S2S Books: "Righteous Lot?: A Historical Retelling" by Glenn Martin

Welcome back to S2S Books Author Interviews. We're back for our second interview on this platform, and we're excited this morning to interview Glenn Martin on this book called Righteous Lot. Glenn, I have enjoyed reading this book, and I want to thank you for giving us this book to read about this ancient story that happened 4,000 years ago. And I think maybe a description called an epic drama or an epic saga would be a good way to describe it. And reading your book here has helped me to understand again and see, has given me a new lens to look at this story. And I just want to thank you, thank you for it. So Greg is joining us here.

Greg is part of the advisory council for Strength to Strength. So Greg, good to have you here as well. Greg comes to us from Pittsburgh, where he and several families are doing a church plant there. Greg enjoys reading the ancient literature of the church. And so I asked him to join us here as we interview Glenn and discuss this story, this book called Righteous Lot, a historical retelling. And we had Stephen Russell from Faith Voters wrote the foreword for this book. And there's two things that he points out that Glenn has done in this book. And I just want to highlight those. He says that Glenn, he got two things Glenn has done. One of those is that he has done a meticulous reading.

I'm sorry. First of all, he is meticulous in reading the story and comparing one scripture to another. And he says that many of us moderns, in our fast-paced world, we don't take the time to soak in scripture, specifically the Old Testament scripture. And he says that's something that he notices with students there at Faith Voters, that so many of them only read in the New Testament. He says the Old Testament is forgotten.

And Glenn, I know that you have a deep passion that we again bring the Old Testament back into focus as such an important part of understanding where we're at in God's story today and understanding the new covenant. And so he says that's one of your strengths.

And then the second strength he points out is this. Glenn's second approach is to dig into the historical record. What did others have to say about Lot's story? This is undoubtedly harder for most of us since we may not have a good idea where to find these resources or how to begin. However, digging deeply into the story of Lot and uncovering how the ancient writers saw it gives us a better picture of this happening and also gives us an example to follow in our own research into various Bible stories.

And so he goes on to talk about more things there. And I would have to agree with that. As I read your book and looking at all the footnotes and many different ancient writers that you're referencing, people that I've never read. And so thank you for introducing me to that. I mean, when it comes to ancient writings, I have gotten about as far as David Brousseau's Dictionary of Early Church Beliefs.

But you're referencing, yeah, Philo and Josephus and the Antonicene Fathers and Chrysostom and just these ancient writers. And so thank you for that introduction. Maybe we'll just jump right in here. And Glenn, tell us a little bit what was your burden behind writing this book?

Sure. Yeah. Well, thank you for having me on here to talk about this. Yeah. So there's a number of things. In answering your question there, what was the burden of writing it? First of all, just the accuracy. It's hard after learning something new to hear people giving an incorrect account. And so I think that's one thing that has kind of motivated me just to get more people on the right track as it pertains to the story here.

But another thing, and I think a bigger reason, is the lessons that are here for us are going to be forgotten or ignored or overlooked if we don't have the story straight. So just as an example of that, we know from the scripture that the record is given for our learning. Yeah. So the second thing is that we have a lot of lessons that we could learn from this story if we would have the story straight. So I think there's lessons that could be received from the story about discipleship, about evangelism, about intercession, maybe about conflict resolution. And all of these things are going to be overlooked if we don't see Lot in a positive light.

If we're not looking to him as being an example, then we won't receive these lessons from it. So I think to get the story straight first is important before we go to it for application.

Sure.

So what do you think? So as you have written this, you have observed maybe a lot of misunderstanding around it. Could you just get into that a little bit? We don't want to take away your punch. We don't want to in your book. But this is a burden that you have. And so could you explain a little more like why has what is kind of the general contemporary of understanding? I mean, obviously, you say a historical retelling.

And it's a burden of yours that we understand this story immersed in a proper understanding of the scripture and also augmenting that, if you will, with some of the ancient writers. So yeah, but what is general contemporary understanding of this? Sure. Yeah. So the modern contemporary understanding of this is probably along maybe five different points. And all of these, I believe, are pretty modern views. And I actually list these in the introduction.

So just as an example, in Genesis, they say that Lot must have repented later in life. I don't think there's any indication from the scripture of that, nor even that he needed to repent. And yeah, so others will say that God's expectations were lower at that time. And so therefore, these things were not held against him, and therefore he could be called righteous.

There again, I don't think that's justifiable because he knew certain things are wrong, like homosexuality. He understood was wrong, and he stood up against that in the city. In addition, some folks will say that Peter forgot about Lot's time in Sodom, which is really ironic because Peter is actually saying about righteous Lot in Sodom. Peter's specifying that that's where he was righteous.

But some folks will say that because God forgets our sins, therefore he even didn't remember this. However, there's another one, which is probably the most common one today. And that is that Lot was not righteous in his actions, but that he was imputed righteous by Abraham or by Christ's righteousness. And that has gained a lot of traction, I think, particularly since the Reformation with Luther's teaching on imputed righteousness. And that is oftentimes the go-to defense that people present for Lot.

But I would just say that I think all of these are in error and unnecessary.

So when you think about Lot being righteous, I think about the extent that I would have heard on that topic would be referencing him in regards to homosexuality, not to his general life. So your book promotes a view which isn't super common. Most of us haven't heard it in such a general way that you've used it.

How did you come to believe that? Sure. Yeah. So mostly because of reading the ancient writings. And I remember reading at one point how I forget who the initial writer was that I was looking at. And he was praising Lot. And it seemed so strange to me that this would be the case.

But as I explored more, I realized that, you know what, this is not just some oddball idea, but this is actually the broad consensus of history where until fairly recent times, people have viewed Lot as a righteous man. So I found that to be very interesting. It was not expected, and nor was I looking for that, but that's what I found. Sure. Glenn, would you mind telling a little bit more about some of those kind of extra biblical literature that you use or the resources that you or the sources that you use to build this story? Or more details and kind of get a broader understanding of this account of Lot.

Sure. Yeah. So the primary source is the scripture, and the book actually follows the scripture account chronologically, and then interspersing it with what others have said about this. So obviously, Genesis, we have Ezekiel, we have 2 Peter, we have Jude. But then outside of the scripture, and I think that's what you're asking about, basically, I'm looking at a range of roughly 800 years, maybe 400 before Peter and 400 after Peter, something like that, this segment of time. And that would include writers like Philo and Josephus. Josephus is a well-known and respected name.

Philo is as well, but maybe less well-known, but also respected. Going forward, you would have the Antonicene Church Fathers. That would include Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Eusebius, and others as well. Chrysostom, you mentioned. All of these are speaking very favorably of Lot and so on. And then if we go backwards in history prior to the time of Peter, there we would have the intertestamental literature. You'd have the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach, which are both part of the Apocrypha. Both of those are favorable towards Lot. And then we would also have the Book of Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon.

So the Book of Jubilees is something that the early church was very familiar with. It was never canonized anywhere, as far as I know. But it actually seems to have allusions to it in the New Testament because the early Christian writers, including the biblical writers, were familiar with that text.

And yeah, so that's kind of the scope. Roughly 800 years, 400 before, 400 after Peter.

Yep. So do you think that how do you think Peter shaped his views of Lot? What motivated him to write that? Do you think that he was potentially reading some of the same material or? But maybe I have a question right before that, Craig.

That's a great question. But just so you're talking about this literature, this ancient literature, right? The early church fathers and then also some Second Temple Jewish literature. How can you know that these are reliable? This is a 4,000-year-old story from today. And at those times, those writers were writing about an account 2,000 years before. It's kind of like us writing about what happened at the time of Jesus. So a long time. So how do we know they're reliable at all? I think it would be a question that a discerning person would want to know.

Yeah. So it very quickly becomes a question of what is the strength or weaknesses of oral tradition? Because undoubtedly, some of this is oral tradition. Just as an example, Philo in his writings, he actually gives some hints that he's quoting what other people have told him. So when you think about oral tradition, is it reliable? Is it stable? And I would make the case that it can be. It isn't always because obviously, we have creation and flood legends that have existed to fairly modern times around the world, but they vary wildly.

It's impossible to reconcile them. And as a child, I remember even for myself, and I still see children doing this where they'll play this little game called Whisper Down the Lane, and there will be a line of children of one house something to the next to the next to the next. And it doesn't take long, and the story has lost its way.

So oral tradition, though, has some very mixed outcomes. And it depends on the nature of the account. Some oral tradition only lasts a few generations, and other ones can last quite reliably for centuries. And so there's a few things that factor into why that is.

One of them is just the complexity of the story. And interestingly, if you have a more complex story, then the story will be more stable. And that's because if you have a very complex and intertwined story, you kind of need to keep the details straight because if you start messing up on something, other pieces no longer fit together. And this story actually has a lot of interconnectedness and I think has helped to keep it much more stable.

Another thing is just because there is a written and authoritative oral story, of course, we have Genesis. And so these same writers that have an oral tradition also have the written tradition from Genesis. And so there needs to be this congruency.

So unlike the other legends that I have mentioned, when we're talking about this story and the traditions that have come out of this, it's unbelievable how united the story is. Over all these centuries, roughly eight centuries that I'm covering, there's almost no discrepancies. It's extremely congruent and extremely, yeah, congruent with each other, but also with the biblical record, with Genesis and Ezekiel and 2 Peter and Jude. And it's like it all just fits together.

Yeah. So there's things we know and there's things we don't know. And some of the things we don't know is what we would like to know. Like how did they know some of these things and how was this transmitted? I don't know.

But I'm pretty confident that when we have a story that so closely is congruent with the biblical record and so stable for so long, and then being quoted by Peter, things that are not recorded in Genesis, this gets down to Greg's question. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Well, thanks. And maybe just a little bit, I want to just add to a little bit this idea of oral tradition, which has been totally lost to the West and really to any group where literacy is high. And now we have access to books and technology and record. I mean, the idea of passing something along orally isn't that common. But I think every family has stories, right?

Their father told them about their there's these stories that get passed along down through. But there is these the oral tradition is thousands of years old, right? And they get really good. And there's people who are actually designated within a language group or a people group or a tribe as the storytellers. And they memorize the stories, and they tell them, they retell them to the group, and it gets passed on. And it is amazing how accurately they do this. So that's interesting. Greg, did you have any more questions here about some of these ancient writings and then specifically your question? So you can feel free to word it. And thank you for letting me hop in and make Glenn day a little more there.

And maybe you were heading that direction. I'm sorry. Maybe you were kind of coming around to that because I know that you care. You've thought about these things more than I have. So go ahead. No, not at all. Not at all. I like the flow of the conversation here.

Yeah. I find it interesting that Peter is that right in the middle there because of the sources that you've been drawing on, Glenn. And yeah, I think it seems quite reasonable that Peter probably would have been influenced somewhat by this. And I'm just curious, so if you put yourself in Peter's shoes and evaluate the voice today, how do you think I mean, he was obviously he had probably heard from to some degree from some of the people you've cited.

And comparing that to what we're hearing, the voices we're hearing, how do you think this would have met Peter's ears? How would he have parted this out? Sure. Yeah. So if Peter only had Genesis, then I don't think that he could have said some of the things that he said.

If he only had Genesis, then it's a little strange that he would say that Lot was righteous in Sodom because not that Genesis says otherwise, but just that Genesis doesn't give commentary on the morality of Lot. It says what happened. It gives a storyline. It tells the events, but it doesn't say if it was good or if it was bad. And then that's answered by Peter.

But how did Peter know that? I think that it's quite likely that, yes, he was familiar with these other texts, and this would be an example of that. The other thing is just the fact that Peter says that Lot's soul was vexed or tormented by what was happening there in Sodom. And that's also borne out in the ancient texts prior to Peter. And I think Peter's simply recounting these things. And while we might call it oral tradition and almost question that, Peter considered it to be history.

So I find that interesting.

So you're not necessarily using this in a way to you're not voicing this as an authority more as a that is the Second Temple literature. You're not using it as an authority so much as a commentary to what we have and know as authority.

Yeah. So authority, I think, comes in multiple levels. And I certainly wouldn't view it as an authority to the level of canonicity. I'm not taking any of this to be canon. But what I am thinking is that it seems quite remarkable that Peter would quote from some of these sources, considering it to be history, and what he states there becomes part of the canon. I think that's quite interesting and gives a lot of strength to the value, if you will, of those ancient texts.

Yeah. Well, Glenn, I think that you're really digging the scripture, and that's beautiful. And that's your source of authority. And then you're adding in these other ancient writers to kind of help fill that story out. And like you said, there's this harmony across hundreds of years around this literature.

So let's move in. Let's dig into the story of Lot a little bit here. We don't want to steal your thunder in the book and some of all these different accounts. But there's obviously some pretty glaring accounts. And I think that at the beginning of the book, you have this great quote. You say, "A bad interpretation can lead to a miscarriage of justice, with the innocent being convicted and the guilty set free." And that's a sobering quote. And then you also begin with this great story.

And you have to read it. I'm sorry, viewers. I'm not going to give that away, but you're going to have to read it to get the book, to read that story. But anyhow, let's go ahead and dig into the account of Lot a little bit. So maybe one of the quote glaring things that I think of as I think of Lot is what I was kind of raised to think of, or even in the text, kind of stands out as Lot was materialistic. Okay?

Lot had his heart towards the city, towards evil. And so we have that whole issue there between Abraham and Lot and their wealth, which the story of them being in Egypt, just fascinating accounts of them being there's just so many parts of the story that I just, with the ancient writers kind of fill in, that I guess was just legend passed down through, that it really makes it colorful. It takes it from a story that's very interesting to a story super interesting.

Just incredible. Yeah. So they were in Egypt. They got kicked out of Egypt, back into the Palestine, their promised land, if you will. And they had this huge herd and all this wealth, and there's this conflict. And so Abraham goes about to do this beautiful conflict resolution, right?

And then Lot chooses the good land, and Abraham gets the bad land. And is that a right understanding of that situation?

Yeah. So it's definitely a very common perception that when the choice of lands was there. So just setting the context, we know that the shepherds of Lot and the shepherds of Abraham, Abram at that time, were in conflict. And so rather than having this escalate, it was Abram that made the offer. He's like, "Well, why don't you go somewhere else? And you make the choice. You choose where to go, and I'll take what's remaining." And so what comes out of that quite commonly is that people will say that Lot chose the better land. And it's definitely true that he looked towards the land in the area of Sodom. He saw it was well watered, and he chose that land.

But it would be incorrect to say that he landed up with better territory. Now, that's not correct. In fact, Abram, as we know from scripture, he was in the promised land. God had said, "I'm going to take you to the promised land." And that's where he was. In fact, in Ezekiel, it says that God had spied out that land for him. And yeah, Ezekiel calls it the glory of all lands, which that's not possible that Lot had the best land if, in fact, the scripture is true that the land where Abram was was the glory of all lands. And Septuagint, it says it was a land that was more abundant than any other land. In fact, Abram was living in this place called Mamre.

That's the same place where the grapes of Eshcol came from later, when the Canaanite conquest was and the spies were sent in. They got all these grapes. That comes from the place where Abram was, not where Lot was. And then, of course, after Lot separated, God told Abram that, "This is your land." He's like, "Look north and south and east and west. Everything that you see is your land." And there's many, many mentions of this in the scripture that this is the land that was flowing with milk and honey.

So we may say that Lot chose a good land, but we can't say he chose the better land. And we don't need to look at any extra biblical resources to see that. I think you do have a general acknowledgment, and this actually comes from some of the ancient writers, and that there was a shift at one point, though, for Lot.

And again, I don't think you find this in the biblical text, like actually said. But what is that shift that the ancient writers point out? Yep. So if we consider the ancient writers, it would illustrate that Abram was discipling Lot through the time in Egypt, following that time after they returned to the land, the promised land, that Lot was a disciple to Abram. But then after this conflict with the shepherds, Lot was pretty disgruntled about that. And then they separated. He may have thought he was choosing the better land. And I think he could have given deference to Abram in that. However, after he arrived there in the plains near Lot, it was actually very soon.

It was in the same year after they left Egypt and arrived back in the promised land. And then he separated, and he went to Lot. That all happened within he went to the plains near Sodom. That all happened in about a year span. But also within that same period of time is when the captivity happened. And these kings from the north came and conquered Sodom and the other cities. And then Lot was taken away with them in captivity. Then Abram went and rescued Lot.

And so different ones of the ancient writers would illustrate that after Abram rescued Lot, that he became a changed man. And I think he saw that some of the injustices that he had done against Abram were only repaid with good from Abram. And so I think it's a remarkable story of victorious discipleship making.

He made a disciple, and all of this was prior to the events that happened in Sodom. And after the captivity and the rescue by Abram, there's no more bad to be said about Lot. There's some things prior to that, I think, as Abram was trying to teach him in the ways of God. But after the captivity and rescue, I think Lot was a changed man.

Wow. You have some amazing detail there. I think that a lot of the potential readers are going to be drawn towards several of these high points or low points, however we might understand that, of Lot's life. I know when you first told me about the book you were writing and the subject matter, when I first got it in my hands, I wanted to just jump forward into the mid part of the book to get some of this detail because there's certain aspects of Lot's life that just seem very indefensible.

And perhaps one of the larger ones of those would be where he offered his daughters to the men of Sodom.

Could you give us a bit of a snapshot on how you deal with this issue? Sure. But I can try to do that. But you got to read the book. You can't explain it, Glenn.

It's actually true. There's a lot of detail here, and I'll try to give an overview. Context is everything. And if you're unconvinced by what I say here, that's very understandable. You'll need to, yeah, that's true. You'll need to read the book. So that's my plug here. But nonetheless, there is more context to what's going on here. And in short, I would say that, yes, it's true that Lot made that statement, but it wasn't understood to mean what we read that to mean.

So let me just explain that a little bit. So I think what you're referring to is what's given in Genesis 19, verse 8, where the men of the city are surrounding Lot's house. And at that time, they're demanding access to the angels. And then Lot said to the men surrounding the house, he said, "I have two daughters who have not known a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish. Only do nothing to these men since this is the reason they have come under the protection of my roof."

So if that means that he is offering them, if this is a genuine offer of exchange, that would be evil. And I think that this is kind of the lightning rod point that everyone looks at because there's no way to justify this.

But what we need to say is that Peter, in his commentary, is talking about Lot's time in Sodom, and it needs to include this event. So different commentators have looked at this, even in modern times, and say that this is not something that God ever would have justified. We can't explain this just by saying, "This is prior to the law," and things like that. You can't get away from that.

So just to set the context a little bit, let me jump ahead to the response of these people. After Lot made that offer, and I would put that word in quotes, the people responded by saying, "Why are you judging us?" And I think that's a hint that there's something else going on. When he said that, let me just read, maybe I'll just read a little piece here from my book. Just locate this.

"So Lot's virgin daughters were already betrothed to his sons-in-law, who were men of Sodom. Therefore, these daughters were no longer his to give away in the first place. No doubt the men of Sodom knew this. And so, of course, the offer, in quotes, could not be legitimate. It would be a violation of these daughters, and that would be a violation of Sodom's own young men. Keeping this in mind, you can better realize what's transpiring here. Lot is asking rhetorically, in effect, 'Would you allow this treatment to be done to your own people?' Of course, they would not. So Lot's rationale is, 'If you have the humanity to not allow this to be done to your own, why would we not extend that courtesy to the strangers who have come under the shadow of my roof?'

This dynamic may not be immediately obvious to our modern ears, but it was clearly understood by the mob. Just look at their response. After Lot's offer, in quotes, they respond furiously, saying, 'Stop judging us.'" Really? Why did they say that? "Because they understood Lot's words were not an offer at all, but a moral appeal to do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

And I think it makes a lot more sense of the story to see why they responded in that way. So another thing that follows is that after they said, "Why are you judging us?" they turned their anger on Lot.

Why were they angry at him for making an offer of giving these daughters to these depraved men? If anything, they should have said, "Okay, now Lot's beginning to see things are away, or he's giving in to us," or something like that. But instead, they turned their anger on him and they said, "We're going to do worse to you than we were going to do to them," which I think is essentially a death threat. That wouldn't be—it doesn't make sense to have that kind of a response when he is saying, "Okay, you can have my daughters." It doesn't make sense.

So that being said, this is also understood by many people in the past. Our generation doesn't see this anymore, unfortunately. But yeah, I think it was—let me just actually locate this—a few quotes of other people. Josephus says that by making this offer, in quotes, that the men of Sodom were not even made ashamed by this.

He understood that they were supposed to feel shame by this so-called offer. And I think it was—just locate another quote here. Chris Austin appears a little conflicted on this, but he calls it an apparent offer. And there's a lot more that I could look at. But only to say that there's more going on. And to just assume that Lot is making a genuine offer, I think once you get the greater context, it would be disingenuous to say that.

Yeah. Sure. That's amazing. I was impressed with reading your book and considering the example of Lot. How many New Testament qualities he actually exemplified in his day? And that's obviously what you just got done telling us makes us think of the words of Jesus and how he asked us to appeal to the conscience of evil men by doing good to them. And I'm not sure this is exactly the same thing. It might have slight variations, but we certainly see some aspects of Jesus' values exemplified by Lot there in that story.

Sure. And so we've kind of looked at maybe two lowlights here.

But one of the things I was so inspired by is some of the highlights. I mean, there's just so much to this story. It's rich. It is rich. It's stuck right in the middle of Genesis. So many things happened before. Of course, so many things happened after.

But you mentioned at the beginning of things we can learn from it. And I think you mentioned hospitality, which just shines through this book, not only in the biblical text, but also these ancient writers highlighting this and even helping us see that this was a lifestyle of Abraham from the beginning. And also, he used hospitality to evangelize, to make people aware of this one God, of Yahweh. It's amazing.

And of course, if anyone spends any time with me, they know that I believe deeply that at the heart of Christianity, the way the kingdom gets advanced is through hospitality, which is the Greek word is philia zino. It's love.

Obviously, there's different—in the Greek, there's five different words for love, I believe. But it's this idea of to love as a brother, right? Philia, to love as a brother, strangers. And you see this just being exemplified in Abraham and then in the one who's following him in Lot.

And just the ancient writers really draw that out, the context there, which they would have understood a lot better than us. What was all going on? Even the world hadn't changed a lot from over that 2,000-year period, as much as it has in the last 2,000 years, right? And so it was in the Middle East. They understood the context so much better than us, and they just draw that out. And it's so inspiring. And I think it's just such a challenge and inspiration to us, moderns, to go back to the ancient ways and to just embrace this love of stranger. And as he writer says, sometimes we entertain strangers unawares. And so I believe that's what happens today.

So yeah, there's just so much here. We need to move towards a wrap-up here. But Greg, was there any other questions that you wanted to dig into here at all? Or I don't want to close this down too quickly.

Yeah. I was wondering so briefly, is there any other areas that you would draw from Lot's life that are a positive example for us today that point towards the kingdom of God as we understand it?

Great. So it's a good question. So I think there's a lot of different examples that we could learn from him if we would, if we would see him as being a positive example. One thing is about how to live uncorrupted in the world, separation from the world, if you will. And exactly how that's all done, I think, is a huge topic.

But nonetheless, here we have a willingness of this man with his family to live among the evil people. And it's very interesting how God did not forget him there. In fact, Jesus and Jude and Peter, they all see this as an example of the end of the world and of the judgment. And in doing so, we are actually like Lot living in this evil world. So Lot being a salt to the earth or being a salt to Sodom, if you will, is exactly what we're supposed to be in this world. And so yeah, as much as we might have this presupposition that Lot was a bad man, we don't want to have anything to do with him, the reality is that Jesus sees Lot as being an example of who his followers are to be as somebody living righteously in a wicked world, which is quite a contrast to the popular telling.

Amazing.

Yeah. Well, and maybe we'll wrap this up with a letter from an Anabaptist. I'm not even going to try to pronounce the name. But you wrap your book up with this letter by this dear brother who's in prison.

And it's a letter to his wife to be faithful. And it goes like this: "Let us by no means love this world, nor be conformed to it, nor again lust for this wicked world, to run with it to the same excess of riot, lest we perish with it. But let us constantly go on in the true way of truth, in the newness of life, to serve the living God all the days of our lives without looking back to Sodom.

And let us always well heed and do what the holy scriptures teach and admonish us to, so that we may in eternity rejoice with God, our heavenly Father, and with the Lamb on Mount Zion. Amen." So thank you, Brother Glenn, for giving us this treasure, truth. I really have been impacted by it, blessed by it, inspired by it. And I'm certain it's going to inspire many, many others.

This is definitely a different genre of book than Hector's book. For sure.

But it's so good because it's tying us in deep into scripture, deep into the biblical story. And through it, we get to see Christ. And it's very a Christocentric book as well. And then also, you're helping us understand these ancient writers and tying us into places that we can go to do more of this reading, introducing us to people that we haven't—it was new to me. So again, thank you for this. And for our listeners here, you can go to our website, strengthofstrength.org, to order this book.

We are getting out also into other bookstores as well. For those listeners who don't have access to the internet, you can either email us at contact@strengthofstrength.org, or you can even fax us at 413-255-0262. And our vision here, our burden here at Strength of Strength, is that we would provide resources that would strengthen your love, faith, relationship with King Jesus, and give you solid footing in a shaky world. So again, thank you for listening, Greg. Thank you for joining us here on this interview as well.

May God bless you. Grace and peace.