's the environment in which Timothy is stepping into, which should not have violated his conscience. Violating conscience is precisely what Dr. Muloff, in my humble opinion, has not proved with Paul or Timothy here.

I think these are very, I don't think it's.

Comparable between the two. I agree that, remember, I said we're not comparing circumcision to use of pronouns. We're comparing the principle, the communication principle, that in deference, he had him circumcised.

Let's not argue circumcision versus using preferred pronouns. I'm talking about his linguistic fluidity that he had the freedom on one situation to do it. And with Titus, he said, no way am I doing it.

But the only way that Dr. Muloff can adopt his particular framework is if we completely ignore the violation of conscience, which again is the boundary here that must be explored, in my opinion. And it sounds like.

Sean's opinion as well. It's the principle that I find fascinating that he did this in deference.

Okay. I love the term linguistic fluidity, by the way. By the way, we get this from Proverbs, right? You're going to have to, I agree. You're going to have to make sense, because he had linguistic community in example A, doesn't mean he had linguistic community in any circumstance whatsoever.

I agree. Yeah.

Okay. We're on the same page with that. So you're going to have to map it on to the current debate and what's at stake to do so. And so I would totally concede that Paul maybe was risking being misunderstood.

On circumcision, which was a huge deal. I agree with that. I still don't know that it's going to map on to Christian saying because of this with the Jewish community, the authority that Paul has as an apostle, the nature of how the church is changing, there's so many differences there.

I don't see that linguistic fluidity and chance of being misunderstood mapping on to the transgender discussion and debate today. Culturally, I think you're going to have to, and maybe you do that elsewhere.

You're going.

To have to make some work. So, I mean, this is a fascinating discussion. Let's, let's close. Okay. I think on balance, Sean McDowell has the better position that is in more, it's more in line with the scripture.

Obviously there is no clear, explicit teaching, prohibiting the use of preferred pronouns because this is a 21st century issue, but there are ways to derive a proper Christian response from the clear teaching of scripture.

Dr. Muloff has done some work to use Acts chapter 16 and 17 to support his position. But at the end of the day, I don't think these passages support the argument that he's trying to make. Did Paul and Timothy become as flexible as they could be to win over people from different walks of life?

I think the answer is yes. Well, definitely with Paul. I mean, take a look at, you know, what he says in first Corinthians nine. But in my opinion, that's not what this comes down to. What it comes down to is did Paul and Timothy violate their conscience in order to be flexible with the lost?

And I don't think the scripture shows that they did. So I'd agree with Sean on this particular issue, but now it's your turn. What say you, who has the better position, Dr. Muloff or Dr. McDowell? And now I realize I've been saying Sean this whole time.

Oops, my bad. Let me know in the comments below. I'd love to get your thoughts. For those of you on Patreon, stick with me because I'm about to give you my advice on how to handle this request about using preferred pronouns.

By the way, if it was not clear, I agree with Sean. You should not use preferred pronouns in any circumstance. Okay. That's my position on this. Uh, if you are not part of it, so I'm about to have an important conversation over on the Patreon.

If you're not part of it today is the day to join. Okay. This is the perfect opportunity to jump into a support tier and help me continue to make these videos. As I mentioned one day, I might not be here on this platform guys.

That's why it's important to stick with me on Patreon because we're going to continue to, to like plug away over there. Amen. You get all kinds of benefits, exclusive live streams. You can meet with me one-on-one the link for the Patreon is below, and I hope to see you.

All there.