This episode was generated automatically and may contain errors.
Evan Rosa: For the Life of the World is a production of the Yale Center for Faith and Culture. Visit us online at faith.yale.edu. Hey friends, Evan here. Before this episode on disagreement begins, I wanted to remind you of a video curriculum series that we've developed. Based on Miroslav Volf's A Public Faith, How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good.
Miroslav put together a series of nine videos expounding on that text that you can implement in your own communities to enrich your own understanding of what it means to live a public faith. Especially in troubled times. We all know that news headlines are preying on our anxiety. We all know that the algorithm rewards outrage.
And perhaps most importantly, we all know the value of democracy. So we're hoping that this series of videos and the accompanying discussion guide will help you and your community work through what it means to live a public faith today. For more information and access to this series, Visit faith.yale.edu/public.
John Inazu: What is it that is underlying this desire for certainty? I think some people it's, it's fear. It's the sense, wow, I mean, I, I feel like I'm oriented my entire life around X. And if it turns out that X isn't true or X can be questioned, then I'm going to be in deep existential despair. So instead I will just double down on the rightness of X.
So there's that fear and anxiety that drives some of it. Sometimes I think it's It's very easy to stay in an extreme position and not actually understand or recognize a counter argument, and it's a lot harder to, to see and study why other people might see something differently. The systems that we have built, especially online, reward the certainty and the extremism.
And downplay the complexity and the nuance in this sort of perpetual feedback loop, the money and the algorithms and the personalities are only making that worse, especially online. And then when it comes back to our own faith to say that we can talk about confidence, not certainty, and to have confidence in the object of our faith is wonderfully freeing, because part of what that tells us is we're part of a much bigger story that Transcends our own small lives by thousands and thousands of generations that's not measured in election cycles, that, that works out in the fullness of time.
Where the pressure is not on us, the kingdom of God does not depend on what happens in 2024 in the United States of America. We can start there.
Evan Rosa: This is For the Life of the World. A podcast about seeking and living a life worthy of our humanity. I'm Evan Rosa with the Yale Center for Faith and Culture. Sometimes we wrongly assume that merely differing in our perspectives entails that we disagree. I don't know about that. It seems too easy. To remain siloed in our differences without the challenge, the achievement of true disagreement.
And I suppose, I think real disagreement requires encountering the other in an I Thou relationship of dignity and respect. To disagree in this way would mean successfully coming to listen and understand the differing beliefs of the other person, considering how they came to believe that and why.
Acknowledging their reasons and arguments, however bad you think they are, and entertaining the appeal of that belief to them. Now, of course, you could disagree with me about this view. And yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man. It is, after all, a much higher standard for disagreement than we're used to.
Disagreement usually amounts to, nay saying, shouting matches. Browbeating, Bible thumping, cancelling, isolating, siloing, excommunicating, echo chambering. And none of these. Could ever be a robust mutual encounter of dignity, or dare I say, love. Today on the show, legal scholar and author John Inazu returns to talk about his new book, Learning to Disagree, the surprising path to navigating differences with empathy and respect.
He's the Sally D. Danforth Distinguished Professor of Law and Religion at Washington University in St. Louis, and he was on the show not too long ago to talk about the forgotten First Amendment right to peaceable assembly. Together we discuss the challenge of disagreeing well. in Contemporary Life.
Replete with the depersonalization of social media and technology, the difference between certainty and confidence, what it means to think for oneself freely and independently, the virtue of humility in civil discourse, the prospect for political dissent and civil disobedience, how to pursue the truth in a culture of principled pluralism, and John offers practical steps toward empathic and respectful disagreement.
Glad you're with us. Thanks for disagreeing, friends.
Hi, John. Thanks for joining us again on For the Life of the World.
John Inazu: Evan, it's great to be with you again.
Evan Rosa: Today, we're going to talk about your new book, Learning to Disagree. This topic of disagreement, it's been on my mind for some time around the questions of civility and civil discourse in particular. I remember a friend of mine saying that disagreement is really an achievement these days.
That even the ability to understand the other to a sufficient point is itself an achievement. The ability to identify that we disagree and not simply agree to disagree or avoid the conflict. and somehow pretend that our lives are disconnected in some way. That that idea of achieving disagreement has stayed with me and so I feel like your contribution of learning to disagree is this really important moment and it's very welcome to a country that is not disagreeing well.
John Inazu: Yeah, I appreciate that. And I share your unfortunate diagnosis of where we are. I think, you know, another aspect of the work of disagreement is also recognizing the practical limits that puts on human relationships. You know, it's just part of a fallen world that the reality of disagreement will limit some of our ability to empathize fully with another side or to connect and in all possible ways.
And yet we have to try and we can do a lot better than what we've been doing.
Evan Rosa: Tell me why you picked up disagreement in particular and why is it important to you? I know that you have this background in constitutional law, peaceable assembly. You were on the show a while back talking about your first work, Liberty's Refuge.
What drew you now to make a comment about disagreement?
John Inazu: Yeah, I mean, in some ways, all of my academic and even public facing work is tied together around the right of assembly and what that means for us as a country, but also historically and constitutionally. And so in my earliest academic work, I was focused on this right of assembly in the First Amendment and what it meant in terms of groups or what Madison called factions and the instability and tension that created in any healthy or functioning society.
And I started my work at a constitutional theoretical level, and then in an interim book, Confident Pluralism, I thought, how might we think not just about the law, but also the implications for us as citizens and neighbors? What are the civic practices that might also be important to navigating the disagreement that flows out of the groups?
in which we live in society. Uh, and then finally coming to the latest book, uh, maybe that greater emphasis here should be on the learning part than the disagree part. And that learning is this ongoing and active thing that we do. And what I'm trying to show in this book is how to do it, how to begin to engage in it, not as a checklist as if it's completed and then we can move on, but that this is a lifelong activity that requires habits and practices for people to engage.
And that, that we all have a ways to go and figuring out how to do this. And so moving, maybe you can think of the arc of my academic career in some ways as moving from the theoretical and the intellectual to the applied, the. In some ways, almost the emotional or the human relational dimensions of how we think about and move forward in a society of deep difference and deep disagreement.
Evan Rosa: When I think about that deep difference and disagreement, and then remember the First Amendment, which you've spent so much time investigating, really, it does look like the First Amendment does this special work of securing the kind of pluralism that you're describing. Securing the ability to disagree, the ability to think independently and with freedom and then exercise oneself, gathering with others in peaceable assembly, petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.
And then of course, the free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech is built around the idea of independent thinking. The freedom to do so is built into the core of what it means to live in a democracy. It seems really important.
John Inazu: I think that's right, um, uh, maybe a couple of related points there.
One is even if that was part of the original focus, like any ongoing tradition, it can be lost or ignored. And so there's a sense in which each new generation needs to understand and appreciate it for intrinsic reasons and not just because they read it in a book. So a felt sense of the ongoing need for those.
sorts of things. And then the other thing that comes to mind is, yes, individual thinking in terms of not having to subscribe to government orthodoxy or the coercion of the majority, I mean, that's a lot of our country's founding and the principles there. But in our contemporary society, there's also a way in which the phrase individual thinking might be a bit of a head fake to make you think I can just kind of sit there by myself and come to conclusions when, in fact, it's not.
As embodied human beings who are in relationship with other people, we're not doing anything individually that we, that part of learning to disagree is learning how my lived, shared, embodied experience with a bunch of other people relates to yours. And that our idea and belief formation is constantly happening, not just in their own silos, but with, with human interactions.
Evan Rosa: Yeah. And I think that's where it does come back to your important point that it, the emphasis on the learning is so important and creating a space for the safety to, to learn, to explore disagreement, but to have this normative element that it's a pursuit of the truth together. And so that takes a lot of humility to be able to get to that point.
There's all sorts of. Virtues, intellectual and moral, and perhaps spiritual as well, are aligning to help us learn to disagree. At a broad level, I wonder if you could sketch what starting points are there. You start the book with empathy, but I'm curious, what other starting points do you like to introduce to help people understand where you're trying to take people with this?
John Inazu: Yeah, empathy is one of them. I think also just complexity and compromise, and also the recognition that sometimes compromise isn't possible because we live in such a world of difference with zero sum policy preferences and challenges to people's ways of life. Sometimes My political win is your political loss, and there's no way to have sort of a happy middle ground.
But the reality of living in a democracy is we are all going to be political winners and political losers at some point in the process. So how we model that really matters and needs to be in the background in all of this. And then I think that as we, you know, many people I think do want to pursue truth, big T truth in the world.
to recognize with some humility that other people have competing visions of that truth. And then in many cases, our hardest questions are not even about truth and falsity, but about maybe what's best or better or persuasive arguments of why certain harms outweigh certain goods. And when we can recognize especially among complicated human beings and complex societies that there is seldom going to be a good side and a bad side, but that there's going to be different perspectives, different arguments, and different accounts of persuasion, that that itself can invite us into a different kind of conversation that veers away from, I'm right, you're wrong, I'm good, you're evil.
Evan Rosa: Yeah. An appreciation for complexity and a willingness to sit with it seems I gotta admit, so far off, it's so difficult to sit with complexity when binary thinking is so rewarded. It's just, I, I'm curious where it comes from. I think a desire for certainty and a desire to obtain and own that certainty, it seems to be so knit into the kind of human pursuit of knowledge.
And yet, especially when you're trying to live together in that pursuit of the truth, it requires this spaciousness and an ability to sit with that complexity.
John Inazu: desire for certainty. I think some people it's, it's fear. It's the sense. Wow. I mean, I, I feel like I'm oriented my entire life around X. And if it turns out that X isn't true or X can be questioned, then I'm going to be in deep existential despair. So instead I will just double down on the rightness of X.
So there's a fear and anxiety that drives some of it. Sometimes I think it's laziness where people will, you know, it's very easy to stay in an extreme position and not actually understand or recognize a counter arguments. And it's a lot harder to, to see and study why other people might see something differently.
Uh, so lots of maybe different reasons that people veer towards certainty and absolutes. And, and then I think we're, you know, what we all feel and experience is that the systems that we have, that we have built, that we have allowed to have been built, especially online, reward the certainty in the extremism and downplay the complexity and, and the nuance.
And in this sort of perpetual feedback loop, the money and the algorithms and the personalities are only making that worse, especially online.
Evan Rosa: So you make an important point in here. I want to go a little bit more to the framework of learning to disagree and how you set it up, but you're coming at this as a legal scholar and you offer plenty of stories around, around this.
And I think learning to disagree, we can look to the courts. We can look to the question of disagreement about. What's fair, what's good, what's right. And what we agree ought to be lawful in this country. I wonder if you could speak a little bit more to the legal background and why you think that is so helpful and so instructive for going through this framework of learning to disagree.
John Inazu: Yeah. And in some ways, I mean, you said from the framework of a legal scholar, which is half of it, but also as a law teacher. And so to me, what really clicked about this book was It was a realization that what I was doing in my scholarship and what I was doing in the classroom, in addition to some obvious subject matter overlap, also blended well together into this process of learning and being in a modeling kind of sense of how we do this.
Why is it that we teach law students the law in a certain way and what are we doing in the enterprise? as I do in parts of the book, walking through really hard cases. where people have strong viewpoints, you know, take a culture wars case about abortion or gay rights or whatever it is, and then inserting that into a law school classroom where we have to ask good questions and we have to have our students interrogate the side that they don't like and understand it deeply, sometimes maybe only prudentially in order to try to defeat it.
But in the work of understanding the other side's argument in the best light possible, is itself a work of empathy that allows you to step into the headspace of the opponent a little bit and allows you to see why someone who is not dumb or is not, you know, completely outside of society might actually think differently.
And then, and this is where I think law is really helpful as an instructive model, When you get the hardest of the cases up to the Supreme Court and you have nine really smart people looking at those cases and sometimes dividing five to four and then having to write out their reasons, that's a really helpful tool for understanding disagreement.
Now, I don't wanna sort of, um, you know, sugarcoat it too much because there are cases that I think that end up being fairly political and there are decisions written that sound more like politics than law to me. But I think in many, many cases, what we read is actually an example or an illustration of how to disagree and how to understand the best possible argument on different sides.
And then as I try to do in the book, what I want to say is, and you don't have to go to law school to practice some of this or to pick up on some of these ideas. You can actually employ this around the Thanksgiving dinner table or at the neighborhood picnic. And there are, there are tools and techniques and approaches and dispositions that we try to teach in law school that can be applied in other everyday settings.
Evan Rosa: So that's fascinating to me. And it makes me think about the separation of powers and how that itself is like this interesting development of disagreement and creating space for the function of government. The function of our country to be grounded in the capacity for these powers, these three branches, to effectively and functionally disagree for the sake of American unity, ultimately.
John Inazu: Yeah. At least ideally, right. You know, as a matter of institutional design. Yeah. That you would have. checks and balances, and really different modes of discourse and different internal goods and internal and external incentives about how to do law and policy and how to respect proceduralism, that that all matters among, you know, within the three branches.
But I also think what comes to mind when you raise that example is how even in those sort of high level theories of government, Human relationships still matter. And so when you look at the U. S. Congress today and so much of its dysfunction and the distrust and the unfamiliarity among and between members of Congress, that is radically different than it was even a generation ago.
We had lots of political food fights in Congress in past generations, but at the very least, the members of Congress knew each other and often knew each other's families and contacts and all of the structural and institutional incentives. From the primaries forward, and Congress now disincentivized actual human relationships.
Contrast that with the Supreme Court, where you have nine people with lifetime tenure who have lunch every week. and spend hours face to face talking about issues and cases and actually know and respect each other. And, you know, in the, in recent weeks, at least three of the justices have come out and said, we are friends.
Uh, we have different political persuasions. We think each other is wrong when it comes to some of the law and opinion writing, but we respect each other. We're friends and we are in this institutional enterprise together. Such a stark contrast to some people. You know, as they responded to these, uh, more public Supreme Court justices, some people will say, well, it's all a power game and they're making it up and that's not really true.
But you kind of have to think that the entire court is in on the game if that's your conclusion. Or alternatively, you could think, no, this actually is a different kind of power game. More functional institution than say the U S Congress.
Evan Rosa: Such a fascinating concept that someone dreamed up at some point to do it that way.
I do want to just keep it on the political side of things for a bit longer, but I do want it to get personal as well, eventually. Political dissent is this fascinating thing. And here it might even be worth thinking outside the bounds of American democracy and go into the question of political dissidents who, who really, it takes courage to disagree and the courage to disagree.
It's a hard one kind of virtue, right? Managing the fear of repercussions for one's dissent, one's ability to challenge the dominant powers. Right. I've heard you say, and you said in our, in our last conversation about civil liberties are for the losers. It's for the moral minority, those in situations of moral political dissent out of their own convictions and their own courage to do that.
John Inazu: Yeah. You know, a couple of things come to mind. And the first is as Americans, or as I think, especially with some of the recent activism on college campuses, I, you know, someone who studies protests and assemblies, I'm. I believe in activism. I believe in protest, but I also want people in this country to not to take for granted that we live in a functional democracy where dissent is, even with all of its imperfections and all of the bad cases, it is relatively protected.
Where in other countries today, if you tried to voice your opposition, you could be imprisoned or for executed or tortured. And that's a reality around the world today. So to start with the privilege and the responsibility of having this framework that lets us dissent, it doesn't mean we get it perfect, doesn't mean there aren't abuses, but it does mean that we can start there.
Now having said that, there's also the reality of social pressure and social stigma, which can be very real. John Stuart Mill said, this is the social pressures of, and opinions of others can be more coercive and effective at silencing dissent than political and legal pressures. And I think there's something to that.
So you mentioned courage a minute ago. It does take courage, even in a democracy, even in a place like this country, it takes courage sometimes to voice dissent or to ask questions. And I think part of that in our context is tied to responsibility because we have these opportunities and these privileges that we do need the courage to speak with clarity and sometimes from the position of the dissenting minority, knowing that there will be some, some consequences from that and knowing that that's part of being a responsible citizen.
Evan Rosa: Yeah. The apostle Peter has this terse and yet expansive. It's a very universalizable command to honor or respect everyone. And it seems like this is an important grounding kind of factor that the respect for the other and their shared humanity. as a starting point for this question, can we have difficult conversations together?
And so here, I want to make like a more personal interpersonal turn. I wonder if you'd comment on how to cultivate that respect for the other that you disagree with.
John Inazu: Yeah. Um, you know, there are way, maybe two ways to answer this. I think on just a general civic level, these calls for Greater empathy, the ability to find common ground, to see the humanity in another person, to separate people from the ideas they hold.
I think those are all And I believe in those, I think they're accessible to anyone acting in good faith. I think there are challenges that we should all undertake, but, you know, you started with a mention of scripture and the command from Peter, and we also have a lot more than that in scripture. We have Jesus saying, don't just love your neighbors, but love your enemies, right?
And endure when people treat you poorly and forgive 70 times 7. That really raises the bar for Christians acting interpersonally. In other words, I mean, I sometimes get a question when I'm speaking about this book, you know, what, well, even if I am embodying these things, what happens when there's not reciprocity?
I think for Christians, the answer is, well, keep acting, right? Keep displaying the fruits of the spirit, keep doing what you're doing, because there's no guarantee of reciprocity. And, uh, so I think on the interpersonal level, we ought to be modeling this in a, in a healthier and more confident way, because it's so tied to who we say we are and, and the God who we say we follow and to, you know, if you don't have that, what does it even matter if you're right?
Evan Rosa: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that, that brings a lot of, that brings so much into it, right? Like. The desire to be right and the question of belief, the importance of right belief and orthodoxy really does motivate some of the more caustic and, and I would say, in civil discourse, which you can find and a church or within a denomination, and certainly across denominations.
And the religious dimensions here, the theological dimensions here can go either way. I'm curious your perspective on, on how to, I mean, we started with love and respect, you know, for the enemy, for the neighbor, but there is also this, this tendency to allow a desire for certainty to be really pushing us toward or away from our better angels, I would say.
John Inazu: Yeah, and I think, you know, importantly, I want to make sure about what I'm not saying. I'm not saying we just agree to disagree or, and I'm not saying the differences don't matter because especially on some of these theological issues that are dividing churches and denominations, I think the differences matter tremendously.
And in many cases, uh, just as a matter of human logic, there's a right answer and a wrong answer. And we believe we will know in the fullness of time what those answers are. And yet, Because of our own epistemic limitations, I don't, I don't think certainty is where we want to rest our, our, our claims that, um, to be open to the possibility that we're still learning, uh, we have to live in the world with the convictions we have, and we're going to make institutional and denominational and other decisions based on how we best understand what faithful, uh, Living looks like, and that matters.
And one of the consequences is, and the people who are on the other side of the issue, we think are not acting faithfully the way that we think they should. And yet, in that, we can still be graceful, just as we would be with, you know, someone of a different faith completely, or someone of no faith, we can still say, and we, I know that you're a human being who is an image bearer, who is trying hard to follow carefully and live authentically, and that that matters at some level.
And then when it comes back to our own faith to say that, and I'm here, I'm drawing from Leslie Newbigin, whose work I find so important and so helpful that we can talk about confidence, not certainty. And to have confidence in the object of our faith is, is wonderfully freeing because part of what that tells us is we're part of a much bigger story that transcends our own small lives by thousands and thousands of generations that's not measured in election cycles.
That, that works out in the fullness of time where the pressure is not on us. The kingdom of God does not depend on what happens in 2024 in the United States of America. We can start there.
Evan Rosa: Thank goodness. I mean, this is so important because it's maintaining enough investment in the conversation while not over investing in our being right about that conversation.
And you can see how you might slide into, for instance, apathy. It just doesn't matter. You know, you do your thing. I'll do my thing. I'm okay. And you're okay. How do we cultivate that ability to stay in the middle of it? Again, it's that holding the tension, being able to live with the complexity, stay invested that the conversation happened without getting disillusioned or apathetic.
Yeah. I mean,
John Inazu: I think part of it is the difference between preaching and persuasion that we're We're actually in these relationships because we think these things do matter and we want people to understand why they matter to us and why we might be right. And that's, that's a work of persuasion that unfolds in a relational context.
Uh, you know, the best preaching would also do that, but a lot of preaching, especially by the non professionals among us is really just a monologue. And that's not a way to get people on your side about anything. It also doesn't really reflect the fullness of another human being. When you're just there to argue or shout, you're not conveying that you care about them as a person or you care about or respect their intelligence.
And I think the work of persuasion presumes that there is an argument to be heard. And questions to be asked, and those are okay, and those are part of what it means to engage well with other people.
Evan Rosa: So much of the book is about trying to elucidate and clarify and make applicable these practices or habits, utilizing stories from your own experience in teaching.
I'd love to close by just talking about the practical side of this, how you recommend people what they can do today in the disagreements they find themselves in, what can they do at the level of mindset and what they can try to implement.
John Inazu: I think this starts with just the fundamental point that this has to be something you practice, and this is going to take time.
There are no shortcuts to learning to disagree well. And so to set aside the time and the effort to know that you're going to make mistakes, to create spaces where it's likelier than not. So one very practical suggestion here is if you have You know, a person, a friend, a family member, an acquaintance, where you know there are disagreements, don't just jump into the heavy disagreement, but set a relational context in which trust can be built.
Uh, you know, maybe this is, sometimes it's better to have more than just one other person in the room. So maybe you get a small group of four or five people. And instead of saying we're going to have one discussion to surface these issues, commit to four or five meetings. and commit to an opportunity to talk and to ask questions and then to go away and to reflect and maybe do some reading and come back.
And in that second meeting, you will have better questions and better conversations. And, and then even more in the third and the fourth. And by the time you get to that fifth meeting, you will have also built some relational trust just by the commitment of being together and by creating the space to be, and also be a part of that.
That will, it won't guarantee success, but I think it will increase the odds of a trust filled discussion across difference that will teach you better disagreements.
Evan Rosa: Yeah, it's important because you're acknowledging the relational aspect of it, that you're creating a space for disagreements to exist within a relationship that they don't embody the entirety of that relationship.
John Inazu: Exactly. And, you know, so another very practical point is If you're wanting to try this out for the first time, maybe don't start with family. Start, do a practice run with a friend or an acquaintance, because there is something about the family dynamics that just make Everything harder, but regardless of sort of the relationship that you start with, go in with a full tank, right?
Don't, don't go in when you yourself are impatient or exhausted or hungry, because you should go in kind of anticipating that there'll be some challenges to this. And if you can on the front end say, you know what, in this conversation, I'm probably going to hear something that is going to offend me. or annoy me.
And I'm going to tell myself that instead of reacting reflexively or defensively, I'll just pause or maybe ask a follow up or not. And even in the small act of not reciprocating, you've already de escalated the situation a bit. And I think that's most possible for most of us when we, when we come in with some margins rather than coming in exhausted and ready for a fight.
Evan Rosa: The book ends on the point of friendship and I think maintaining this concept of, you know, friends who disagree. That context for me is observing, uh, the friendship of Robert George and Cornel West by the pleasure of, sitting across from them several years ago. And it's so interesting to see how that relationship has unfolded in the space that they provide for that, because they, I would vociferously disagree with each other about all sorts of political and social and moral issues, but they travel together, call each other brother and they hold hands in prayer.
And I'd ask you to end maybe by Reflecting on this ground level need for friendship in American civic life.
John Inazu: Yeah. I mean, as you were talking, I was thinking about my own friendship with Eboo Patel, uh, with whom I share much in common and also many differences. And the, the key to those kinds of friendships, I think, is to mix the serious with the playful and the mundane.
Uh, it is important for people with very significant differences to model friendship and to talk about those differences and. Not just to pretend they don't exist. And it's also most effective and most believable when those differences unfold within an actual friendship, where you're not just always talking about the hard issues, but sometimes you're just getting together to share a meal or go on a walk or joke with each other.
And I found that in my own life, the most authentic and helpful friendships are those that mix both. I have some relationships that are only at the level of disagreement or intellectual discourse. I have some that are only at the level of the superficial, but the real friendships that make life rich for me are the ones Blend the two of those.
Evan Rosa: John, thanks so much for writing this text and making a contribution that is going to continue to draw us closer together as a society and gives us alternatives for managing just real difficult aspects of, of life, of relating to one another in a way that is going to be uplifting and going to guide us toward a kind of mutual flourishing, I think I thank you so much.
John Inazu: Thanks for that, Evan. It's been great to talk with you.
Evan Rosa: For the Life of the World is a production of the Yale Center for Faith and Culture at Yale Divinity School. This episode featured John Inazu, production assistants by Alexa Rollow and Kacie Barrett. I'm Evan Rosa and I edit and produce the show. For more information, visit us online at faith. yale. edu, where you can find past episodes, articles, books, and other educational resources that help people envision and pursue lives worthy of our humanity.
If you're new to the show, remember to hit subscribe in your favorite podcast app so you don't miss an episode. And to our loyal supporters and our faithful listeners, we once again have this humble request. Would you support the show by telling a friend about it, or maybe sharing an episode? Here's some ideas.
First, you could hit the share button for this episode, and send it as a text or an email to a friend. Maybe share it to your social feed. Second, if you haven't gotten around to it yet, You could give us an honest rating on Apple podcasts. Finally, you could write a short review of the show in Apple podcasts.
Reviews are really effective because you're commending the show to like minded people, to help them get an idea for what we're all about in your words. Thanks for listening today, friends. We'll be back with more soon.
