What is "the argument culture," and how have we been immersed into it? Tim and Rick unpack four notable characteristics of "the argument culture" and suggest an idea we can practice for turning it around.


Episode Transcript

Rick Langer: You can't achieve disagreement if you don't know what the other person's saying. So can I articulate what they actually believe in a way they would nod their head and say, "Yes, you got it right"? And if I can't do that, then we haven't achieved disagreement yet.

Tim Muehlhoff: Welcome to the Winsome Conviction podcast. My name is Tim Muehlhoff. I'm a Professor of Communication at Biola University.

Rick Langer: My name is Rick Langer and I'm a professor at Biola as well, in the Biblical Studies and Theology Department. I'm also the Director of the Office of Faith and Learning here in Biola.

Tim Muehlhoff: And we're both the co-directors of the Winsome Conviction Project. Rick, do you remember grad school?

Rick Langer: I do remember grad school. I remember all kinds of things about grad school. What were you thinking of?

Tim Muehlhoff: I have two adult sons who are in grad school. One is in law school and one just finished physical therapy, and watching him read all the stuff they had to read. Do you remember the crazy amount of reading that we had to do?

Rick Langer: I remember one class in particular. I walked in the first day and the professor handed us the reading list. I can't remember, it was 3,000 or 4,000 pages of reading that we had to do in that 10-week class.

Tim Muehlhoff: That's amazing.

Rick Langer: It was brutal.

Tim Muehlhoff: Oh, it was brutal. I had hair when I started grad school.

Rick Langer: Back then.

Tim Muehlhoff: Yeah. And I pulled it out, reading these books. But what I love about grad school is, you read some books that stay with you.

Rick Langer: You read some books that you need to remember.

Tim Muehlhoff: Yes.

Rick Langer: And oftentimes, make a lifelong impression on you. And that is a gift, I think.

Tim Muehlhoff: Yes. My PhD was in communication theory. Yes, Rick. I'm a communication expert. Please keep that in mind. And one book that we had to read was called The Argument Culture, by Deborah Tannen. Deborah Tannen is a Georgetown linguist. She wrote this book 22 years ago. I had to read it for my master's program. Rick, it was profound and it was prophetic. I mean, imagine 22 years ago. We'd want to go back to that in light of today's vitreal and caustic communication climate. We would want to go back 22 years ago, but she identified it back then, The Argument Culture.

Rick Langer: Yeah. That is surprising because I have been watching some of the research on polarization and things like that. The Pew Charitable Trust and others did this research, and they talk about how things have changed in the last 20 years. Well, Tannen was 22 years ago. So it's only gotten dramatically worse, and it was bad enough then that she's writing the book about it.

Tim Muehlhoff: Let me read a description of The Argument Culture, and then what we thought we would do is go through the top four characteristics of The Argument Culture, make some comments and then talk about maybe what we can do about it. How can we counteract it? So this is from Deborah Tannen. She says this, "The Argument Culture urges us to approach the world and the people in it in an adversarial frame of mind, it rests on the assumption that opposition is the best way to get anything done. The best way to discuss an idea is to set up a debate. The best way to cover news is to find spokespeople who express the most extreme polarized views and present them as both sides. These all have their uses and their place, but they are not the only way, and often not the best way to understand and approach the world." And today we look at Tannen and we say, "Boy, welcome to the news cycle today where the most radical views are presented. People yelling at each other. And we just wonder if there aren't ways that we can approach this that could be different.

Rick Langer: I think of Tannen's timeframe relative to the internet. And really she's writing before the incredible influence of the internet in terms of the click bait phenomenon, where you basically post a headline, it sounds outrageous, but it leads a person just to click on it, to find out what's actually going... Because you know, when you read the headline, it can't really be what they said, but you click on it. And the clicks are what is rewarded in our culture. So it takes the phenomenon that Tannen had observed and amplifies it because of the way you get funded in today's world, on the internet.

Tim Muehlhoff: And what Tannen argues for is what we call speech communities. In other words, the community that you belong to, you develop these rules for communication. You develop a way of viewing people outside of your community. And what Tannen argued, that I thought was brilliant, is that our speech communities don't live in isolation, rather there's a backdrop to them. So there's a large community, if you will, called the United States. And those features tend to bleed into each individual speech community. So here are her top four and we thought it'd be fun just to kick these around. So observation number one, "That a characteristic of the argument culture is you exclude listening and you exclude an attempt to understand the other person." Tannen says this, "When you're having an argument with someone, your goal is not to listen and understand. Instead you use every tactic you can think of, including distorting what your opponent just said in order to win the argument."

Tim Muehlhoff: Now, Rick, I was on the debate team at Eastern Michigan University, and so think of my poor wife Norine. when Norine and I are having a disagreement, boy, I slip right into this. I slip into debate mode. So Norine will start to say something and I'll interrupt her and say, "No, no, no. No, no, no. This is what I would say about that." Noreen goes, "Wait, stop. That's not even what I'm talking about." And I would say, "But if it was..."

Rick Langer: Oh yeah.

Tim Muehlhoff: Or if it was... This is a good point. So listening is a casualty of the argument culture, and we all slip into it. As soon as the person starts to say something I disagree with, I stop listening and start to look for holes in that person's argument.

Rick Langer: Another thing I've noticed is just an ordinary conversation that is not trying to be argumentative, but you realize the other person has a different view, or even what they said just triggers another viewpoint in your own mind. All you begin doing is thinking about the thought that you want to say next. And at that point, you stop listening to whatever they're still saying. And that phenomenon, I think is just deeply ingrained within us. And again, The Argument Culture just amplifies that and kind of weaponizes, makes it into a combat mode when you foreclose and get ready to launch back at the other person.

Tim Muehlhoff: And that internal dialogue, Rick, that is really important. So as I'm listening to a person that I just obviously disagree with, I might even be polite. Like I can't jump in right away. That'd be rude. But I'm just going to wait to an appropriate moment, and then I'm going to jump in. So the entire time the person speaking, I'm literally just organizing and reorganizing my arguments. And then it seems like they took a break. Okay. Then I jump in with my acrostic, which is ready to go. And now I'm in and I'm in an attack mode. So I really do think listening has just taken a back seat. Part of that is media driven, right? When you have on five guests, there's just not a lot of time to thoughtfully listen to each other. You have to jump in and mark out your territory. I think Tannen is onto something saying that a key characteristic of the argument culture is we exclude listening and any attempt to understand.

Rick Langer: One of the things that I've tried to discipline my myself to do is to make sure we've achieved disagreement before I begin responding. And by that, I mean, you can't achieve disagreement if you don't know what the other person's saying. So can I articulate what they actually believe in a way they would nod their head and say, "Yes, you got it right." And if I can't do that, then we haven't achieved disagreement yet. So I need to keep listening. I need to keep interacting until we've actually hit that point where I say, "I get it." And I can replay back to you what you're actually saying. That requires a focused listening, not just waiting to push back.

Rick Langer: Another thing that Tannen talks about is that this policy of conceding nothing. Let me give you this quote. "They will not concede an opponents point, even if they can see its validity, because it would weaken their position. Anyone tempted to synthesize the varying views would not dare to do so because it would look like a cop-out, an inability to take a stand." And I think about that. And I go, that is so often true. I've noticed this, even in the Christian community, if someone quotes a person who's a Marxist about some issue or whatever the issue may be, that the idea is because they have that viewpoint, everything they say must be wrong. And to concede that anything might be right is somehow to line up with the other side. And I would argue if you're talking about people like Marx and Nietzsche and Freud, the great thinkers of the past, is it really conceivable that everything they said was wrong, that they completely misread human condition and therefore anything they said has to be untrue and rejected?

Rick Langer: Couldn't we get more back by stopping and listening and say, "You know, that's a really good point that Mark's made about how sometimes when you're working in a factory, you feel alienated from the very things you produce, the work of your hands rises up to mock you." Well, I think there's a lot of people who work in factories that probably do feel that way about what they do. There's a lot of jobs that are that way. Could we acknowledge some of those kinds of things? But the answer to that tends to be, "Well, no, it came from the wrong place."

Tim Muehlhoff: Rick, I think Christians really struggle with this. This idea that if we can seed anything, somehow we're letting God down. Somehow we are not defending the kingdom. So I was in grad school, Rick. And I taught public speaking. That's what they usually give to the master students, right? Public speaking. So I just made this rule in my class. "Listen, we're going to do a speech, but you have to do both sides of the issue. We're going to pick a topic, but you have to do both sides of the issue. So I don't care what the topic is. You're going to have to write speech A and then you're going to have to write speech B, that views both sides." Aristotle called this, the method of the dialectic. When I laid that out for them and class was dismissed, five Christian students stayed behind.

Tim Muehlhoff: Now, Rick, I didn't tell them I was a Christian. They are sitting there and they say to me, "We can't do this assignment." And I said, "Why?" "Well, our topic is that Jesus rose from the dead." And I'm like, "And you can't do this, why?" "Well, because there are no arguments against him rising from the dead." And I'm like, "Do you know who Antony Flew is?" And they're like, "No." "Go back and find out who Antony Flew is, and you'll see, there are arguments against Jesus' resurrection." But they said, "But it is central to our faith that he rose from the dead." I said, "Hey, that's awesome. You go write a speech that argues against the resurrection, or I admire your integrity, but you get a zero."

Rick Langer: I bet that went over big.

Tim Muehlhoff: It went over big. So funny that it was the Christians who objected. I didn't have one non-Christian saying, listen, "I can't do the opposite side of being pro-choice. I just can't do that." Well, no, they all said, "Okay, we'll do it." The Christians objected to it.

Rick Langer: Yeah. It's actually an interesting thing that we lose credibility when we can't articulate and express the other side. People just think you're ignorant. So I would argue that we gain a lot actually by not only being able to articulate the other side, but able to point out things say, "Hey, that's a good point. I think they got that right." I feel that tension too, whatever it might be. If there's things you can acknowledge, acknowledge it because it makes it sound like you get it.

Tim Muehlhoff: And that sounds great in theory. So Rick, in one of my classes, I have students read the Koran. They read it cover to cover. And when they're done, they're part of one percent of American Christians who have ever read the book of another faith tradition. Rick, you should have heard all the calls I got from parents. A parent saying, "I did not send my daughter to Biola University to read the Koran." And my point was, "Why did you send her here?" "Well, I want her to be a Christ follower." And I said, "Absolutely. Do you know the great commission is a huge part of being a Christian. So we ought to know just a little bit of something about other religious views." She was fine with that until she heard what the first assignment was, "Give me 15 areas that the Bible and the Koran agree with each other." Rick, I got another series of phone calls.

Rick Langer: Oh, interesting.

Tim Muehlhoff: Do you see? Okay, "I'm fine reading the Koran, if we dismantle it. I'm fine reading the Koran, if my daughter learns how to critique it." But my first assignment was, "Are you telling me in that book, we can't find 15 areas of agreement about fasting? About helping the poor?" Right? So Rick interesting that we don't concede anything because we view it as a sign of weakness. Boy, we got to change that.

Rick Langer: Yeah.

Tim Muehlhoff: Okay. Tannen's not done. She mentioned a third one that boy, I look at today, Rick, and I think we are seeing this today more than ever, is that we simply demonize others. She says this, "This polarization encourages those on one side to demonize those who take the other view, which leads in turn to misrepresenting the work of those who are assigned to the opposing camp."

Tim Muehlhoff: It's not enough for me just to disagree with you. I have to absolutely demonize you. So for instance, in college, we had to study critical race theory. It was part of critical theory, which is understanding how cultures are impacted on a systemic level. So when I read about critical race theory, I think, are there problems with critical race theory? Yes, isn't it interesting I felt compelled to say that at the front? But there are some really good things about critical race theory. But when I hear it being critiqued by Christians today, Rick, it is a demonizing of that theory and a demonizing of the people who came up with the theory, not an attempt to read it charitably and to see how it might help us understand today's very complex issues surrounding race and diversity.

Rick Langer: Yeah. You think about the way we... The phrase demonized is really interesting because you think about the way we caricature demons and angels. We have the guy with a pitchfork and the pointy tail and the little red outfit. And then you have the white guy with a little harp and they're sitting on your opposite shoulders. And the thing that is so clear is how completely different they are team white, team red, team pitchfork, team harp, and there's just no point of contact. And so the demonizing and angel-izing of the two viewpoints eliminates any area of common ground, any way to build a bridge, any point of contact. And that's one of the huge things that we lose.

Tim Muehlhoff: Boy, that's so good, Rick. So here's what we're going to do in the Winsome Conviction podcast. We are fans of people that we disagree with. There are some brilliant thinkers that ultimately Rick and I are not going to be able to fully agree with, but we are always going to start. When we take a look at Nietzsche, when we take a look at Sam Harris, when we take a look at the Koran, we're going to start with areas of agreement and move towards areas of disagreement. Now that's going to make some of our listeners nervous because they'll come in and just hear the agreement part and the entire time, talk about excluding listening, they're going to be saying, "Yeah, but get to what's wrong with it. Get to what's wrong with it. Get to what's wrong with it." And we are going to critique it, right? We're both committed evangelicals, but we think we need to flip the script and start with areas of agreement, and then move towards areas of disagreement. We don't want to demonize anyone.

Rick Langer: Yeah. And sometimes just so you know, there may be a gap between those two things. We may have a podcast that you hear from someone on a podcast that you respond to it. I had this experience when I was a pastor and I taught a class for our church, an eight week class that I called Christianity in the Lion's Den. And we read material from Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, and Darwin. And each character that we looked at, each author that we looked at, we dealt with for two weeks. And the first week all we could do is read and identify what they said and point our finger at what we said that they thought actually agreed with biblical teaching. And I kept telling people, "We can respond to that next week, but this week we're just going to read this and talk through the insights."

Rick Langer: Because the only reason anything they say sounds plausible at all is because they've probably pointed out something that's a good observation, that when you receive it, go, "Oh yeah, that's right. I've felt that I've sensed that." So let's give it that charitable read, but that is not a way to avoid, dodge, or even diminish the response that we want to give. In fact, it's the way to let it settle so you can actually, as I mentioned before, achieve real disagreement because you've actually first on the real project of listening. Well, another thing that Tannen talks about is our tendency to oversimplify, distort, and misrepresent the other side. Here's the quote, "When there's a need to make others wrong, the temptation is great to over-simplify at best, and at worst to distort or even misrepresent the other person's position. The better to refute them, to search for the most foolish statement in a generally reasonable treatise, seize upon the weakest examples, ignore the facts that support your opponents of you and focus only on those that support yours."

Rick Langer: I was reading this and I thought, "Wow." So I didn't like this quote very much because I realized intervening 22 years, again, from when this was written to today, however easy it was to find a bad quote that represents, that the person really said, but made their opinions, their viewpoints seem really bad. However easy it was to do that in 1998, do you realize how easy that is to do in 2020 now, courtesy of the internet. It's what I call panning for quotes. The same way we talk about panning for gold.

Rick Langer: In fact, I remember up in, I grew up in Colorado and I was up in the mountains this one time and a guy had a gold panning thing, and tourists come and pan for gold. And I said, "Do you put gold in?" Because you got to have something in there to kind of make the thing work. And this wasn't like a big old gold mine or something. And he kind of looked at me, says, he says, "Look, you can find golden any stream. The reason you don't mine them because they're just not that much there, but when you go panning for gold, you can always find it."

Rick Langer: And I would like to argue, when you go panning for quotes, you can always find them. You can always find a quote that makes the other position seemed stupid. You probably could listen to this podcast for 30 minutes and go back through the transcript and find something we said that was just completely ridiculous. I hate to admit it, but I think it's true. So panning for quotes is the thing we've always been able to do, but now it's become super easy because you can search for it on the internet.

Rick Langer: You can search for something like, dumb things said by Hillary Clinton, and you can find a whole pile of them just instantly. So someone's already done the work for you. And of course you can combine that with somebody else's, like really stupid things that Hillary said, and then you'd get a double list. And then you can refine it further, and then you can post it. And then it keeps getting better and better, the collection. And so you end up with a sense that there's so many of these terrible quotes and all you've done is you've mined that stream long enough, not by your effort, but courtesy of the great Google, courtesy of the internet that searches and searches and finds and cultivates and collects all those things. And then you can find it in a split second, and you feel like you've struck gold.

Tim Muehlhoff: And Rick, you're more of a tech person than I am, but these algorithms that we're now learning about. So let's say you're just mining for quotes against President Trump. Isn't it true that after a while your search engine picks up on that and now just starts feeding you particular types of quotes and stories?

Rick Langer: Yeah. The interesting thing, and if you and I type the same phrase into the search engine, different results would come up-

Tim Muehlhoff: I think that's so wild.

Rick Langer: ... based upon our interests. Because again, what's rewarded on the internet and this is a general trick in life here. If you want to figure out what's going on, figure out what behaviors are rewarded. So on the internet, the behavior that is rewarded is clicking on something. So the search engine, Google, who's selling advertising, wants to make sure you see a headline that you want to click on. Well, if you're Republican, and you can see a headline that looks pro-democratic, you're not going to click on it. So what does Google get rewarded for? A headline that makes you click on something that will resonate with you. Say, "Yeah, that's what I wanted." So yes, it searches and finds all those things, it aggregates them, and it doesn't randomly select that which is aggregated, but it custom cultivates it to kind of suck you in. So that feature of The Argument Culture is just ramped up on steroids in the modern kind of technology of Google.

Tim Muehlhoff: Aren't you impressed I used the word algorithm?

Rick Langer: I was impressed. It would have been more impressive if you hadn't had to look it up in your thesaurus. But it was good. It was good.

Tim Muehlhoff: Hey, I'm particularly sensitive to this one, the fourth observation from Tannen, because when I went to UNC Chapel Hill and did all my grad work... Rick, when I got there, I knew nothing about feminism, honestly. Nothing about feminism, except that it was wrong because that's what my pastor said. I remember sermons about feminism saying it was the greatest threat to the church today. So honestly, when I got there, I was primed to be against feminism, even though honestly, I didn't know anything about it. Well, I was assigned to the leading feminist communication theorist in the country at the time, and I was her teaching assistant. And so Rick, I sat and listened to her teach these gender classes. And it was an explosion of thought. Things I had never understood about feminism. That there were three waves of feminism, not just one wave of feminism.

Tim Muehlhoff: And the more I listened to her, two things became obvious. Two things became obvious. One is feminism has some great stuff. I think all of us would be a first wave feminist. I think we believe women are equally human. I believe also that women should be treated the same as a man. I wrote an essay called, "Jesus, the Feminist," right?

Rick Langer: Nice.

Tim Muehlhoff: And it got so much blow-back and people did exactly what we just talked about. They were saying, "Yeah, but what's wrong with feminism? What's wrong with feminism?" And I'm saying, "No, no, no, let's stop and understand what's right with feminism." So when I came across this quote, we just celebrated the 100 year anniversary of the suffrage movement. Here's a quote, and I won't mention his name just to protect his identity. But here is a summary of feminism coming from a Christian leader.

Tim Muehlhoff: Honestly, all of you would know who he is. This is what he said. "Feminism is about a socialist anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." Now, if that is not oversimplified, distort, and misrepresent, I mean, I would just know that there's first wave, second wave feminist rolling over in their graves, Christian first wave, second wave feminists rolling over in their graves. And that was just a horrible distortion. And some of that is just flat out, not true. So we need to be charitable when we talk about big ideas like feminism or the Women's Movement. We need to be very careful.

Rick Langer: Yeah. And that was one of the things I was going to say, Tim. You made a great point about this. When you use a word like feminism, it covers so much territory.

Tim Muehlhoff: Right.

Rick Langer: And so again, you're way better off saying, "Look, here's a quote. Here's a particular thing that was taught by a, you advocate about a certain school of femoral. Part of the distinctive wave of feminism," identified to a specific you want to talk about. But to wave your hand at the whole thing and say, "What is feminism? Well, it's anti-family political movement to leave husbands, kill children, practice witchcraft, and destroy..." And you're like, "Wow. I just thought they wanted to vote."

Tim Muehlhoff: That's right. And so, Rick, what can we do about this? What can we do about the argument culture? Now, this is where I will say Tannen's book, she's better at identifying the problem. And so when we take a look at this, we want to add our own thoughts, and please believe me, we're speaking to ourselves as we think about maybe what we should do. So maybe Rick, one idea we want to adopt in the Winsome Conviction project is this idea of learning from Biblical wisdom.

Rick Langer: Yeah. So I think one of the things that we as Christians should really do is kind of seek to form a new form of a speech community so to speak, that literally take seriously the commands of scripture about speaking and how we communicate with one another. And I don't want to accuse us of not taking the Bible seriously, but I have to admit sometimes when I read certain passages and then listen to how people talk, I wonder how seriously we do take the Bible. For example, listen to this passage, James chapter three, verses 17 and 18. "But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. A harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace." And I think about that one short passage. And I would like to say if there was a single passage in the Bible that completely turns The Argument Culture on its head, I think it's probably this one.

Rick Langer: And I wonder sometimes when I feel myself being sucked into The Argument Culture, or I see others in the church doing that, I stop and think, "How seriously do we take these passages?" And one of the things that's come up, Tim and I both spent a lot of time having, being in situations of conflict or controversy about these sorts of issues, sometimes in teaching, sometimes in church context. I remember in one particular case, I was teaching a graduate class. And one of the students in there was, was a guy who was more my age. So, older than the average grad student, and he was very much a peer of mine. And we got along really well. And he was a guy who I could feel very comfortable disagreeing with and having him disagree back. And we were talking about some of the things I was doing and kind of mediating conversations about some of these things.

Rick Langer: But then he asked me this interesting question. He said, "Well, what's the point of what you're doing if you don't end up actually persuading people or changing someone's mind?" And it was an interesting moment because I am not opposed to persuasion and we will be talking about strategies for helping to persuade people. But the interesting thing was the only point he could see was the possibility of persuasion, getting the other person converted to the truth. And I would like to say, as I read this passage of James, that mainly what James is wanting to work on there is the attitude, emotion, and relational part of this whole project. That we're open to reason, but that were peaceable and gentle and merciful and full of good fruits, impartial and sincere. These are all the character issues, not the content issues that we bring to the conversation.

Rick Langer: And if the only thing that happens is after a conversation, you still have the same opinion you did before. But now you look at my opinion and you can view it more peaceably, more gently, you're more open to it. I would argue that as a major victory and the only victory is not just persuasion.

Tim Muehlhoff: And Rick, what you call the character aspect of it, in communication theory, we call that the relational level of communication. Like right now, we're focusing on content so much. Democrats, Republicans, Christians, non-Christians, that's the content part. But the relational part is the amount of respect between two individuals, how much we acknowledge each other, and are we compassionate towards each other. And this project, the Winsome Conviction project, we want to reclaim both and it's full in scripture, right? Remember what Peter says? "I want you to be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in you," content. But then he says this, "With all gentleness and respect," and that's relational. We think The Argument Culture today is mostly a crisis on the relational level. So as we wrap up, we want to close with this one last idea of maybe how we can get some traction and turning around The Argument Culture, and that's this.

Tim Muehlhoff: We need to reclaim the idea of common grace that God gives to both Christians and non-Christians, which means non-Christians, though they are not within the Christian community, can still have the truth and we need to learn from them and approach them in a charitable way. Theologian Wayne Grudem makes an interesting point when he asserts and I quote, "We should recognize that unbelievers often receive more common grace than believers. They may be more skillful, harder working, more intelligent, more creative, or have more of the material benefits of this life to enjoy." I love that, Rick. How often do you hear that?

Rick Langer: All too seldom.

Tim Muehlhoff: All too seldom.

Rick Langer: And I think part of it, is just being able to look at another person saying, "Hey, this is the person who bears the image of God. This is a person who God designed and created. Here's a person who, when God looked at their life before one day had been called into being, that the book of their life he looked at and say, Hey, that's a book worth publishing." Well, if God thought it was a book worth publishing, perhaps you should think it's a book worth reading. And therefore giving another person a charitable, honest read is one of the great gifts you can give another person.

Tim Muehlhoff: And we'll talk more about God's common grace in future episodes, but I love the idea that this common grace, common to everyone, enlightens both Christians and non-Christians. And so we can go into a conversation with a non-Christian and learn incredibly valuable things about life, faith, thriving, racial inequity. So we want to give a charitable read to a lot of people. One fun segment we're going to do in this podcast. What are the books that have changed your life written by non-Christians? So hey, we hope you've enjoyed hearing about The Argument Culture. That we're all kind of sucked into it, that regardless of your speech community, the background that's being played 24 seven is The Argument Culture. And we'll talk more about that. That's become a very common term that we're going to use throughout this podcast.

Rick Langer: You can listen to us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Play, and also you can find us at winsomeconviction.com.