In this episode of True North, Daniel Strand speaks with Jennifer Patterson and Brian K. Miller about Van Drunen’s Politics after Christendom: Political Theology in a Fractured World. To read Miller’s review of the book, please click here.
Daniel Strand: Well, welcome back everyone our faithful loyal listeners to True North, which is a podcast which I co-host with Marc LiVecche, who is—I think he’s not managing editor—I’m not sure what his particular title is at the moment. But he is one of the big editors here. I’m Daniel Strand. I’m a contributing editor at Providence, the journal of Christianity and foreign policy, and I’m excited today to be here with Jennifer Marshall, and Jennifer, why don’t you tell us where you’re at these days.
Jennifer Patterson: I’m at Reform Theological Seminary, where I direct the Institute of Theology and Public Life, and I’m also pursuing a PhD at the Catholic University of America in moral theology and ethics. Some people may recognize me by my married name, Jennifer Patterson.
Strand: There we go. How long have you been married with Eric?
Patterson: I’m married two years to another Providence friend, Eric Patterson
Strand: Great, yes. I remember the evening that you two met because, I remember this event, it was a Providence event, and I still remember talking to Eric afterwards. It’s a beautiful story. Sometime we’ll have to we’ll talk about it. I think that meeting actually happened, it was two years—it was last week that fateful meeting happened?
Patterson: Sorry, the Providence meeting? It feels like last week.
Strand: Yeah, it was at a dinner, is that correct? Great, well thank you for being here. Jennifer brings a depth of both policy experience and intellectual depth, and so we’re really glad that she’s able to join us today to offer perspectives on David VanDrunen’s excellent book. And we also have Brian Miller here, this is the first time we’ve had Brian on the podcasts, but we’re grateful. He wrote a review of VanDrunen’s book, and I think it was published about a month ago He offered a very helpful and insightful take on VanDrunen’s book. Brian is currently an attorney in the Washington, DC, area. He’s an intellectually engaged attorney not only focused on his own vocation but in broader questions of law, religious freedom, and theology. So, Brian, welcome to the podcast
Brian Miller: Thank you for having me.
Strand: So today we are going to be discussing VanDrunen’s latest book. He’s been on a rather long project of sorts, and the title of the book is Politics after Christendom: Political Theology in a Fractured World. It is an ambitious book, and I think it’s one that is going to get a lot of traction for years to come. But Brian, why don’t you give us a little background on VanDrunen’s work as a whole and why you think this book is an important book, one that Christians and people of goodwill should be paying attention to.
Miller: Sure. I think, just from the title, we do live in a fractured world, and navigating that is not easy um. I think we need all the help we can get, and VanDrunen offers a lot of good insight into how Christians can engage with the world around us and how, and he offers a lot of good history as to what Christians before us have thought. His approach, while the one I take issue with on some specifics, is I think worth considering charitably and worth engaging with on a very deep level.
Strand: Yeah. Jennifer, could you give us a just a brief, maybe just overview of what VanDrunen’s kind of intellectual project has been. He’s published a number of books on natural law. Could you just give us, our listeners a quick summary about what he’s, what you take him to be, hoping to achieve in his work.
Patterson: So as David mentions in the introduction to his work, he has been at this project for about 25 years, and he comes to it with training as a theologian as well as at being an attorney and training in that field. So, I appreciate that engagement with both arenas he is working from, particularly a particular interpretation of covenant theology and a particular interpretation, especially of the covenant with Noah that reads that and it emphasizes the disjunction the discontinuity of that covenant with the other redemptive covenants with Abraham, Moses, David, and the new covenant. So that sets this apart in some regard, and out of that he’s developed the ideas of natural law as the basis for thinking about political theology and a two-kingdoms approach, so really reading that Noah covenant as the foundation of the covenant of common grace. And I would say just to complete that with this work, I think he’s now bringing the culmination of those years of study to be trying to apply it to political ethics. And so, beginning to build out a framework for how to think about uh particular issues in policy today
Strand: Yeah, so Jennifer, Protestants at least in the 20th century probably even since Luther have not rejected natural law completely but had a more tenuous relationship than Catholics have. Why is that? Why have protestants been more reluctant to build a political ethics on a natural law basis?
Patterson: I think an important aspect of this conversation is how do we read creation, general revelation, and so on. So, for David VanDrunen, he would talk about natural law as there is a created moral order—we can know that order, all people can know that order. It is available to us through general revelation through conscience and through creation, and it makes sense. It means that we are morally responsible, all people are morally responsible. I think the debate surrounds the issue of how are we reading that with respect to creation theology, which is understanding creation to be revealing God’s character. That is where moral order comes from. That is where our ethical perspective is drawn from, and creation theology also discloses to us that God is a revelatory god. He is revealing himself through creation through conscience, through scripture. So, it’s a matter of how to how extensive that is. There’s a common recognition of general revelation, I would say, among Protestants question is what are the effects of sin due to our perception of that, and how far can that take us for constructing a public theology. I did think it was interesting here that David acknowledges that the natural law is directional. It points us in a direction, but it does not bring us to the conclusions of how to build out a whole public theology. For that we need wisdom. We need to grow in wisdom. W would have liked to have seen more emphasis in his discussion of wisdom, which I think is extremely important, but more emphasis on Proverbs teaching about the fear of the Lord as the beginning of wisdom, and more integrated understanding of God’s revelation through nature, through conscience, and through scripture.
Strand: Yeah. Brian, why do you think Protestants have been a little bit reluctant to jump on the natural law train, whereas Catholics have never really got off, I guess?
Miller: Well I think in the 20th century at least you have a lot of um suspicion that natural law is, well, Catholic. So, we can’t we can’t go there, even though if you go back beyond the 20th century there’s a lot of commonalities between even low church Protestants and evangelicals and Catholics. It wasn’t until the 1930s that Protestants began sanctioning the use of birth control, for instance. And if you read Protestants from the 19th and 18th centuries on that they sound an awful lot like Catholics. They even sound like they’re talking about natural law once you get into the 20th century. There’s something happened. There’s this huge historical disconnect where there’s like this dividing line. They’re like, oh that’s catholic and we can’t do that and we’re not going to go there. So, I do think, I mean a recovery is in order and in some senses it’s a return to our Protestant tradition. It’s not necessarily borrowing from the Catholic tradition
Strand: There seems to be some, yeah, and I can’t put my finger on it either. Maybe Jennifer has some insight into this. It could be a sort of an American Protestant premonition or kind of tendency way of thinking that, I tend to at least think in part it’s evangelicals and especially in the United States have a very uncomfortable time with tradition, and they have this very strong originalist impulse, to use a legal term, but they want to go back to the Bible, right? We want to go back to the Bible, and what does the Bible say? What does the Bible say in natural law at least in part? It’s a long tradition, right, so it’s very historical. It’s rooted in I guess it has many sources you could say ultimately it has a sort of stoic, at least the medieval tradition has a very stoic influence.
Miller: I think that’s probably right, although I do wonder how disconnected a lot of evangelicals really are in practice. So, on the surface level yes, I think there’s this aversion to using natural law terminology. Although as VanDrunen points out, the really important thing about natural law, and this is what I thought was one of the best parts of the book, is that it’s about uh living wisdom and it’s about living in accordance with the natural law it’s not about intellectual sophistication. I think a lot of evangelicals in America sort of live up to that for the most part, not completely not perfectly nobody does. I certainly think there’s sort of a caricature of evangelicals as individualist Republicans, Jeffersonian-Americans. But in my experience, they’re not in practice that individualistic even though they may adopt those sorts of liberal individualistic slogans from time to time.
Strand: Yeah. Levin I thought phrases very well in his recent book, and he said Americans practice in terms of our politics and our social life is much better than our sort of Lockean tendencies in terms of ideology, and I think you might kind of say the same thing about evangelicals which it has strong pietist kind of influence and theology and it can tend to be very personal and sometimes individualistic. But I think I track with what you’re saying. I think that’s at least my experience across low and high church Protestants is similar. So, the main theological claim, let’s just jump right into it, of the book is, Jennifer you talked about this already, this claim about the Noahic covenant as being the load-carrying covenant for the way we should think about politics. First of all, explain for our listeners—I’ll turn to you Jennifer. Brian you can you can jump in as well. You talk a little bit about the covenants, I think it’d be important for our listeners to understand this gets into reformed theology covenantal theology. Explain for the listener just distinction between what he’s seeing in the white covenant as relating to all people versus the other covenants and what you make of that claim. I mean is it, at least upon a cursory reading, it seems it does I think at least on my reading, it bears a lot of weight. And the most obvious question is, does his reading of the Bible really bear out that the Noahic covenant really is doing all this work that he claims it to be doing?
Patterson: Yeah that’s right. it is very critical to the argument throughout the reading of the covenant with Noah is as I mentioned read in emphasizing the discontinuities with what God’s doing in the rest of his redemptive economy. And that other theologians I would describe Kevin Bovink or Palmer Robertson who’s written more recently about covenant theology would see a much more organic connections among the creation among the covenants as God is working out redemptive history. And so even the covenant with Noah would be seen as the flood as a judgment that is for telling an ultimate judgment that of course and god in his common grace at the conclusion and this the covenant with Noah that uh David VanDrunen is discussing forestalls that judgment and in his common grace allows for the unfolding of redemptive history. That is, I think, a critical distinction between this reading of the covenant with Noah and the readings of a number of other covenant theologians. The direction that I think, what the covenant with Noah the work that it’s doing in this particular account is providing a limiting principle if you will. This is where we get the idea of a delegated authority of judgment to humanity God delegates this authority for judgment to correct sin to right wrongs in society. And we’re talking about Genesis 9:6 and the account there. I think that we need to get back to creation and begin there, and this book ends up having to do that as well to really explore more of what’s happening at creation against which this covenant with Noah is read. The starting with creation means we begin with ideas like the good of creation humanity created in the image of god and what all that means. It’s a very full concept, the concept of the cultural mandate, Genesis 1:28, that we are that humanity has given the task of filling the earth and having a delegated authority over it.. Then the idea of pursuing that cultural mandate leads to a broad diversity of cultural activity all the activity that um has unfolded from that and a diversification a division of labor if you will, differentiated responsibility, what Abraham Kuyper called sphere sovereignty, that institutions of families distinct from institutions surrounding government, church separate from that, and all the creative associations that have emerged from human cultural activity. That begins to imply some limiting principles for how we think about ordering society together um and that that’s the understanding of politics that I would take to this, to these questions is engaging in policy engaging in politics is engaging in a set of questions about how shall we order our lives together in human political society. For that I think we really need to get back and explore creation theology and those important truths that emerge from Genesis 1 and 2 in particular, and see the Noah covenant in light of that. So, what the Noah covenant then is doing is reiterating the cultural mandate in the conditions of sin and what are in the fallen state what’s going to be required for humanity to continue pursuing uh those things that are articulated in Genesis 1. God’s common grace allows for the continuation of that pursuit part of that is the understanding of the role that the government’s going to take now as a restraint for the organization of society, the restraint of sin in that context
Strand: Good. Brian, thoughts on VanDrunen’s claim about the Noah covenants? It sounds like Jennifer is probably agreeing and disagreeing, seeing that the Noah covenant needs to be situated more in a Genesis one covenantal kind of canonical reading of the Bible, whereas VanDrunen seems like he wants to see it as a service separate distinct. What do you think?
Miller: I think I agree with Jennifer in as far as I found his thesis that we need to look to Noah extremely compelling but just not quite convincing. That there was just like a few, there were just like a few loose ends that I couldn’t quite wrap my mind around, and one of them was all of the strands and threads that he was drawing out of the Noahic covenant could just as well be drawn out of the creation narrative. Or a few of the other covenants that he identifies. He seems to double down on the story of Noah because it’s common, it’s not holy, and that sort of implies a commitment to to pluralism and liberalism that he advances later in the book. But that almost seems like putting the cart before the horse a little bit, and I sort couldn’t quite wrap my head around his explanation of why specifically we have to look here and that’s where the line is drawn. And also it does just sort of seem to go against what we sort of colloquially think about you know I mean at our courthouses or at least once upon a time out of courthouses, you know you would see the Ten Commandments, and I think in the Capitol building there’s busts of Moses and of Saul as the first lawgivers. I wonder if we really like internalized VanDrunen’s thesis if we would replace all of that with busts of Noah instead. It just sort of seems because there are were a few points in the book where I was left scratching my head where he says we can’t look too carefully at other examples of political leadership from the Bible where they sort of advance the religious aims of Israel, for instance, because this is because this is a special covenant with Israel, which I think is correct, but I also think does this really mean that we can’t look to those figures as models of advancing the common good today, nothing to teach us? And he sort of, not completely but sort of, starts to build a wall there that I sort of just found not quite convincing.
Strand: Seems to cut us off from a lot of, I mean what Jennifer talked about wisdom. But in terms of scripture. So, the big push I would say in the last 20, 30 years has really been and this is probably the 20th century as a whole, was really influenced by Karl Barth, is a Swiss Reformed theologian who emphasized the Christo-centric in in all of his work, but especially you see this in theology, you see in political theology. So, you see it in Stanley Hauerwas and neo-Anabaptists, but even seeing someone like Oliver O’Donovan, who he has a sort of mixed reception of. And I wondered, I want to get both of your responses on this front, so does the gospel have any, because it seems to me that if we kind of go with him all the way down the Noahic path that the gospel is for the covenant community, it’s not doing the sort of minimal work that Noah and the Noahic covenant is counseling us to leave to our governing authorities. Does the gospel have a role to play in our political theology and the way that Christians think about politics, or is that, there’s the realm of nature and the realm of grace that seems to be the big distinction really kind of strong distinction he wants to make here, right. There’s nature then there’s grace. Jennifer, what do you think? Would VanDrunen say “No, the gospels really do that. There is something about Jesus’s salvation work that is relevant to our politics?”
Patterson: He certainly is throughout the book working all across scripture and appealing to the testimony of the whole. What I don’t think the book gives us is the points of attraction, the most helpful level of thinking about the intersection of all the teaching of all of scripture. By that I mean that the trying to get to a level particularly, it remains a very theoretical book. I would distinguish it from a practical public theology that is about equipping citizens for taking action here and now given the context such as this remains almost a proposal for a theoretical outline of what government should be and to think about the whole council of scripture and our views on questions before us. Today I think we need to get to an understanding of going back to creation understanding how we would want our society to think about what it means to be made in the image of God and the repercussions across all kinds of policy issues given where they are today. How would we want specific changes in policy given what we know about the image of God and the idea of justice, this is another. By restricting, by taking the covenant with Noah as the point of departure for my ideas here, he is particularly emphasizing that justice is the core responsibility of government and rectifying justice, that is justice that rights wrongs. But he admits that you must have an account of primary justice in order for rectifying justice to do its work, because it’s righting wrongs and you need to know what is right before it. Well, that’s a set of questions that is just, you can’t avoid the hard work of trying to define that as a political community. And for us as Christians, we would want the insights of all of scripture to be informing us in that. So, thinking if primary justice is to think about what each person is due and justice is giving each person his or her due, well then there we can think of a number of scriptural teachings that would have relevance there, inform our opinion, and then be thinking about what is the role of the state with respect to that. All of that is a, I think needs to be shaped more holistically. And so, the limiting principles that are sought to be introduced through the covenant with Noah I think don’t in the end help us avoid the hard questions doing the hard work of defining these more fundamental matters and perennially doing the hard work as a political community of defining essentially what is good. What’s the good that we want to pursue here?
Strand: Great. Brian, do you want to respond as well?
Miller: I don’t have much to add to that, but I just I agree with what Jennifer said and VanDrunen somewhere in the book says that all the best we can hope for is a very limited scale back definition of the common good, and that was something that I just couldn’t quite bring myself to agree with. And I think Jennifer is right. As Christians, we have a vision of how people are supposed to be treated as people created in the image of God, and that’s going to inform our vision of justice and our vision of the common good. And I don’t think that there’s any backing away from that necessarily.
Strand: As we think about Van Drunen’s book, we’re kind of shifting now to thinking about more in our contemporary context and both you’ve been gesturing in this direction. The contemporary, in our contemporary kind of discussions you could say Protestants have mostly, and evangelicals in particular, have been very favorable deferential towards liberal democracy you could say. Liberal democracy is in many ways a sort of Protestant project, at least an anglosphere, but times are changing and you have some pretty strong criticisms now coming down. They are much more Catholic, and inspiration intellectually, I would trace it to, it’s a very old and time-honored criticism of Protestantism you find in the Catholic social teaching of the 19th century, Pope Leo really kind of going after American democracy as a Protestant invention. But in in our contemporary context, we see the same criticisms coming back with probably more force than they’ve had in a long time you see in the work of Alasdair MacIntyre, famous critic of modernity and critic of liberal democracy. Brian, does VanDrunen’s book answer the criticisms that people like Alasdair MacIntyre and other contemporary Catholics have about the excesses and about the weaknesses of liberal democracy? He seems he wants to defend it, he wants to just defend this plural space, pluralism as a political project, which seems to be what democracy and liberalism, though distinct things, have been joined together in order to create and sort of deal with this issue of deep differences. Does VanDrunen’s book offer us some sort of response to that? Is it not enough? What is your take?
Miller: I think he tries to, but this was something that I touched on in my review and which I felt that, where VanDrunen was at his weakest was also where the critics of liberalism are at their strongest. For instance, in his defense of market economies, VanDrunen talks about how market economies promote tolerance, which is somewhat difficult to take when we have woke capital running amok in the year of our Lord 2020. And he talks about how, he even talked about, he was answering an objection to market economies that they would exhaust the Earth’s resources, and he cited the fact that market development accompanies low birth rates, as if this was sort of a positive thing. Which is another sort of issue that critics of liberalism sort of point out and say “Yes, this is a problem with liberalism. Look at the birth rates that are falling around the world.” And the traditional structures that are used to support them. So, I found myself thinking that he was sort of not really addressing the most pertinent critiques of liberalism, the things that really, really make those critiques compelling. Yeah, and I just sort of left, I ended the book thinking we need a better defense of liberalism.
Strand: What do you take to be the strongest criticisms of contemporary figures like Deneen? The criticisms of Deneen and so forth of arguments that they’re making that you think VanDrunen needs to address?
Miller: Yeah, so I think one criticism is that there’s a great tradition of, I don’t know how to describe it, but let’s say “liberalism with teeth” or Christianity operating within liberalism that is not necessarily overcome by liberalism. We, for instance, the argument advanced by Deneen and others is that we sort of let liberalism do the thinking for us and we gradually become more liberal ourselves. But I’m not sure that that necessarily has to be true. It certainly can be true, but it doesn’t have to be true. And I think this sort of gets to the question of what is sort of classical liberalism, and one of the reasons why I felt VanDrunen to really land a punch is that I think he would answer that question and saying classical liberalism is John Locke, it is Thomas Jefferson, but you could just as well answer that question and say it’s Richard Hooker, it’s Edmund Burke, it’s de Tocqueville. And if you’d answer the question in that way, I think you’d have a much more robust liberalism that was conscious of the faults within liberalism, and was also working to shore up the things that make liberalism possible.
Strand: Jennifer, do you think if we’re going to have that sort of liberal democracy that Brian just elaborated do we need a Christian society? Do we need a sort of Christian people, a lot of it? So, I guess one of my skepticisms, so let’s just assume that VanDrunen is right. Let’s just take his reading of the role of Noahic covenant, natural law, I still remain skeptical that I guess it’s been put this way in the past. Natural law is really compelling to Christians. It’s not terribly compelling to people who are not Christians, or at least people who do not have a transcendent. So, let’s say monotheists tend to find natural law or theists, let’s make the tent as broad as we can, theists tend to find natural law very compelling, but if we don’t have that in place, if you don’t have a theistic society, if you don’t have a sort of deep theistic culture then if I talk to my secular friends in New York or DC or wherever, they don’t find it very compelling. You can talk about natural law until your face turns blue, but they don’t buy the basic distinctions he’s making. And isn’t it, at the end of the day, don’t we need people to buy those basic distinctions in order for them to work?
Patterson: I think a liberal order is very dependent on our, it’s open and susceptible to many different interpretations of the core tenants. So, when we talk about freedom, when we talk about the nature of economic exchange, all these things, they’re open to a broad spectrum of interpretations, and that means we’re going to be constantly debating what the meanings of these things are. What is freedom? What is it that the critics of liberalism as an ideology believe that we have moved away from talking about? And understanding the nature and purpose of human beings. This is what I think can be offered by starting our reflection on theology and public life at creation and really exploring there what is the nature and purpose of human beings in community and how should we think about the entrance of sin. How should we think about the cultural mandate, God’s common grace, and so on in the outworking of history. And then we think about it in our particular context where a liberal polity has given us an opportunity to have great freedom of exploring how we will organize ourselves, how we will order our lives together in political community to say what is worth pursuing, what needs to be out of bounds, what’s our purpose together. That is the perennial set of questions, and the contribution I think Christians can make to that is to be looking at the deeper understanding of what it means to be human and recalling our fellow citizens to those ideas about what it means to live in community and so on. So, that I think is a more fruitful direction. But there’s no avoiding, as I said earlier, the hard work of just day in and day out trying to reason together commending biblical insights about that. Commending the general. What we can glean together from general revelation, but understanding that general revelation as attesting to God’s character and telling us about him as the basis of our ethics.
Strand: Brian, do you think that broader society needs to buy in? I mean so I think Jennifer’s position is compelling, but do we need to take a more practical approach to promoting something like what Jennifer is saying? So, say people who don’t buy into this Genesis 1, or at least kind of creational vision, do they need to I guess here is the question? Is it just something that we need to try to persuade in the most say practical way possible, presenting compelling visions of what it means to be human like Jennifer said: community, the nature of the human person, and so forth? Even have them buy into the kind of presuppositions I guess is what I’m saying. Do we need to take a more practical approach?
Miller: That’s a really good question. And I think it’s interesting, as we were talking earlier that evangelicals and Protestants are recovering natural law, there’s a renewed Protestant interest in natural law, right. As the Catholics seem to be discovering that it didn’t work in the gay marriage debate, people didn’t buy into those arguments. But I think on the other hand if you take the issue of abortion, which the pro-life movement gets a lot of slack for having never accomplished anything, it’s actually relatively successful. It succeeds in passing bills at the state level all the time. It has high support in the polling for at least some restrictions on abortion. And what has gone along with that is a very sustained effort on the part of Christians who are scholars and lawyers to do the hard work of explaining how and why abortion is at odds with our constitutional order. Why it is, why it should be banned by the government, and I can’t help but thinking that if similar issues could benefit from a sort of sustained effort like that. So, let’s compare, for instance, abortion, where I think if you walked into any church in America and you asked people what they thought of abortion not only would you hear pretty universally that people agreed that it was wrong, but you would also hear I think a relatively sophisticated answer about what should be done about it, what the government should do about it. The scholarship and the legal work that has been done over the past decades has sort of trickled down to the average layman. But ask them, for instance, about pornography, you’re probably also going to be told universally yes this is wrong, but you’re going to get a completely wide variety of answers about what should be done about it. You’re probably likely to hear, “Well, it should be banned, obviously.” But you’re also probably likely to hear something along the lines of “Well, it’s free speech and this is the cost of living in a free society, and if you don’t like it don’t look at it.” And I think the interesting thing there is that I mean there’s actually probably a better constitutional argument for limiting access to pornography than there is to abortion. Obscenity laws have never been overturned; they just sort of stopped being enforced in the past decade. And so, I think that sort of difference in approach might just, it could come down to a lack of imagination and a lack of will and a lack of creative thinking about how to engage these issues well in a sustained campaign. And I think as again, as abortion shows, you don’t necessarily have to have people widely agreeing with your theological presuppositions. Those certainly help, but you can achieve some success through a lot of effort even without that.
Strand: Concluding thoughts. Brian, we’ll start with you first. Reading VanDrunen’s book, what are you taking away from it, and what do you think Christians need to take away from this very substantive work?
Miller: I think that, as I said, his most compelling point about natural law was that it’s a lived, the most important thing about natural law is that it’s a lived experience. It’s not about intellectual sophistication. And intellectual law is not just, or I’m sorry, natural law is not just for people who go to Ivy League schools and read great big long books. It is for everyone. And anyone who is interested in learning how to live well within our fractured world should take that to heart.
Strand: Any concluding thoughts on this point?
Patterson: Earlier I articulated some differences in terms of the approach here, and so let me end on a note of appreciation. I think David gives really helpful counsel when he encourages us not to be overly pessimistic or optimistic about our current cultural moment. And a biblically grounded wise approach to cultural engagement is going to keep that counsel in mind.
Strand: Great. Well, I appreciate both of you. Brian Miller and Jennifer Patterson, formerly Jennifer Marshall, thank you for joining me. Thank you for your wise insights. This conversation I think is a terribly important one. This book Politics after Christendom is an important book. I think it adds a lot to contemporary Christian discussions about the very important matter of Christians in public life and politics. So, thank you to both of you, and thank you to our listeners today. We are done with this episode. I’m Daniel Strand and I look forward to seeing you all again. Thank you.