¶1Hello and welcome to this episode of Ask Anti-Right Anything, the program where we try to answer your questions about Jesus, the Bible, and the life of faith. I'm Mike Bird from Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia, and I'm of course joined by >> Tom Wright from Wikliffe Hall in Oxford, currently in the north of Scotland. >> Now Tom, I've got to ask you a difficult question. This this may lead to some divided loyalties. If I wanted to encounter the glory of God, am I more likely to encounter it in Scotland or England?
¶2And if I if I want to if I want to enjoy the ambiencece of divine glory, the the the the doxer, you know, the the the great experience of the divine majesty. Am I more likely to find that in England or in Scotland? Or are your loyalties too divided now to answer? No, I I am I am thoroughly Scottish in my loyalties now, having lived in Scotland for 10 years and then uh now having our own house um on the on the outer edge of Scotland. Um I think Maggie and I would both say um there are there are parts of Scotland which are um what what my what my wife calls sort of hallelujah places or or praise God from whom all blessings flow praise places.
¶3Uh there are such places in England of course as well but um we have both thoroughly fallen in love with with all sorts of parts of Scotland and uh we we we are very happy to see the glory of God reflected there. Now of course at one level this is silly because the whole world is God's holy land. The whole world is claimed by God. Um the whole world is where God wants to reveal himself. But so it just in terms of my own personal preference, um I would much rather be up here in Scotland and gazing out on the wonderful scenery and so on.
¶4>> Yeah, I can't help but agree with you, Tom. I think you're more likely to encounter the Shikina in the Shetland Islands than you are in well, Blackpool. Let's be honest. I don't I don't think anyone associates Blackpool with the the glory of the law. Don't get me wrong.
¶5I'm sure Blackpool's a very very nice place, but it's not >> We'll get some We'll get some flak on that. Somebody will write in from Blackpool to say, "How dare you?" So, apologies if that's >> I'm sure it's a very nice place, Blackpool. But anyway, well, the reason I bring this up is we do have some questions today. One of them touches on the glory of God. So, how does Jesus express the glory of God?
¶6I mean, do we need to rethink the Trinity to make it a bit more digestible? and how to be a force for theological sanity when you're in a religious world that looks like it's gone crazy. So, our first question is from Lee Holton of Orlando, USA. He's got a question about Jesus expressing the glory of God. And he asks, "What connection is there between the glory and face of God in Exodus 33, in 2 Corinthians 4:6, and in Revelation 22:es 3-4?" Uh I used to be a Jehovah's Witness until recently.
¶7So the idea of Jesus's relationship to God the Father is sometimes difficult to grasp. Thank you. Uh let me give some context to this. I want to read from 2 Corinthians 4:es 5-6. And I'll read from uh Tom's New Testament for everyone translation.
¶8And the apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians, "We don't proclaim ourselves, you see, but Jesus the Messiah is Lord and ourselves as your servants because of Jesus. Because the God who said, "Let light shine out of darkness has shone in our hearts to produce the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus the Messiah." Uh Tom, how does Jesus express or radiate the glory of God? And what does that tell us both about God and Jesus? >> Huge and glorious questions. Um if I was wanting to give a proper answer to this, I think I wouldn't start with two Corinthians 4 because it's very dense as in the passage you just read.
¶9It's one phrase after another after another and you need to sort of lay them all out um rather than seeing them scrunched together like that. I would go to the beginning of John's gospel um and to then then the whole sweep of John's gospel because John says in the prologue um that the word became flesh and pitched his tent tabernacled in our midst and we gazed upon his glory glory as of the father's only son full of grace and truth. And we want to say then to John, um, excuse me, what does this actually look like? What does it mean to gaze upon God's glory? And then as the gospel develops more and more and more, there are passages where we see, oh, this is what it meant.
¶10You know, this was the first sign that Jesus did the the water into wine and manifested his glory and his disciples believed in him. So glory is there, the power of God to bring something new out of something old. the wine out of the water. Um but then all the way on to say John 11 where Martha confronts Jesus and says um you know we can't take the stone away because Lazarus has been in there in four days and he'll be there'll be a smell. He was corrupting already.
¶11And Jesus says, "Didn't I tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God? Take away the stone." In other words, the glory of God is the power of God revealed in that God has actually brought Lazarus back from the dead. But then ultimately the whole gospel is driving towards the moment where we stand at the foot of the cross and we gaze at the son of God dying for us and we say that is the ultimate revelation of God's glory. Um and and so many things converge at this point. beginning of John 13.
¶12Um, he loved his own who were in the world and now he loved them to the uttermost. And the uttermost revelation of God's love is the uttermost revelation of God's glory. And what that means is that this is who God really was and is. It isn't that God was something else or someone else and that he just happened to love us. His his love, his display of his character is the very heart of who God was and is.
¶13And everything Jesus did from the changing of water into wine to the raising of Lazarus and all the signs in between and then his own death and resurrection displays this glory. So I would then want to take all that package back and say from John, thank you very much. Now, as we read Paul in 2 Corinthians 4 and elsewhere, we see a very similar thing that Paul is there working with the story of Moses. Moses going in to the tabernacle to gaze upon God and coming out with his face shining. Um, and Paul is saying yes.
¶14And that's rather like, I would put it that way, rather like what happens to us when we gaze upon uh Jesus. And when we gaze upon one another as people indwelt by the Holy Spirit, we are witnessing the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus the Messiah. Um, now at that point, theological analysis really takes a backseat and and we are projected into a world of of awe and prayer and gratitude and sometimes just silence um because we we run out of words to say what we're glimpsing. But that we glimpse something of who the creator of the world was and is when we look at the story of Jesus. That is absolutely basic.
¶15Now then there will be supplementaries and Mike you can probably anticipate what supplementaries our correspondent would want to add at that point. >> Yeah I I think that's a good way of doing it Tom coming at the question via John 1 and then going into 2 Corinthians 4. I mean what comes to my mind is I think when Paul is writing to Corinthians his personal encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus I think is in the background you know because he has this encounter with Jesus but he also believes when he saw the risen and exalted Jesus he also encountered the glory of God and I think That is a massive christoologgical revelation for Paul that the God, as I think you would say, Tom, the God who does not share his glory with any other now seems to include or express it through the exalted Jesus of Nazareth. And this is the real amazing point and this is what I think this is why Paul spent so many years thinking this through. What does what does this mean about God?
¶16What does it tell me about Jesus? Well, it means that the God who let his glory shined shined it through Jesus. And that's got to refocus the identity of God in relationship to Jesus and who Jesus is in light of God. So I think Paul's theology proper and his understanding of Jesus were radically shame changed by that encounter on that you know sandy road to Damascus. after that he believed Jesus was to be identified with the very glory of God.
¶17I mean that for me is the big takeaway when when I look at a passage like that. >> Yeah. Yeah. And it's it's so um it's so multi-layered because he also says the the the light of the gospel of the glory of the Messiah who is the image of God. And by image of God as in Colossians 1, does he mean that he is the one who supremely reveals God or does he mean that he is the true human being, the one made in God's image?
¶18And I think the answer is both. >> And and then we go to Gerald Aronyus from the end of the second century who who talked about um the life of a human being being the reflection of God's glory. The glory of God is a living human being. Um, Herrenius had this very high theology, if you like, of what it meant to be human. And he had that because he saw it in Jesus.
¶19That Jesus, it wasn't that Jesus revealed God's glory despite the fact that he was a human being. He revealed God's glory because he was the archetypal human being. He showed what being human was supposed to be all about. And in doing precisely that, he reflected perfectly the true God into the world. Um, and and I think part of the difficulty here is that people come with this idea of who God is and then they try and fit Jesus into that.
¶20And the New Testament does it the other way. The New Testament says, "No, you got to look first at Jesus." And the closer you look, the more you discover who God is. I suspect that's a way of putting things which will come back in other questions that we're going to be looking at as well. >> Yeah. And and I think our uh questioner here uh Lee will probably appreciate that answer.
¶21It shows the relationship between God's glory and Jesus. But we do have another very theological heavy question this time from Glenn Jeter from Longwood, USA. And this is about the Trinity. And Glenn says, "Thank you for your ministry for him. My question is, since there are difficulties and tensions in regards to the trinitarian doctrine, is there possibly a better way to present God and Jesus perhaps in a new doctrine somewhere between uh trinitarian doctrine and modalism?
¶22Or perhaps just a better explanation of God from verses in context or from the Jewish and Greek understandings that better describe God? Sincerely, Glenn. Uh, now at one level, Tom, I sympathize with this because, you know, one God, three persons. The math is not easy. The math is not easy.
¶23You know, you've got, you know, father, son, and spirit, but they're all the one person. How do we explain that? Surely there has to be a much better explanation than using words like homouios and consubstantiation and hypoatic union. I mean has the Bible been corrupted by the church fathers and the reformation and all these modern theologians speaking Latin and German and their scholastic terms. Surely there's got to be a more easier way to explain God is than using all this weird language.
¶24So is is the Trinity worth keeping, Tom, or should we come up with, you know, something like a new understanding of God for the postmodern world that doesn't rely on the world of ancient Judaism or the Greek world of the church fathers? Is is there a better way to describe God that doesn't need a trinity? Yeah, it's it's a great it's a great question and and this comes back again and again and I don't know if you were aware of this but I think it may be in either Montipython's life of Brown or or one of those where John Clees is acting the part of a school teacher preparing a rather unwilling class for confirmation and they come to the doctrine of the trinity and John Cle in role um just says well the trinity three and one one and three any problems with that go and see your maths master um you know as though as though math master is just going to sort out that for you. But I think that's the approach that many um old-fashioned English speakers have said well you know we don't really understand it but somehow it all fits together and then they fall back on um various versions modern versions of modalism or something that it's really all the same thing and God just appears this way then he appears that way. I remember a much wiser comment from old bishop Steven Neil who I knew quite well in his uh in his the last 10 years of his life.
¶25He died in his in his um 80s and uh Steven Le once said um and it was cryptic because there were students around and asking him questions and I wish he'd had a chance to explore it but he said he said uh Christologology is a doctrine about God and the trinity is a doctrine about Jesus. And that seemed to me initially so counterintuitive that we might want to say well surely Christology is about who was Jesus. And the answer is well no actually when you understand christologology you're talking about who God really is that God is Christlike and in him there is no uncristlikeness at all as as as I think Michael Ramsey put it and he may not have been the first to say it like that but then that the trinity is a doctrine about Jesus is a way of saying that the unique human being Jesus of Nazareth stands at the center of this picture and cannot be reduced used to simply a mask that the one God puts on and takes off at will. That rather something about the person of Jesus is inalienably central to the vision, the true vision of who God really is. And likewise cannot be reduced to terms of experiences of the Holy Spirit as though experiences of Jesus and experiences of the Holy Spirit are really just the same thing.
¶26with with different language and there there are many modern Christians who've tried to to to go that route. Um and I have said on various occasions we we have to beware lest we mistake the the key in which the music is set for the tune which is being played. Musicians listening to this will understand that you know Beethoven's fifth symphony it's in C minor. Okay. But if you say C minor, algro vivaci or whatever it is, that doesn't necessarily say to you da da da da.
¶27On the other hand, if you say da da da da, most people will say, "Oh, that's Beethoven's fifth symphony." Um, but the the the question is the the key in which the music of early Christianity is is set turns out upon inspection to be broadly trinitarian. But if you stand back, you say, well, it's about God the father, but then Jesus coming as his well, his son, whatever, but then his spirit doing specific things which are not identical to or reducible to the things that Jesus of Nazareth did and so on. But then what is the theme which is being played? And the theme which is being played is the coming of the kingdom. is the inauguration of God's kingdom on earth as in heaven.
¶28One of the difficulties about the great creeds, the um the apostles creed, the nyine caled nine um creed and and then the calcedonian definition which is the the attempt to talk about who Jesus really is from from a fifth century point of view. Um the the these are are understandable in terms of people in those early centuries facing their contemporaries with how can we talk about all all this stuff and but actually I would say that's because very often they weren't uh exploring the original first century Judeaic categories that the early Christians and Jesus himself were thinking in. And that when we look at the Judeaic story of God and the world and Israel, then we will find much more appropriate categories. So that the category of sunship goes back through the Davididic kingship um as in Psalm 2, as in 2 Samuel 7. And the idea of God in the midst guiding his people to the promised land, which is how Paul talks about the Holy Spirit, that goes back to the Exodus wanderings where the pillar of cloud and fire are leading the people to their promised land and are focusing the challenge to holiness right there in that time through the Torah and so on.
¶29So that we need to explore these great New Testament images not in terms of oh well three or four centuries later they found themselves driven to say this or that though they did but in terms of what those early Christians were doing was drawing on the things that had happened in their scriptures which showed them God in person and God in action. Now, of course, one of the key things here, and you can see this going on in um the worlds of ancient Judaism, the different worlds of the rabbis and then before the rabbis, the apocalyptic writers and so on, is that because talking about God acting in the world is potentially so strange, unless you were to go fully pagan and said, "Well, there's this God called Mars, and he does the war bit, and there's this God called Poseidon, and he does the sea bit and if we're not going that way, how are we un understanding this one God acting in the world? And so the ancient Jewish writers came up with talking about God's word or his spirit or his power or his love. and at one or particularly his wisdom and at one level these are if you like simply metaphors that talking about God's wisdom as the means by which he made the world that might just be a way of saying that when God made the world he did so wisely but then it turns out both in proverbs and in the literature dependent on proverbs and then in the New Testament that wisdom becomes as it were a personification and then even a person and we gaze on that and we say well this is asking us to think in categories beyond what we normally do but maybe that's the only way we can ultimately get at who God really is. So the idea of moving from God acting in the world to personifications to the person and then saying but this is what we see in Jesus himself as the supreme example of wisdom which itself is also a Davidic or solommonic category and so on.
¶30So these are all ways of saying go back to the Judeaic world of the first century. Look at what what the early Christians are doing within that world. Don't think you have to leave that behind because that's Jewish and therefore bad and then embrace those Greek categories. The Greek categories come in because the people of the second, third, fourth, fifth centuries are talking to their contemporaries about this extraordinary revelation of God. So they're trying to use categories familiar to people at the time.
¶31But by forgetting the original Judeaic categories, they run the risk of actually losing some of the rich density of what is there in the ancient Judeaic world upon which the early Christians and indeed Jesus himself are drawing freely and richly. So that that that's where I would start. It's not where I would end, but it's where I would start. But Mikey, you have written and researched this yourself. So, um, please.
¶32>> Yeah. Well, I I do dabble a little bit in systematic theology and church history. And I I tend to point out that all the alternatives to the trinity just break down at some point. So, if you go the modalist route where father, son, and spirit are like a mask or a persona that the one god wears and he kind of takes turn of being each one of them. It doesn't really make sense when you get to the baptism story.
¶33You know, unless there's some kind of act of divine ventriloquism going on, you know, the voice from heaven says to, you know, the people there, this is my son whom I love or the spirit comes. It doesn't make sense as a modalist. >> Uh you can't be a tritheist because we know there's only one God. And then if you go the, you know, unitarian route and say, well, there's one God. Jesus is a human being and the spirit is an impersonal force.
¶34I mean, if you read the great commission, you know, go and baptize in the name of, you know, the one God, a mere human, an impersonal force, it doesn't really have the same ring about it. So, I tend to think the trinity is not just the best inference the church makes based on who Jesus is and how that expands and redefineses God. all the other options posted or or presented or offered ultimately they all kind of end up being incoherent or they crash upon the jards the shards of scripture. >> Yes. Yes.
¶35I I I totally totally agree. And so that if somebody says but the trinity is incoherent I want to say well actually all the alternatives are incoherent including >> more incoherent. Yeah. >> The atheist alternative of course that says well that the reason it's incoherent is because there isn't a god. Well, there's all sorts of other other big questions to be asked in that case.
¶36Thank you very much. But that that's that's a whole other set of questions. >> Great. Well, we're going to take a break, but don't go away yet because in our next question, we're going to answer how to survive as a minority when you think you're in a world that's gone religiously crazy. All that after the break.
¶37I I would ask Tom this and this is a a surprising question maybe to nominate for me one thing just one thing that Christianity has introduced that doesn't have some source some parallel some analogy in in previous and in other civilizations the ideal of of lifelong matrimony I think that's a very distinctive Christian concept I think the the category of of what by the 19th century is coming to be categorized as as homos exuality and heterosexuality. I think they have no precedence. I think the notion of secularism, the idea of there being religions, I think all these are entirely exclusive to uh Christian civilization. I think the concept of science as it emerges in the 19th century, I think is entirely exclusive to uh to to to Christian civilization. I think the idea that um human beings are created in the image of God, that is obviously something Christians share with uh with Jews.
¶38It gives a degree of dignity to human beings that no other cultural tradition that I'm aware of even remotely approximates. Uh Tom, have you ever had moments where you feel like you're the only sane person in the room? Have this ever happened to you? It happens. It happens to me quite a lot.
¶39Moments where I say, "Look, I'm not saying everyone here is crazy." But is there anyone in this room besides me who is not out of their mind? There are there are moments where I where I I feel that way. Often often at family reunions for the most part, but that's a that's another story. That's another story. Uh because Tom, we've got we've got a question on this.
¶40>> Yeah, it's from the answer to your question is no. I haven't really had that experience. Um, I can see what it might look like and feel like. Um, but I'm racking my brains to think when I've actually been in that situation. I think maybe sometimes as a student where I discovered for instance if I in a student seminar um discussing philosophy then I discover I'm actually the only Christian in the room and then everyone else seems to be making all the standard modern atheist assumptions and and then I think well okay this is this is how we have to start and where do we go from here?
¶41I wouldn't feel particularly uncomfortable. I would feel that's a sort of norm or has been or what certainly was when I was in in student age. But no, I I haven't had quite the feeling that I think our questioner is going to express. >> Well, this is what the question we've got from Jeff McDade in Huntsville, Alabama. And it's a question about how to survive in a world that seems to have gone religiously crazy.
¶42And Jeff says this, "I was born and raised in the American Bible belt where dispensationalism and end times fervor are the norm. Discovering a more predtoist or historical view of prophecy has revitalized my faith, but it's also isolated me. My father-in-law is a preacher who dismisses these views as heresy, and finding a like-minded church community is nearly impossible." Tom, how does one stand firm and remain biblically faithful in a region where your view is the minority? Furthermore, do you have any advice for someone attending a church where they disagree with the primary esquetology being preached from the pulpit? Now, Tom, we both know this is not an unfamiliar problem that our correspondent Jeff is experiencing.
¶43you know, if you've if you've kind of developed a more robust and I think a more authentic biblical esquetology about what the kingdom of God means and and what that entails for the new creation, the sort of thing people may well have learned from your books like Surprised by Hope or God's Homecoming. But if you're the only one who's holding that view, if you if you if you're kind of like a minority, what what do you do? What should someone like Jeff do in this context where it's more enamored in a world where culture, esquetology, politics, conservatism or progressivism or any political ideology you like seems to be running the show in the way people read the Bible rather than the Bible helping people think about esquetology and politics in the current day. So what do you have to say to Jeff? >> It's it's tough.
¶44It's tough and and I mean one of the tough things about it is the whole idea of a Bible belt. In other words, there's a whole swave of this society which because it's rooted in the Bible must be right because it's biblical. Um, I I've often said, of course, in in the UK, we we don't have anything corresponding to a Bible belt, which is no doubt why all too often we find ourselves with our biblical trousers around our ankles because we just don't have a belt to to to hold them up. But, um, in some ways, I would much rather people were were steeped in the Bible um than than that they weren't. The problem is when they're steeped in a way of reading the Bible which has systematically distorted what the Bible itself actually teaches.
¶45And I'm thinking particularly of course of the so-called Scoffield Reference Bible which was produced a bit over a hundred years ago and remarkably was published by Oxford University Press. Um and how they >> it kept them in the black for a long time. It kept them in the black for a long time. But well, but but that's the only explanation for why a university press would publish something like that. But the point is, and I I knew this curiously through my father-in-law, our question talks about his father-in-law.
¶46My father-in-law was an oldfashioned dispensationalist um who had learned this from the time he was converted and had his Scoffield reference Bible. I had never met anyone like that before I um met and married my wife and then started talking with my my late demented father-in-law. He was a dear man and he didn't try to ram it down my throat and he was a lay preacher but he didn't preach in the local church that much. So um it wasn't it wasn't front and center in the way that it would be in many parts of the American Bible belt. But I think there's two quite different questions going on there.
¶47One is how do you actually engage with people and try to explain that there might be different ways of reading the Bible? And the fact that you disagree with their interpretation of this passage or that passage, say 1 Thessalonians 4 as an obvious example about the rapture and so on, that doesn't mean you're a dangerous liberal who is denying the Bible. It means that you're committed to the Bible, but you actually have been trying to read the Bible as a whole and you see it differently. And and obviously I have my own take on how that would then work out. And you've cited Surprise by Hope and God's Homecoming as two ways in which I've tried to lay all that out.
¶48But that's one question. How do you actually engage with people and say yes to the Bible, but no to the interpretation you're putting on it? And the other one is a more sociological one. If I'm living here as as part of a family and around me is a church community and everyone goes to these dispensationalist churches and the whole business of the end times and Armageddon and the rapture and so on. That is simply part of the culture, part of the air we breathe.
¶49Um what are you going to do about that? And I think the the first answer is obviously to pray about it, to pray and lament about it. Lord, what should we be doing about this? but then to look for and to listen for other voices, other people in the neighborhood who might actually have the same sort of misgivings as you do. And usually there'll be a few of those, probably more than you might think.
¶50But then it's a very delicate question of do you get together with them and run the risk of seeming to be forming some kind of breakaway group which would be very difficult within um a smallish society in a in a middlesized town or whatever. Oh, there's that group over there. They think they're special. They're doing this that and the other. But there are many many Christians who have faced the same thing.
¶51For instance, people who have come to a rich, vibrant Christian faith within a world which is saturated in old-fashioned and actually unthinking Roman Catholicism or Greek Orthodoxy or indeed Anglicanism and who then are discovering things which their church seems to have forgotten or not known about. Um so this is this is not just a question typical for um the American Bible belts. It's something that you meet in in different parts of the Christian world. How do you cope with being that minority? You know, I I've known people in in England who've said to me, um, you know, well, I've been reading books, I've been going to lectures, etc., but I go back home and I believe in going to my local church, but our vicar has no idea what this stuff is about.
¶52And he preaches rubbish and and he we don't think much of him as a pastor either. What are you to do? Are you then going to drive 20 miles to another church in another town, leaving behind the people who faithfully are going to that church week by week? Or do you pray that one day you may get some sort of revival or some new teaching or um some clergy who will lead you in a better direction? And it's very important to avoid the sort of us and them that there are those who really understand and then all these the these rabble who just turn up to church and listen to rubbish and and listen to the wrong radio stations and so on.
¶53And there there's a there's a danger of real arrogance there. And no doubt all of us run into that problem from time to time. And so part of the answer is I'm afraid a call to humility to to be able to say um I will go on praying with these people because I think the heart of the matter is in them um but I will hope and pray for opportunities actually in getting to know them, in loving them, in serving them as a neighbor. um to find ways of saying perhaps there are different ways of reading some of these key passages and maybe if we were to study this together some of it would become clear. So I don't want to say rush in with with both feet and say no you're all wrong here's a better way of doing it bang bang bang there may be a time for saying something like that but preferably only when you really know and love and are loved by those neighbors whom you're trying to reach.
¶54Otherwise, all that you will communicate is arrogance. And that's never a good way to communicate the gospel. >> Yeah. You you can't mock and deride people into changing their mind. I think that's an important lesson to take away.
¶55Yeah. >> Well, that's all we have time for for today. But in our next episode, we're going to talk about pouring oil on your desire for God. Uh what to do when you have a conscientious objection to working for a company that does business with the military. And exactly where did Pilate condemn Jesus in Jerusalem?
¶56So, a bit of biblical archaeology next time. But everyone, if you can't wait until then, if you are dying for a bit of more ask anything content, then you can become a subscriber to our premium bonus episodes. And for the price of a cheap coffee, you can get four extra episodes every month where we go through Tom's book, God's Homecoming, talking more about esquetology and culture and politics. Uh where we talk about the Odyssey and how that illuminates the the henistic world of the New Testament, all that and more. And Tom, I need to ask the question, have you reached the point of weariness?
¶57Are you are you tired of answering all these questions? Are you done? Are you finished or do you still do you still have some answers to give, Tom? >> Yeah, I I Well, I hope I do. Um, one of the answers that I would want to give is that um, my answers only go so far and there will always be more and more depth and more riches because you know I'm only one person doing one thing and um, I know for myself that um, I have learned a great many things year by year, decade by decade throughout my comparatively long life and please God if I were to be spared for another 10 or 20 years I would go on learning.
¶58So, um, the questions are questions that I have for myself as well. And as long as that keeps me stimulated, I'm happy to be in dialogue with other people with their questions, too. >> Well, if you want to be in dialogue with Tom Wright, then go to askantight.com and send us your question and uh, Lord willing, it should get on the program. Otherwise, it is goodbye from me, Mike Bird, >> and goodbye from me, Tom Wright, >> and we look forward to you joining us for the next episode of Ask Anti Write Anything. Until then, God bless and take care.