Perspectives Podcast - Christians in Politics
Episode Description
In this episode, Senior Pastor, Dr. Kurt Bjorklund, Butler County Campus Pastor, Brady Randall, and Life Stage Pastor, George Palombo, have a discussion about politics with the coming election in November, what it looks like to engage in politics as a Christian, and how our Biblical worldview should inform how we vote.
If there is a topic you want us to discuss, send an email to info@orchardhillchurch.com.
Episode Transcript
Kurt Bjorklund: Hi, welcome to a new podcast from Orchard Hill Church that we're calling the Perspectives podcast, which is a podcast that's intended to address current issues and bring a biblical perspective to these issues. And we chose this name intentionally. Although hopefully at times, we'll clarify what the Bible says about a particular issue. What we really want to do is address issues and target areas that are more in the area of inference, or things not explicitly stated in Scripture, where Christian thinking can be divergent on a topic and talk about those from different perspectives. And so, we want to inform what we're saying, with a biblical mindset, but we also want to explore inferences. And today we're going to jump into this by talking about politics. We're entering the season of the year where it's a political season. Meaning if you don't live under a rock, aware that there are political campaigns and issues going on. And what we really want to talk about is what is the Christian engagement in politics to be? As an individual Christian what does it look like to engage in the political season? I'm joined today by George Palombo, who serves as one of our pastors at our Wexford location. And Brady Randall, who serves as our campus pastor at our Butler location. And I'm Kurt Bjorklund serving at Wexford and kind of all around the Orchard Hill Church. And so today, let's start with this question for you guys. And that is tell us about the first presidential campaign that you remember, like cognitively kind of thinking, oh, I'm aware of this and aware that there are issues and what mattered to you in that presidential campaign. We have a few different ages here. So, I'm guessing we'll have some different jumping off points. George, you go first.
George Palombo: The first image that comes to my mind is when I worked in law enforcement. I remember when Bill Clinton came to the Ambridge high school, and I was charged with helping to secure him. I guess this comes to mind because I was as far away as I was socially distanced from Bill Clinton. This isn't really political, but I just want to share the story that I was socially distanced from Bill Clinton, but at the same time was told if something goes down, you go the other way. You are a mere deputy sheriff; you do not work for the Secret Service. If I had to be asked when the first time I ever dove head in headlong and thought, hey, this is serious business, Bill Clinton was there you know, during election season and he showed up at a local high school, and I thought this is serious business.
Kurt Bjorklund: Alright, so you just made yourself sound a lot younger than you are. Which is interesting. I was thinking you were going back to like Lyndon Johnson or something. But okay. You know, that's all good. Alright, Brady, how about you?
Brady Randall: Bill Clinton is the first one that comes to mind as well, because I was taking a class in junior high school, about perspectives, actually, it was perspectives, news items. And this was before and after the whole impeachment deal that was going down. And so that was the first time we're like on a daily basis I was looking at with class and with the teacher the issues and the issues behind it, where politics sort of really came front and center with the presidential election. So, Bill Clinton for me as well. Not the first time I became interested or aware, but that was the first time was like looking at the issues on a deeper level, at least on a weekly basis. If not daily.
Kurt Bjorklund: Yeah, for me, it was Ronald Reagan, the election of 1980. I was in grade school at the time. And I remember watching the political conventions. And, because my parents were into it, and just I didn't understand all the issues, but that was like kind of the wow, this is a is an election and this is a big deal. And this is what democracy means is that we choose a leader. And I know people will argue that we're not really a democracy, but the idea of the people being able to choose their leader and watching the transition of power that year. I remember when he was inaugurated, just being as a as a kid overwhelmed with the cool thought of how our country transitions in power. Brady, you won't remember this. George you should, even though you claim Clinton was your first memory of presidents. And that is, 1980 was also the time when we had the whole Iranian crisis with the embassy. And so, it was such a juxtaposition of totalitarianism, and our form of government where there were no guns used to have a transition of power. And I thought that is a really amazing thing that we live in a country where that happens. So, just another kind of background question. And you don't need to share the party of your families. But have you found that the politics of your parents became your politics, or did you end up going a whole different direction? In other words, whatever your parent’s kind of believed, when you first became again aware of politics, did you find that that ended up being what you embrace, or did you embrace something different? And if so, why did you kind of go the direction you did?
George Palombo: I know for me, and, of course, as you two spoke, I began to remember Richard Nixon and the gravity of that time when I was a little boy, but I grew up in a home that voted democrat all the time. I don't know that necessarily the Democratic Party or platform is the party that my parents probably stood fast with, but I do remember very strenuously, they were, you know, they were Democrats, and it did fall on me. I remember when I was a senior in high school. Remember, neither of you remember hands across America. You guys are too young. But I do remember when I was 19 years old, convening in Aliquippa for what was called hands across America, I believe it was probably under the administration of Jimmy Carter maybe, at any rate, but it was a very democratic, we were going to we were going to save the world. We were going to create utopia by coming to together, and that was natural for me. I grew up, you know, with democratic parents, and that was something that they supported. And I walked straight into it.
Kurt Bjorklund: Okay. Alright, Brady, how about you?
Brady Randall: Yeah, my parents, they had a certain set of beliefs. They had a party, and that's the one that I started in, but it was never forced upon me. This is what we believe in the Randall family. They would share what they believed and why they believed. It wasn't as if the assumption is, well, yeah, you have to do this too. That's kind of where I started, and it made sense. But it also helped me realize one party or another, and maybe you'll share Kurt on a recent message that you shared about the right or left or withdraw, but I thought that was a helpful construct. But that's the party I started in but felt very free to go and look at different issues and even a different party if that was the case. So, that's the one I started in, not the one that I felt like I had to just because my parents did.
Kurt Bjorklund: My parents definitely had a perspective, and we're very committed to that perspective. And I think once I got to college, I really explored political thinking from all sides. And when I first finished college, my wife and I were married. We lived in the city of Chicago for a number of years, which was really an interesting place to live in terms of politics, because it was so neighborhood to neighborhood and very different from smaller town, or suburban life, which I had experienced before. And so, it definitely shaped my perspective. So, what we really want to talk about today is how should a Christian engage in politics? The Bible does not address this, and this is kind of the whole idea of perspectives. It doesn't say you should or should not do x. So how do we extrapolate some principles in terms of how to think about engagement and voting in this kind of a season. I would argue that being in a country that laws matter, elections matter, that at a bare minimum, Christians should be informed and vote. Like I would say that to me seems like a fair statement. Because if you don't, you don't have any right to really complain much about the direction that things go. And, I don't think the Bible says you should vote, so I'm taking an opinion here based on some ideas in Scripture which say, be engaged basically in your society and even respect your governing authorities in Romans 13. If you're going to be asked to respect your governing authorities, and you have a chance to choose who they are, then it makes sense that you would at least be informed and say I'm going to help make that choice and be about that. So to me, that's kind of a baseline. But how do you guys think about the level of engagement and then also how people should make decisions in terms of their voting?
Brady Randall: Yeah, one of the questions I would ask just as a pastor, what I see in our own campus, the Butler campus, what I see on social media, is that people are very, very, it seems, from my perspective, entrenched in one position or another, and there's no way they're moving. And so as a pastor, if even if you share your political party, just the shared party of what you register as, you're bound to alienate, potentially 50% of either the congregation or your friends on Facebook, whatever the case might be.
Kurt Bjorklund: Which isn't always true. And this gets to what you just mentioned about the message where I talked about this. A lot of times, churches form as de facto extensions of a political party, even though they aren't stated as such. They say we're just being biblical, but what ends up happening is everybody at that particular church either thinks the same way politically, so in essence, it becomes okay to share your party because then you're saying, well, of course, you're this because everyone here who worships here is this. I think Orchard Hill is a little different in that way, in that we have not been firmly aligned to one side or the other. And as a result, yeah, I think there is some natural tension there. And I would say, I hope that's a good thing, that we have people from both sides of the political aisle. And I realize some people would say, no, that's not a good thing, because it means you haven't been strong enough on the issues that matter the most and that would be something that would be worth just exploring a little bit here. I would say it's a good thing. And what you alluded to Brady was the article that I referenced that said, you know, should a church be political. And the author's intention, it was Eric Grieger, he said, you can just say no, we don't do anything political, but you won't address some biblical issues if that's the case. You can decide to be right leaning or left leaning. Or you can say we're going to try to be biblical, which means at times, we may alienate people on either side. Now, again, there are people who would argue and say, well, no, there's one side that reflects biblical values better than the other side. So, you shouldn't lean one way or another. And I understand that thinking and you may, but I like that way of thinking to say, no, we want to be faithful to the Bible, not to supporting a political ideology from the Bible. If the Bible speaks to something, then we absolutely want to speak to that. But there may not be a perfect platform that you go that's 100% right and the other one's 100% wrong. Now, it may be 90/10. In somebody's mind, it might be 80/20. It might be 70/30. But there should be some recognition of that. So, George, how do you address this idea?
George Palombo: I think there's in the realm of policymaking, leeway. There's no biblical mandate that says you must pay low taxes. That the conservative folks would say, taxes should be lower, because government shouldn't have so much control over your life. And, the democratic platform may say, no, taxes should be raised so that we can, you know, exhibit social justice. I don't think that the Bible is clear on any of those things. So, I think there's latitude. I think where we run into problems is when one particular platform begins to talk about doing things that God forbids and avoiding things that God commands us to do. So, I think you know, that's where the tension is, let's not talk about religion and politics when we go to Aunt Martha's house. But those things are unavoidable because our conscience and our worldview inform our ideas of policymaking.
Brady Randall: One question I ask is if you call yourself a follower of Jesus in the political realm, is this particular topic a hill you're willing to die on? And what I mean by that is, some people are so entrenched on an issue that becomes ultimate. And that's okay if you're really convinced and convicted that this is a big deal, but is that really the hill that you are convinced you should die on? I remember a Pastor last week. He's big on Facebook. He gets like over a million views. He was just going off. It was over a mask issue, and his thing was defiance, not compliance. He was escorted out of a coffee shop, Dunkin Donuts, because they said you had to wear a mask. And he was just on. It felt like he was more fired up over this than the gospel. And if that's his issue, you know, God bless him. But if you look at the comments, about three-fourths say how can you be like this? How can I pastor over this issue? And the question for me would be is that a hill that you want to die on? For some I would say yes. Is that one? I'm not sure. Because what you've done is you've alienated a whole lot of people.
Kurt Bjorklund: Well, not only that, and again, this gets back to kind of what we're saying this podcast is about. Now you're talking about an inference, not something that's clear. And, not than an inference is unclear. But there's a difference in the authority level of an inference. And what I mean by that is if I take an inference and say I've chosen to live my life this way, that's a good choice, and it can be a biblical choice informed by biblical thinking. But it doesn't mean that it's an absolute for everyone for all time. So, you know, if you were just to take a for instance, like some people would say, okay, I know that the Bible doesn't forbid drinking, but the Bible has plenty to say about drunkenness. Therefore, I've concluded that I'm not going to drink because I don't think that drinking is wise. That's an inference. It's a good inference. It's a fair inference. And it's a lifestyle choice. But what it isn't good to do is then to turn that into an absolute that everybody must follow because now I'm taking an inference and I'm saying, now I'm declaring that everybody should do it the same way. And that's what I'm saying, about even something like that. And so much of politics fits into that arena. Where I'm not saying that it's not a proper conclusion or an important conclusion, but the definitiveness sometimes should be recognized as being political, not necessarily biblical in that.
George Palombo: I would say that I've even heard extrapolations made out of belief systems like that, that if someone chooses to say, well, you know, I don't think that there should be an absolute that all people for all time should not drink. And then the political position comes in where someone makes the aggressive accusation, that well since you believe that you are for drunk driving, or you are for children being run over by drunk drivers, you know that there's some broken logic that falls out of that.
Kurt Bjorklund: Well, and what sells in politics is that kind of rhetoric. It's getting up and making a speech where you say, okay, my opponent believes this, therefore, here are all the horrible things that means and what they stand for because that energizes your base.
George Palombo: It shows up on a newsflash, the question comes from one side or the other, and it comes in the form of why do you agree with killing children through drunk driving? And if someone tries to give an articulate answer, they are immediately shut down. Because if they can't answer that and give a comprehensive answer in one sentence, then, you know, it's assumed that they believe in killing children.
Brady Randall: Yeah, and I think a much healthier conversation is not so much, I'm a republican because of this, or I'm a democrat because of this, but look at the individual issues. Because you can look at the democratic platform, you can look at the republic platform and say, oh, I generally fit more in line with this camp. But I think a healthier thing is to look at the individual issues and why, as opposed to well, I'm in this camp, so therefore, I have to go this way or I'm in this camp, so therefore I have to look at individual issues.
Kurt Bjorklund: There are some Christians who would say, and I struggle with this because I understand and I sympathize with this thinking, there are some issues that are so significant, so weighty, that it would be hard to support a candidate or a political party that holds the opposite viewpoint, regardless of the rest of the platform. So, are there issues that Christians should think of as being more elevated, singularly important than others? And if so, what do you see those issues as being?
George Palombo: I would say that some issues are so substantive that as believers we ought to give weighted and clear thinking. I think one of those issues would be the issue of life. And I think it's even bigger than the issue of life itself, in that it's one thing for someone to say, well, I believe it's a woman's right to choose. But I think we're moving into a time when issues like that are now being imposed in the sense of if it becomes policy, well now it's imposed upon me that my tax dollars begin to, if the Hyde Amendment, for example, should be repealed, that our tax dollars as believers are now going to fund what God has forbidden in the sixth commandment. So I think some things do, it goes into the, you know, we cannot do what God forbids, and we cannot neglect what God commands because God is the God over the state, as well as the church.
Brady Randall: I would say that particular issue for me is one that trumps many, no pun intended, but I think it can be expanded. So, in other words, I love this, and this is from Kim Denley. He says, "Here's what I mean by pro-life, the conceived must lived, the lived must be cared for, and the oppressed must be defended." And so, I like that bigger view of we're not just arguing about life in the womb. But really, that's a bigger issue. I got a text last week. First, it was a political text, basically, it said, do I have your vote for Trump after a paragraph? And my first question is, how did you get this number? And I thought it was just an automatic thing. And then it was an actual person. So, we went back and forth in a conversation. And somehow, he got my number because I was on an NRA list, which didn't make any sense. But that was neither here nor there. But I went back and forth over why you did or didn't have my vote. And I said, well, I can't vote for this party, but this is where I struggle voting for this person. And this party, I said, because of these issues, I can't, in my conscience, vote for someone on this platform. But here's where I'm struggling with on this issue. So, all that to say Kurt, to your question, is that to me is a big issue and I cannot vote against that particular issue. If someone is against that, then that for me is one that trumps, no pun-intended, the others. And certainly, also religious liberty, I think is huge as I think about the Christian in America and where we are, and maybe where we're headed. Those two issues are very big for me as a voter. Some of the moral issues, social issues, those to me are larger than some of the others as well.
Kurt Bjorklund: So, let's just move for a moment in talking about how to decide who to vote for and obviously, there are different stakes in different offices and elections. But this is something that you know, has helped me just think about this in the past. Just three questions. One is, is this candidate capable of the role for which we're electing them? And I think in Proverbs chapter eight, verse 15, and 16, and Proverbs 15:22, we see the implication again, the inference, that somebody who is set over people should have some requisite skills. And sometimes what happens in our day and age is it becomes a who has the best name recognition, rather than who has actual experience and skill sets that would give this person the capacity to do the job. Now, I'm not saying it always needs to be in politics. There are people who can step from one discipline into another and certainly succeed. I think a second question is, is this candidate ethical? One of the things we see in the Bible is that ethics in leadership matters. And this is true in Proverbs 16, verses 12 through 13, and Proverbs 29:4, and so certainly when people lie, when they accept bribes, when they're in it for personal gain, those are big concerns that should concern a person of faith as well as policy. And then I think third is, are the candidates’ views compatible with biblical values? Clearly this is another piece of that, whether or not the person is a professed Christian or not. I think that the views matter. And this is Proverbs 8, verse 14. Now the challenge here is that issues can really be spun both ways to a certain extent. As you can say, well, I can see biblical values here and biblical values there. And that's kind of what we were talking about. And so, here's a question for you, if you kind of grant that as a potential rubric, and I'm not saying it's the only rubric or the best rubric, it's just one way to think about it. Is this person capable? Are they ethical? Are there views compatible with biblical values? And to kind of ask those questions as you start to think about who to vote for. What do you do when you conclude that neither candidate meets your criteria in a way that you feel positive or strongly enough to say I can make this vote? How would you answer that question? That's what I heard four years ago, and that's what I'm hearing this year from a lot of people of faith is, I would like to feel energized and impassioned about one candidate, but I feel kind of stuck. How would you advise somebody who that's their perception heading into an election?
George Palombo: I think my knee jerk response to that is that we ought to take very seriously what a candidate does say, and not be so concerned about what they don't say, but that they're going to be honest, and that whatever they tell us that their platform is for making policy and which policy they will stand for. I know that one candidate has made comments in the past that he would support same sex marriage. Now, will he or will he not continue to do that? I think that's debatable, but at the same time, if his intention is that he is going to make that law, I think we should take that person seriously and begin to ask harder questions. So, I think taking them at face value from Jump Street is worthy of consideration.
Kurt Bjorklund: There's a sports talk show host I listen to sometimes. But he says it's about athletes. He says, listen to them talk, they will tell you who they are. And he always says it in the context of before players are drafted. And you know, franchises invest huge money in a first round draft pick or something. He said, listen to them talk. And he said, they'll tell you. Am I reliable? Can I be the face of a franchise? Will I show up? And he says you have no one to blame if after the fact they've told you who they are, and you don't listen. And I think some of that's exactly what you're saying with candidates is sometimes it isn't this hard thing to figure out, but I still think even if you take people at face value, you may say, wow, neither candidate here feels like a good choice. So, some people take that, and they say, well, I just won't vote. I don't want either on my conscience. Some people say I have to choose the lesser of two challenged candidates in my mind, because there's still something that matters more here. What would you say?
Brady Randall: Well, the conversations I've been having is like, in 2020, in what I would consider the greatest country in the history of the world, is this the very, very best that this country has to offer? Are these two candidates the best we have to offer? Well, it is what it is at this point. So, for my conscience last time, I had to write in a writing candidate in terms of that. Now I I'm curious, your take on the lesser of two evils, Kurt. But again, if I have two candidates that I don't feel comfortable with, I, for my own sake to say that I voted. Because I think that matters and is a huge deal that I have the freedom and the privilege to be able to vote. At the same time, I take that privilege and write in a writing candidate knowing that person will not be elected.
George Palombo: I would argue that we always have to choose between the lesser of two evils. I mean, we are always going to vote for someone who has sinful propensities and sinful inclinations. From that, I think it was Augustine who said, government is necessary because men are evil. So, there will always be an element of evil present in whichever candidate that we vote for.
Kurt Bjorklund: And it would be true if one of us ran for president.
George Palombo: Unless the three of us try unity, they may make it happen. I'm just teasing. So, I think we're always left with that. So we have to, this would be my perspective at least, that we have got to submit ourselves to the candidate, who at the end of the day when we measure our conscience, and we are informed biblically and form our opinions biblically, which of those candidates has submitted his policy creating standard most to the will of God as has been presented in the natural world.
Kurt Bjorklund: So, you would prioritize the policy side of it, is what I just heard you say?
George Palombo: Well, that's politics. That's what politics are.
Kurt Bjorklund: Well, the reason I asked that is because I think that is now what we're doing. We're doing exactly what we're setting out to do here, which is to say, okay, how do we take an issue and say, what are the implications because the Bible doesn't say choose policy over character. It says that they both matter in that sense. And so now what we're trying to do is say if neither person kind of checks the boxes, at the end of the day, how do you decide? And again, I think there are some who would say I don't. I think that's what Brady basically said he did in 2016. There are some who would say, hey, I'm always going to choose the lesser of two. So, I'm going to prioritize the policy side of things rather than the personal character side, if I have to choose, or is there some other defining issue that is here? And I think at the end of the day, there is no universal answer. And what I mean by that is, I think it depends on the season, what's at stake in the election, what somebody is running for, in terms of the office, and how egregious some of the things are, because you're right, to a certain extent, you might say, there's a lesser of a couple evils here if you want to use that phrase. I don't love that phrase. It kind of implies that everybody's evil and theologically, there's a truth to that. But there's also a chance that, you know, in any election that both candidates really have good hearts and want to serve people and just have different desires and how to do that. And even in the common grace of God, that's possible within a society. And we're told that God gives us government officials for those purposes. Again, Romans 13, is very clear that God is the one who institutes authority ultimately. And so that's a helpful rubric. But the reason I say it may change is, I could see even somebody changing from election to election or office to office in terms of how they weigh those matters. You know, certainly the presidential campaign gets most of our attention. But, you know, when you have two candidates for State Senate, like the stakes in terms of policy may not be as high there, so it may be I care more deeply about ethics and if I know somebody has compromised along the way, taken payoffs or something, I don't want that kind of corruption potential inside the government. There's a real balancing act in terms of how you put all those things together when you go to vote. But to me, the important thing would be to say, don't walk away from the process because it's frustrating. But continue to dive in, ask those questions, do enough research that you know something about what you're casting a vote for, and say, this is why I'm leaning this way or the other. The other thing that I would say is that the bare minimum is informed voting. But when I say that, I think it would be a very biblical response to also say I want to be an advocate for something I do believe in. Because as much as sometimes people cast a ballot between two bad choices, there's a time to say no, this is really somebody who will make a difference, a positive difference, or their policies will, therefore, I'm taking a proactive stance for it. And I also think that it's a biblical thing to consider running and being engaged in the process. Certainly, with what I do in the church, I don't anticipate myself ever running for office. But my point is, it's really easy to sit on the outside and be a critic for generations and never throw yourself into an arena when sometimes that might be a very good thing to do or to say, I am not just going to criticize what's there, but I'm actually going to step in and run for some office that I might be able to make a positive difference in.
Brady Randall: So Kurt, if you've had two candidates who you felt like really neither, check the boxes for you in terms of ethics, policies, or character, how would you cast your particular vote?
Kurt Bjorklund: Yeah, I think what I just said really is, at the heart of that, for me. I think you have to weigh all of the things. I would have a hard time voting for somebody even if I agreed with their policy if I felt like, like at their core, there's a consistent lack of integrity and a willingness to circumvent law and the good of the people for their own personal good. Even if I agreed with their policy. At the same time, I'd have a hard time voting for somebody when I feel like they're full of integrity, but their policies are just at odds with something that I believe. So sometimes I find myself in that conundrum, where it's like, okay, how do I get myself to cast a vote? And I think there are times in elections where say, you know what, in this particular season, this might be worth casting a vote even though I don't maybe love this candidate because of what's at stake, and it is the best of the choices that are here. I do think sometimes writing in a candidate makes sense too. Where you would say, you know what, I don't want on my conscience that I voted for either one of these people. And, I think that's a reasonable thing, as well. So, any last comments that you guys have just around politics and how Christians should engage or not engage?
Brady Randall: One thing I would just encourage is, you know, after November and the ballots have been cast, and there may or may not be controversy after election night given everything, but once the candidate has been voted in, my encouragement would be, especially if you call yourself a follower of Jesus, that if your candidate didn't make it, God's not shocked. God's still in control. God was not surprised. In fact, God, I would say ordained this particular candidate to be here, and God has worked through terrible evil, wicked people before, and he will do it again. Not to say that whoever's elected President of the US is a terrible evil wicked person, but in other words, it's literally not the end of the world that your candidate, as passionate as you might be that they are there, and now they're not, now I've got four more years of hell because of this person, God is still on the throne, and will use this person and policies despite that person. And so, that would just be my encouragement is it's not the end of the world. God is still very much in charge. The church is still alive. Jesus is still risen from the dead. And the next four years, God's still in control as well.
Kurt Bjorklund: I remember sitting with a mentor of mine. This is several years ago, I ended up having breakfast with him the morning after an election. And, the election went the direction that a lot of Christians didn't want it to go. And, I remember him saying, you know, people just need to realize that this candidate is not the antichrist. And that things will be okay even if this person didn't win our checks and balances and some of the things that are in place. And I know that goes against the thinking, it goes against the ability to fundraise, some of the things that say, you know, if my opponent wins, life as you know it will be over. And, some of that's not far-fetched, because agendas do matter, but it's also good to remember just what you said, and that is God's not going to be surprised and therefore he can work in and through a lot of what happens. George, any final thoughts?
George Palombo: Just that this is a conversation we could probably perpetuate for days on end, and I think ending with some pastoral comments from Brady is probably a wise counsel to believers.
Kurt Bjorklund: Good. Well, thank you for being here today. Thank you for taking part of your day to just check out the Perspectives podcast. If there's something that you would like to see addressed in one of these, feel free to send that along to Orchard Hill Church, on the website, there's some emails and places you can get in touch with us. But we intend to release a podcast every week, just simply looking at any issue that strikes us as being contemporary, again, where we would speak to kind of the implications of the current issues in our time. So, thanks and have a great day.
