Welcome back to the Christianity and Business Podcast, an initiative of the RGW Dunham College of Business at Houston Baptist University. I'm your host, Darren Shear, and this is the show that helps Christian business leaders to integrate biblical values into business. On this episode, we're joined by once again Wallace Henley. He was our third guest on the show, interviewed him about his book with the um the great grandson of Winston Churchill, a spiritual autobiography of Winston Churchill. You can go back and listen to that interview. Wallace is a former pastor, White House, and congressional aide. He served 18 years as a teaching pastor at Houston's Second Baptist Church. Wallace is the author of more than 25 books and now does conferences on the church and culture, church growth and leadership. He's the founder of Bellhaven University's Master of Ministry Leadership degree. And he's been married for 60 years.
SPEAKER_02So what a To the same lady.
SPEAKER_01To the same lady. Yes. Thank you for that. We need that qualification nowadays. Um and so yeah, he's worked where you were a journalist for the Birmingham News during the civil rights movement with um Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and um and also served in the the Nixon administration. And his latest book is titled Who Will Rule the Coming Gods? The Looming Spiritual Crisis of Artificial Intelligence. And Wallace is a dear friend of HBU and the Center for Christianity and Business. In fact, he dedicated the book to the center's director, Dr. Ernest Liang. Uh, welcome back to the show, Wallace.
SPEAKER_02It's great to be with you, Darren. Thank you.
SPEAKER_01So tell us a bit more about how this book came about. I know um Dr. Liang had a bit of a role in that.
SPEAKER_02Indeed, he did. Um, he was at Second Baptist Church. I was at Second Baptist Church. And we, of course, also had our uh togetherness working on the Center for Christianity and Business. I was in on kind of the founding of that, which was a thrilling, thrilling experience. And I just came to respect his intellect, his integrity uh tremendously. A PhD, University of Chicago, uh, economics, finance, business, all sorts of things. So every time I would have the opportunity to get with him, I would take advantage of that. So periodically we would have breakfast together. And one morning at breakfast at Cracker Barrel, we were enjoying conversation when uh he began to talk about some of the challenges that were coming because of the uh computer revolution, if you will. As an old guy still uses that term computer, I'm sure it's something else by now. But nevertheless, we talked about the revolution that was coming and all the innovation that was coming, but also all the challenges. And the more we talked, uh, the more I was hearing from a more theological side, because that's where my degrees are. I was hearing more from that side, but there was a convergence. I go back to my office and I and I read a story uh reporting about how one of a Google engineer, a former Google engineer, had started an AI church, an AI church where AI was worshipped. And it was either tongue-in-cheek or whatever, but but it nevertheless had some impact. And it occurred to me as I read this that this could become a phenomenon that needed to be addressed because, especially since we are in our society right now, losing our sense of God's transcendence, even in some areas of of uh of theology and and church life. It's more about the on the imminent plane, it's more about me than it is God, sometimes in the in the Christian pulpit. So we're losing this sense of God's overness, our accountability to God. Well, then I came back, I read some more, ran across a story about another uh engineer who said, you know, the day's gonna come when these machines have a billion times the computing power of our brain. And he said, What do you call that but God? And all of that just converged. And I began researching, studying uh the phenomena, the trends of our time and so forth. My son was in that business. My daughter works very closely with it. I call my wife, my tech department, because she's very able and skilled in it. And I began to think about all of these issues that come down the future. And the book took almost three years to write and to get done. And we're just now coming out with it, even though that breakfast meeting was three years ago.
SPEAKER_01Wow, I'm glad it finally came to fruition. I know it's been a long time coming. And and so, as you said, the issue of transcendence really takes center stage in the book. Um, why is this so critical for Christians and in the book? How do you um contrast the the idea of true transcendence with this uh this um counterfeit transcendence of of AI and the things that we tend to make as gods?
SPEAKER_02Let's start with the with the with the uh try the transcendence we try to invent. It is entirely subjective. There's no objectivity to that kind of transcendence. If I am my own God, then my value system, my worldview, all of those very important things are formed within a convenience scope. That is, that which I will conveniently accept, that which I will conveniently follow in terms of worldview and values. But if I see transcendence objectively, and if I see transcendence on a true vertical scale, this is what happens in government, for example, when when the founders were putting together our constitution, they appealed to transcendence. That was still a very important uh theme in the American pulpit in those days. And they they really took very seriously the sense that they were accountable to the creator, because the creator is objectively transcendent. It was not simply an accountability to themselves, they could stretch. In fact, they were when it came to slavery, they were stretching and they knew it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was sort of sort of combine his subjectivity with the objectivity when he said, I tremble when I remember that God is just and that his justice will not be requited forever. He understood that slavery was wrong, but subjectively he was not willing to accept that fact, but he did accept it on the level of transcendence, God's accountability to God, and that that terrified him. That terrified him. And eventually, of course, slavery went away because our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence uh had the poison, if you will, that would destroy that institution of slavery in it because of the sense of the transcendence of God. We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, not by our government, not by our own opinions, but by our absolute and transcendent creator. And therefore, we are accountable to the creator. So governments have no right, no right to rule over people as if they were God, because governments themselves have to face the issue of transcendence. Now, this applies not only for nations, it applies for businesses. There's always somebody or something that has to shape the transcendent view of those businesses, because without the understanding of transcendence, we don't pay attention to consequences and how consequences can emerge that are disastrous. So, long, long answer to your question. Uh, it is absolutely critical, especially in government and in our understanding of society, that we that we know who is boss, we know who's in charge, and we know to whom we shall have to give an accounting at the end of the day.
SPEAKER_01Yes. So when you talk about artificial intelligence, are you talking about robots becoming conscious, self-aware, kind of taking over, uh, taking over humans and you know, humans bowing down to robots? Or are you talking to talking about what some might consider more innocuous or or helpful forms of of um technology, like an algorithm that helps you decide, you know, where to where to eat tonight? Um, or are you talking about all of that?
SPEAKER_02Well, to some extent, all of it, but the little algorithms that help me every single day, uh, I don't, I'm not, I'm not ready to say that they've become my gods. They've become counselors and advisors. And uh sadly, I sometimes I receive them as absolute. Uh, if if it says eat here, that must be the absolute uh perfect place to eat. But I but I think more in terms of the questions that began to come into my mind that that morning uh Dr. Liang and I had qu had that breakfast meeting, and I I went home, went immediately to my study, and just began to think about some of the issues. For example, the great question behind my book is who wires ethics into those machines? Who who wires a value system into those machines? Who uh wires into those machines a limitation? Because the limit eventually machines, as we know, can can begin to develop themselves. They can they can become self-creative. And at some point, if there's no, if if there's no limitation, then that self-creativity can become very dangerous. And I've I've I've seen others who've thought about this, who've raised the issue, what if the machines at some point uh come to the level that they can say, you know, human beings are the problem on this planet, so we've got to we've got to obliterate human beings. I know that sounds like far out uh science fiction, but I think it's an issue we need to think about. This is why I talk about the danger of this without an understanding. So therefore, I ask the question in the book what is the worldview that prevails in Silicon Valley? What do they see as moral and immoral? What kind of ethical realities do they have? And what is the transcendence that guides the development of these machines with some kind of objectivity that understands that this is a very dangerous thing or can be a dangerous thing if we don't have the right kind of accountability? That's what it comes down to.
unknownYeah.
SPEAKER_01What are some of the, or maybe one or two of the examples of how worldviews are being programmed into these machines and algorithms that's that's you find alarming?
SPEAKER_02Well, if you if you have a purely um uh secular approach to the to the creation of a machine and its abilities uh to decide, to decipher, to interpret, and so forth, then you move very quickly into pure utilitarianism. And this, I think, is one of the greatest dangers. It's a danger now in our culture politically, um, as the sides contend over what's best and so forth. Um, when we reject transcendent values, then we're beginning to deal with a utilitarian approach to life. What works best becomes the transcendent value. And sometimes what works best, I mean, what worked best for Hitler were all those um uh very modern ovens uh by which he could obliterate the Jewish race. Um I I explored this with uh Jonathan Sands in our book on Churchill. We we explored that in quite a bit of depth. How the Nazis were always rejoicing over their technologies, celebrating their technologies, but those technologies were for the obliteration of an entire race of people. So, what kind of transcendent accountability did the Nazi have? What kind of transcendent accountability do the makers of what is emerging in our society is a very powerful force? What are their transcendent values? This is so important.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. And what is some of the the pushback that you get on this from uh from Christians that maybe say, okay, well, let's let's settle down. It's not that bad. You know, it it's these are just tools. These these are just uh they're they're just giving us more information. Like, for example, I I was just um I I know that you cited Yval Harari in your book, and he was talking, he was the example of the Scottish Widows Fund, um, where when they were trying to decide how to care for these widows of the this the Scottish clergymen, um they what he was saying is they didn't go pray about, or they probably did pray about it, but what they ultimately ended up doing was uh using some actuarial tables from the time and were able to to figure out you know the the death rates and and and how how much longer the the widows were living, and almost to the dollar, we're able to forecast how much money they needed. Um, not and they there wasn't a sense that it was like a prophetic word from God. Um, but so he's using this as again, utilitarianism. It's you know, we're we're using um this is just something that's that's going to be helpful to us. Um what are the kinds of pushback do you get? Um, and and just you know, shake us out of our complacency on this issue and help us realize what we're dealing with here.
SPEAKER_02Well, this goes to the heart of motive. And a utilitarian motive is one that says, um, our my life will be better off if you're doing well. So out of that utility, uh, I will care for you based on my valuation of you. That is extremely dangerous. But if I say to you that you deserve this because you are, because you are, irrespective of what will happen to me and what will happen to society, you are of worth. In fact, in another of those discussions about a British uh charitable fund, uh there was a debate about the role of the church in it. And and one of the secular people in the room said, you know, let's think about what happens if we extract the church from this whole thing. Then we ext, then we become strictly utilitarian. And again, that leads to a more of a Nazi view, uh, an anti-Christian view than a Christian view. But I would also say to the church in in this time, one of the things that disturbs me, and one of the reasons we've lost the sense of transcendence is because the pulpit has turned more horizontal than it is vertical. And by that I mean the um the psychological pulpit. And I was a psychological psychology major, so I'm not uh griping about that in the in the absolute sense, but I am saying we've become the therapeutic pulpit, we've become the how to get rich pulpit, uh, how to be happy pulpit, and so on. And that that message of transcendence has been excluded so often from the type of preaching that goes on today, there's there's very little transcendence in it. And I'm very I'm I'm very concerned. I was in the Mixon White House. I'm very concerned about power holders who see only the utility side of the issue. And so consequently, if there's not some kind of absolute truth there, and I know the next question is, well, whose is it? Whose truth is it? Whose transcendence is it? And we can talk about that, but if there's not some kind of absolute truth there that goes beyond the pragmatic, that goes beyond what what what is best for me, then then we're in a great deal of danger.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. Is it the the power of suggestion that is is what makes us uncomfortable and and and rightly so in a lot of ways. Uh, you know, for example, years ago, you didn't go online to figure out who you were going to take out on a date. Um, you just, you know, maybe through your church or through your community, you know, somebody fixes you, but now you go, uh, or what a lot of people are doing is going on to, you know, the different dating sites. And so the the algorithms really are, you know, kind of supreme in in most of our lives. And so what you're what you were saying is that it's it's it's not so much the the tool that we need to be concerned about, but what is the worldview of the people who are who are creating those those algorithms? Is that right?
SPEAKER_02Yes, uh, and and that that worldview needs to be something beyond themselves and the utility of the machine. Uh, had I gone, had I had that available in 1958 when I met my wife, if I had had one of those available or she had, and we'd check them out and compared uh, you know, whether or not we were compatible, we probably would have laughed because we're so very, very different. And we we we've we've learned how to live in those differences in a very positive way, so that they've become very productive in our lives over these 60 years. And it would concern me if I had gone on a strictly utilitarian basis in my pursuit of her. I I loved her from the first day. What did that mean? Yeah, she she was a joy to be around. She brought joy to me, but there was there was a value, there was a worth in her that I wanted to shepherd and shelter all the rest, all the all my life. And and God has given me the joy of doing that. So the so that's what I'm concerned about. Where's the qualitative? Where we begin to look at the quantitative, what what what what kind of speed that can this machine uh use to bring its decisions uh forth? What kind of um mechanical devices can we can we wire into these machines? Those are those are good questions. I don't, I'm not anti-science at all. But I'm concerned about the deeper question, why are we putting this in the machine? Some years ago, my wife and I were in England and I was teaching there for some time. So we we had learned to ride the subways and all the tubes and so forth in London. And we were going to a uh place where we were staying, about 20 miles north of London. So we went to Houston Station and we found out after making a terrible mistake, we found out that we had gotten on a local, which meant that, yeah, we'd go the 20 miles, but it would stop at every stop. On one of those stops, uh, and and this was probably about 10 o'clock at night, one of those stops, a about uh oh, seven or eight young men got on the train. And quite honestly, they were they were quite loud and they were they were uh somewhat combative. And and I began to be very concerned about that. Thank God we were able to get off the train before anything happened. But it occurred to me, if somebody told me those young men and all their energy had just come from a prayer meeting, would I have felt differently about it? This is what I'm talking about. Do we understand that? Do we understand that somehow there's got to be something transcendent that makes us wire into the machines a transcendent system of values that has accountability attached to it?
SPEAKER_01I think most people would feel so one example that's been going on, or at least a lot of people think it's been going on, is Facebook giving more preference to certain political ads than others. Um but from a redemptive perspective, would it be okay if Facebook was giving preference to um to political ads promoting Christian candidates, for example?
SPEAKER_02I I am a I am a classical liberal. That means that I'm a liberal in the sense of the founders. And we have the right to choose from two opposing positions. So consequently, I would not want one side um inappropriately represented more than another side. I would I would want to have the privilege of being exposed to both. Now, it's fine by me if if on those sides you make all these claims and all these assertions and all those kinds of things, but I but I want to see it side by side. That's the way I've learned to live for almost 80 years in December. For 80 years as an American, that's how I've learned to live. So I'm accustomed to that. It's foreign to me when one side is promoted in a greater way than the other. But if you do that, you could put those who are recommending this position, who are very respected on each side, those who stand with that, who are respected on this side, on that side, and you can and let them say, this is why you need to vote for that person. That's what I that's what I prefer seeing. Another problem you see without a transcendent view is that we really don't care about that. We don't care whether there's fairness in the process. We'll use the process to, just like the Soviets or just like any other propagandist, we will use that to propagandize. Another issue that that comes into this, which is in alignment with with this question, is is who determines the consensus in our culture? Who determines what it's what is proper, quote, to believe and not believe? And I contend that there there are the elites of Of entertainment, information, academia, governance, and the corporate life. Those five uh elites, if you will. It's almost like we're living back in Rome, where the elitist establishment uh determined everything, or in the time of Daniel in Babylon, when the Chaldeans determined what you believe. I'm very uncomfortable in a culture that is that dictates to me, or who implies to me that my decision may not be a good decision, and therefore I'm going to be overturned. I'm going to be I'm going to be canceled. And this is where this entire culture has come from. We're seeing the overflow, if you will, of this culture in the in the whole um wokeism culture and and so forth. So there's reason to be concerned about that.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. And it uh it almost seems like that's that's like a central um uh resistance that people have to, especially Christians have to uh this this technology is the power of suggestion, the the idea that the algorithm might suggest something to me or to the culture that runs counter to my values. Um but but every but but that's the question is who gets to um because if it's not an algorithm, it's not a website suggesting like you know, the Facebook algorithms not suggesting the candidate to you uh TV will, or you know, the whoever is is got the most to put into direct mailings, um you know, somebody is going to to suggest it. Um I mean, is that is that a big part of the fear, do you think, uh, of these new emerging technologies?
SPEAKER_02Well, the algorithm is um, and I hope I don't make anybody mad with this, the algorithm in the secular sense is like the Holy Spirit in the in the transcendent sense, in that the algorithm uh informs and inspires and instructs certain processes of decision making. Uh, if if if I've received the Lord, I've received the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit will direct that. But here's the issue. How do I know? How do I know whether this transcendent view is right, this one wrong? How do I know that? Well, the question is also the always the fruit that comes from a decision to act. What is the fruit? And the fruit is that which edifies, that which strengthens. Yes, it corrects and it leads and it guides, but it does so in the context of agape love. And this is another incredibly important issue. We only know agape love in the context of transcendence. Agape love is love that has no strings attached to it. And so the motives behind agape love are to bear fruit in another person's life as well as my own life, and to bear fruit in society. So, so how does that work in a machine that may come to dominate our culture and society even more than it is now?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I was just meeting with uh a group of guys for Bible study this morning, and the Wesleyan quadrilateral came up in the conversation. Um, and for anyone who's not familiar, it's this this idea that um there's really four parts to the the Christian life and and navig navigating Christian truth. You got Christian tradition, history, and so forth, reason, um, the word, and um I'm drawing a blank on the fourth one. Help help me out here, Wallace. And now you know the fourth.
SPEAKER_02Oh, you'll have to refresh me, I'm afraid.
SPEAKER_01Let's see, the word, tradition, reason, and experience. Yes. And experience, yes. So so it's basically your is it's basically your everyone's got their own algorithm, right? Um exactly. And and and so the but it's but it but we should be concerned about algorithms that are being um manipulated. They're not not so fair as we would we would expect them to be, um, if they were if they were truly fair. Um and and so but they are tools. I mean, there are so many um uh again, we don't want to fall back into utilitarianism, but somebody, some algorithm somewhere is going to be helping to sh inform our we're we're gonna base our decisions on something. Um, you know, like the the Scottish Widows Fund. I mean, they they they went to get counsel about how do we do this, and where they really focused was on the mathematics of it um and and the science of it. It wasn't so much of a um, I mean, and and of course, God is the God of of mathematics, so we're not saying these are two separate things, but it's something that God used um to make sure that these widows and their and their children were cared for.
SPEAKER_02Exactly. But what if you what if you have a machine and you begin writing something, and that machine says all of a sudden, and and I don't want to be a hypocrite here. Every book I've written, I've written, well, not every book, but the last 10 or 12 I've written on a computer device of some sort. And I was in the news business 1973 at the Birmingham News when we transitioned to computer operations. So I helped bring that about. So I I don't want to be a hypocrite about this. But what if you what if you're writing and all of a sudden your computer screen pops up, not allowed, not allowed. You know, that's happening to some extent in places like China and North Korea to the extent they allow anybody to have one, um, in totalitarian societies. And we're moving very quickly toward a totalitarian mentality. Uh, it seems to be more useful if we get rid of all this messy debate and all this messy stuff that we do of opposing one another. And that's that's of great concern to me. And so consequently, who is who who's going to determine that? Again, this comes back to the canceled society. And let's go, let's let's talk about the widows for just a moment. At some point, there could be an algorithm that would seem to be very logical that says widows are a drain on culture. And so, therefore, why would we want to feed them? Why would we want to enable them to continue to live? In Hitler's day, um, I'm sure an algorithm would have said the Jews are holding back the survival of the fittest and the and the evolution. They're not contributing to the evolution of the human being. They're they're a downturn. That's what he preached. So, what if they had computers that would respond like that because somebody programmed that into it? These are the things that concern me. What is driving that in the heart of the person who's building this machine?
SPEAKER_01Yeah. Well, that's certainly the the question we need to be be asking ourselves. So it it it's it sounds like you're you're okay with the the technology itself, but the question is who is programming the technology? Right? Because we're because we're jump, because I guess what's a little bit scary about this, or a lot scary about this, is we're not just going from theism to um you know to AI and dataism. There's humanism. So we're we're basically we haven't really dealt with kind of getting man off the throne. And and so how are we going to get the you know, the algorithm and the technology off the throne if man is already on the throne? Or if man still thinks he's on the throne, but has actually enthroned something else.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, yeah. And this is what happened in the Garden of Eden. God, God loves us so much that He He made us in His image, which means that we have freedom. And He He knew the consequences that would come from that freedom. He I tell people all the time, it would be it would have been so simple if there had been just one tree in the garden, but there were two trees in the garden. But there would have been no freedom without two trees because you had to be able to choose between two very opposite trees, good, of the knowledge of good and evil, or the tree of life. How are you going to live? Which one are you going to choose? You've got that choice. God has given you that freedom. We've got to, we've got to, we've got to eat off the right tree. We've got to eat off the tree of life. As and and the knowledge comes. The knowledge comes. I respect knowledge greatly. I'm so grateful that I can write a 200, 200, or 300 word uh page or 300-page book on on a computer because I can very quickly go over to a search while I'm I'm looking for material that would have taken me weeks in another period. I'm grateful for that. I'm going to use that technology. But what is qualitative about it? Where does that come in and not just the quantitative side? These are the issues we've got to face. Are we going to be right where George Orwell said we were going to be, or Aldous Huxley, 1984? Uh, we're we've kind of passed that date now, but so many of the trends, he was he was prescient. And of course, he was looking at Russia under communism and describing what the outcomes would come there. Brave New World Huxley here. He talks about the same types of things that from a different perspective. We need to take these seriously. We need to take the Bible seriously, in my view, or other uh writings that that produce the kind of fruit that would be good for a culture, not good from my perspective, but good from the perspective of what comes from it for others as well as myself. We've got to look at it from that perspective.
SPEAKER_01So, Wallace, how do we maintain, or I mean, for a lot of us, we've kind of lost a high view of God's true transcendence, but how do we regain that uh and at the same time be able to, without becoming utilitarian, be able to use these these technologies without being beholden to them?
SPEAKER_02The pulpit, so much of this, I left the White House in 1973 thinking, believing the church is probably the most potent organism in society. And I think the pulpit needs to return to a message of transcendence. That message was lost, for example, in the churches of the Deep South during the slavery period, and denominations were formed around preserving slavery because people forgot about transcendence. So the pulpit uh failed in that time, and the pulpit may be failing us now as well. Secondly, it's got to be inculcated in homes. Families need to be aware. Churches ought to encourage their families to make a home, a worldview institute where we're where we're conveying values uh into our children of the future generations. Um, I think those are two very definite actions that need to be taken right away to call the society back to the understanding of God's transcendence.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. What about kids? This is this just popped in my head. Um, but we're we're working with uh a Christian author on teaching uh computer coding to kids. Um, what how optimistic are you about God's people moving into uh Silicon Valley and computer programming and so forth?
SPEAKER_02Well, I know that there are people already there. And I know that there are people, for example, Otis Graf, who wrote the foreword to my my book, um, Who Shall Who Will Rule the Coming Gods. Um, Otis is, of course, another technologist. So they're already there, and I encourage them. And I think one of the things that could happen was the thing that happened to me in the White House. Um, I was a young um secular liberal, if you will, working in the White House, wondering what I believed about God and different things. Although I'd been to seminary, trained to be a pastor, but I'd become very disillusioned in the civil rights um issues that I saw the church was not addressing, so I became a young secularist in a sense. But I started going to a prayer group that met on Thursday mornings at 7:30 in the West Wing, just a group of people, 12 to 20 people. Sometimes Billy Graham would come and other great name people, but it was usually just those of us from the staff. Uh somebody asked me, Do you think we ought to invite Chuck Colson? And I laughed in their face. I said, Colson will blister us if we invite him to a prayer meeting. And I found myself some years later uh having the privilege of helping him uh form prison fellowship. So this prayer group that met on Thursday mornings uh became a dynamism of spiritual life inside that White House. And it was a wonderful thing to see people uh gravitate toward us as individuals because of the quality of things that God was doing in our lives. So I think that more informal, relational kind of effort, more than something that is is just very intensely organized and programmed and so forth. Um computer folks, and I'm a computer person in the sense of using it, computer folks are very are very intentional, very intentional, our function. So we've got to relax and recognize that God has formed us for relationships, and out of relationships, find one another, strengthen one another, edify one another, encourage our witness within the organization, and see what God does with that.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. Because computers are great at calculating um, you know, mathematical equations and and so on, not great at uh factoring in morality and and ethics and Christian values. And and so while this has been fascinating and encouraging. Um again, the title of the book is Who Will Rule the Coming Gods? The looming spiritual crisis of artificial intelligence. I'm sure you can get that book wherever books are sold. Um uh, Wallace, anything else you want to tell us about um how people can keep up with what you're doing?
SPEAKER_02Thank you. I write every week in the Christian Post, and it would be a delight to have folks follow those articles.
SPEAKER_01Excellent. We'll get a link to that in the show notes so everybody can subscribe to uh and follow Wallace there. Um Wallace, thank you so much for your time and your your friendship of the Center. We appreciate you.
SPEAKER_02My joy. Great questions. Thank you.
SPEAKER_00We hope you've enjoyed this episode. And if so, we would greatly appreciate it if you would leave us a quick rating and review for the Christianity and Business podcast on iTunes. You can get more information about HBU Center for Christianity and Business at Christianityandbusiness.com. Thanks for listening, and remember to keep integrating biblical values into your business.