Conflicts over religious freedom have heightened especially in the last few years, and some maintain that religion is under assault in places where religious freedom has historically been protected. It’s not often we get the chance to hear from those who are on the legal front lines of these conflicts. Join us for this conversation as Scott and Sean talk with religious freedom attorney Luke Goodrich about his book, Free to Believe.
More About Our Guest
Luke Goodrich is VP & senior counsel at Becket, where he represents religious organizations and individuals in religious liberty disputes in courts across the country, including in the Supreme Court. He was on the team that successfully defended Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor, among others.
Scott Rae: Welcome to the podcast, Think Biblically, conversations on faith and culture. I'm your host, Scott Rae, Dean of Faculty and Professor of Christian Ethics at Talbot School of Theology here at Biola University.
Sean McDowell: And I'm your co-host, Sean McDowell, Professor of Apologetics at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University.
Scott Rae: We're here with our guest today, Luke Goodrich, who is a one of the leading religious freedom attorneys in the country. He's with the Becket Fund for religious freedom. He's argued several cases before the Supreme Court. He may be best known for representing Hobby Lobby in their case with the Supreme Court a few years ago, and currently has several cases that are pending for the Supreme Court, either had been argued or will be argued here fairly soon.
Scott Rae: Luke is the author of a new book entitled Free to Believe: The Battle Over Religious Liberty in America. Now, Luke, we're so delighted to have you come on with us. We so appreciate you writing the book, for its clarity that you bring to this issue, but also the depth of experience that you've had on the front lines of arguing these religious freedom cases.
Luke Goodrich: Thanks so much for having me, Scott and Sean, and really excited to talk with you about religious freedom.
Scott Rae: Yeah. Tell us just a little bit about your background and how you got into representing cases like this that have to do with religious freedom.
Luke Goodrich: Yeah. I went to law school really just hoping to use whatever gifts and talents I had for the sake of justice and for the sake of the kingdom of God. And law school was a great experience. I was fortunate to, right after law school, I got to work for a judge, Michael McConnell. He's one of the leading religious freedom scholars in the country. And after that I went to the State Department and worked in the human trafficking office there. I did a period of time litigating at a big law firm.
Luke Goodrich: But then a position opened up at the Becket Fund about 12 years ago. And Becket is really the only law firm in the country that's dedicated exclusively to defending religious freedom for people of all faiths. And so, when a spot opened up there, I jumped at it and it's been fantastic ride. Over the last decade, we've had a number of cases at the Supreme Court, and we're undefeated there. It's just been a real joy to use what I feel like are the gifts that God has given me for the sake of the kingdom of God on an important issue of justice.
Sean McDowell: Well, we are so grateful for your voice and the courage you bring to this conversation. Give us some insight because you have really so much experience doing this, how the battle lines, for lack of a better term, have changed in terms of really debates about religious freedom over the past few years.
Luke Goodrich: Yeah, I think one of the main things that prompted me to want to write this book, I went to a gathering of Christian leaders a few years ago when the Supreme Court was on the verge of legalizing same-sex marriage. And these were university presidents, heads of denominations, heads of major social service organizations. And the thing that was striking to me about that was, number one, the level of fear in the room, just knowing that a radical shift in the culture was about to take place, not knowing how that's going to affect religious organizations, and really not being very well prepared for what is coming down the line.
Luke Goodrich: So that was really what motivated me to want to write Free to Believe, because I've been working in this field for about a decade and just felt like, hey, we as Christians, we need a deep holistic understanding of what religious freedom is and where it comes from. We need to be awake to the threats at hand in our modern culture. I mean, what we're facing in America is nothing like what Christians face in the Middle East, but we are facing some things that we as Christians in America have never had to face before. So we need to understand what those threats are and how to prepare for them.
Luke Goodrich: And then, lastly, we as Christians, we need to be able to enter into these conflicts not from a place of fear, but from a place of joyful confidence in light of the gospel and really change our mindset around the issue of religious freedom.
Scott Rae: Now, Luke, one of the things that I think is most helpful about your book is you describe, at the very beginning, you lay out three different approaches that you have found, as to how Christians typically view religious freedom. Can you just briefly spell out what those three different approaches are and how your perspective on this issue is different?
Luke Goodrich: Yeah. I think as Christians, we all come with certain kind of preconceived notions of religious freedom, presuppositions that we bring to the table. And as I've talked with Christians, I see them falling into a few camps. One group of Christians, you ask them, why does religious freedom matter? And I think these Christians, they tend to lean conservative politically and they would say, "Religious freedom matters because it's a fundamental constitutional right, and religious freedom is essential for keeping the door open for the spread of the gospel. And America is a Judeo-Christian nation, and we need to preserve those fundamental freedoms that we've had from our constitution."
Luke Goodrich: This group just loosely use the label pilgrims, and there's some truth in that view, but it tends to reduce religious freedom down to a tool, a political or a legal tool for preserving a privileged place for Christianity in society. The other group, I call them the martyrs. They probably lean a bit more progressive politically and would tend to react against that pilgrim view. And you ask them why religious freedom matters, they might say, "Yeah, why does religious freedom matter? You see, the church actually flourishes under persecution, and the gospel spread because of persecution. Jesus said you're blessed when you're persecuted, so why are we as a church so afraid of persecution in America? Maybe persecution would do us some good and wake us up. And at any rate, we don't really have any serious religious freedom problems in America, and go look at the Middle East."
Luke Goodrich: Then the third group, I call the beginners. These are Christians who are just starting to wake up to the idea of religious freedom. Maybe they're a little tired of the sniping between the pilgrims and the martyrs. Maybe they want to learn more, but they're not sure where to turn. And they just really haven't invested much thought or time in the issue of religious freedom. And I think the underlying theme behind all three of these views is to reduce or set religious freedom on the shelf as a purely legal, political issue. Maybe it's a tool for conservatives or it's lamented by progressives, but it's not something we really need to think that deeply about. I think all of those views have failing and I'm trying to equip people to understand religious freedom at a deeper level.
Sean McDowell: Is your perspective kind of a smorgasbord of those a little bit or how do you land in comparison with those three positions?
Luke Goodrich: Yeah. My argument is pretty simply stated. Religious freedom is not as the pilgrims would have it, just a tool for preserving a privileged place for Christianity. And it's not as the martyrs would have it, just a luxury to be abandoned lightly. And it's not as the beginners would have it, just an interesting idea that maybe we'll think about someday. Rather, my view is that religious freedom is a basic issue of biblical justice rooted in the nature of God and the nature of man. I try to unpack that from scripture. I also equip Christians with non-biblical arguments they can use with a secular audience for why they should care about religious freedom, and tease out how this view of religious freedom as a basic issue of biblical justice should inform how we approach the various conflicts we're facing today.
Sean McDowell: Can you define for me and for our listeners what you mean by religious freedom or religious liberty?
Luke Goodrich: Yeah. So in the book, I offer just a very simple working definition of religious freedom. It's where the government, to the extent it possibly can, leaves religion as untouched by government power as possible. So it's basically the government is leaving religion to the private sphere and allowing religion to flourish or fail according to the zeal of its own adherence. So the government's not promoting using its power to promote religion or force it on anybody, nor is the government using its power unnecessarily to restrict religion. It's trying to leave it alone as much as possible.
Scott Rae: Luke, you say government leaving religion alone within reasonable limits. So let me push back a little on that. Why wouldn't, say non-discrimination toward LGBT community be a reasonable limit on religious freedom? How would you answer that?
Luke Goodrich: Yeah, so every right, every constitutional right, every human right has some kind of limit. So the right to bear arms in the second amendment doesn't mean you can carry a loaded gun onto an airplane, or the right of free speech doesn't mean you can deceive people through false advertising. So, in the same way, the right of religious freedom also is subject to reasonable limits by the government. Typically, those limits arise from the government's duty to protect other rights. So if my religion tells me I should engage in child sacrifice, obviously, that is outside the boundaries of religious freedom because the government can limit that through its duty to protect life for vulnerable children.
Luke Goodrich: When it comes to LGBTQ discrimination, that is one of the major areas of conflict today. We could spend almost an entire episode on that here, but you often get opponents of religious freedom and advocates of LGBTQ rights drawing an analogy to race discrimination, and arguing that just like religious freedom shouldn't give you license to engage in race discrimination, turn away an African American from your lunch counter, so also religious freedom shouldn't be a license to turn away an LGBTQ individual or a couple from baking a cake for their wedding and so forth.
Luke Goodrich: I address this analogy at length in my book, and point out why the issue of race discrimination is fundamentally different from the issue of LGBTQ discrimination. And there are a number of reasons for that. Maybe the biggest one is simply that our nation has a uniquely tragic history of race discrimination. We had hundreds of years of slavery based on race. We had a civil war based on race. We had government-imposed segregation based on race. And because of that, our society erected systematic and pervasive barriers for African-Americans to full participation in the economic, social, and political life of the country.
Luke Goodrich: And so, because of that history, because of those unique barriers, the government has been given powerful tools to dismantle racism, tools that it hasn't been given for any other form of discrimination, including discrimination based on sex, religion, age, marital status, or sexual orientation. So you see this difference. The different treatment of race is reflected throughout our laws. Just one example, all 50 states ban race discrimination in employment, and religious groups typically are not exempt from that. So religious groups can be punished by the government for engaging in race discrimination in employment.
Luke Goodrich: By contrast, there are only 23 states that ban sexual orientation discrimination in employment, and every single one of those states has religious exemptions to those laws, recognizing that religious groups have a legitimate interest in the sexual conduct of their employees. So the bottom line is, it's kind of a long answer, but different kinds of discrimination warrant different legal treatment in the law, and sexual orientation discrimination is treated much more like sex or marital status discrimination where there are religious exemptions and it's not treated like race.
Luke Goodrich: Even the Supreme Court has recognized this difference. Just one last example. When the Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriage in 1967, in the loving decision, the Supreme Court went out of out its way to say that those bans on interracial marriage were invidious relics of White supremacy and worthy of condemnation. By contrast, in 2015, when the Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriage in the Obergefell case, it went out of its way to do just the opposite and said traditional marriage laws are based on decent and honorable religious and philosophical premises that have long been held in good faith by reasonable and sincere people throughout the world, and that those beliefs are worthy of protection.
Luke Goodrich: So the bottom line is, yes, religious freedom is subject to reasonable limits, and race discrimination is one example of that. But there are important historical, legal, and practical reasons why race is treated differently from sexual orientation and why our law has long recognized that religious groups have a legitimate interest in the sexual conduct of their members and their employees.
Scott Rae: Now, Luke, that's really a helpful distinction between race and sexuality. And I think it's particularly helpful because we so frequently hear this idea that religious freedom is simply code for bigotry and moral forms of discrimination. That, I think, at the cultural level is I think one of the most significant challenges to the notion of religious freedom today as it practically outworks in relationships in the broader culture. If you could give us a sound bite answer to that charge, that religious freedom is code for bigotry, what would you say?
Luke Goodrich: I would say religious freedom is a protector of diversity. And the fact of the matter is our country is deeply divided over questions of God, over questions of morality, and questions of human sexuality. And the question when it comes to religious freedom and all these debates is, what is the government going to do given our deep societal disagreements on these fundamental issues? What should the government do? Should it pick one side of the debate over sexuality and crush everyone who disagrees? Or should the government find a way to allow people with different views to live together in peace?
Luke Goodrich: That latter result is what religious freedom allows. And it's not license for bigotry, it's a protection for reasonable people to disagree on fundamental issues. When the government respects religious freedom in the area of human sexuality, it allows LGBTQ couples to live according to their deeply held beliefs about marriage and sexuality. And it allows Bible-believing Christians and people of other faiths to live according to their deeply held view about human sexuality. And so, it really is a protection, fundamental protection for diversity in the midst of...
Sean McDowell: Luke, we want to get into a few particulars of different cases. But religious liberty makes sense to those who are religious. It's just kind of intuitive. But how would you make a case? I know you walk through this in the book, but for our listeners, if somebody, they're in conversation that says religious freedom, why is that even important? How do you make a secular case, so to speak, for the value of religious liberty?
Luke Goodrich: Yes, I devote a chapter to this, and offer... I found three main arguments that can tend to carry some weight with secular audiences who are skeptical of scripture and skeptical of the value of religious freedom. First argument I make is that religious freedom benefits society. And there are a number of ways that it does so. One, you can tap into the language of the founding fathers. The founding fathers were launching this unprecedented experiment in self-government. And they said, "How can sinful people govern themselves?" And their answer was you need moral virtue. And for moral virtue, you need religion. And for religion, you need religious freedom.
Luke Goodrich: So according to the founders, at least, you couldn't have self-government unless you had religious freedom that allowed religion to flourish, that produced moral virtue. You also see how religion throughout our nation's history has benefited through society, through schools, hospitals, nursing homes, orphanages, soup kitchens, and on and on. And there is so much at the level of civil society that is provided by religion. Government simply can't do it all and religion is essential in that respect.
Luke Goodrich: Another way religion benefits society is by protecting descent and diversity, which I touched on earlier, and reducing social conflict over fundamental issues. Religious freedom really is a key way that allows a diverse culture to live together in peace. So those are ways religious freedom benefits society. A second major argument is that religious freedom offers a fundamental protection for all of our other rights. And the way it does so is, the starting premise of religious freedom is that there's something higher than the government that the government simply can't take away.
Luke Goodrich: And this concept is really the foundation for so many of our other rights, the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Religious freedom places this fundamental limit on government and shows that there are certain areas the government simply can't intrude. So that's the way in which religious freedom serves as a bulwark for all of our other rights.
Luke Goodrich: Then third major argument. These first two treat religious freedom as an instrumental good, like we want religious freedom because it benefits society, or we want religious freedom because it protects our other rights. Third argument I think is really the most important, is that religious freedom is good in and of itself because it's a fundamental human right rooted in who we are as human beings. And to just briefly sketch out that argument, it's a purely secular philosophical argument for religious freedom. But it goes like this. Number one, every human being desires, truth, goodness and beauty. If a human being doesn't desire those things, they have a diagnosable mental disorder. So we're all out there looking for truth, goodness and beauty.
Luke Goodrich: We also are born with a capacity to choose. We're given reason that allows us to choose among competing truths, goods, and beauties. And we also find we're all born with this interior voice that urges us to choose good and reject evil. That interior voice is our conscience. And so, we're all out there. We're truth seekers. We're using our reason. We're seeking to follow our conscience in embracing good and rejecting evil. And we find we're still not fully satisfied. We long for a transcendent truth, transcendent goodness, and transcendent beauty. In a word, we long for God.
Luke Goodrich: And every human being, just see this as a sociological, anthropological fact. Every human being is born with a religious impulse, born with a thirst for transcendence. But that religious impulse can never be directed by coercion. It can only be directed by one's conscience. And we can only embrace the truth authentically if we embrace it freely. So when the government coerces human beings in matters of conscience, it's in a very real sense going against our nature as human beings. And in that sense, it's violating a fundamental human right. So religious freedom is not just an instrument for benefiting society. It's rooted in who we are as human beings and is something the government has to respect.
Scott Rae: Thank you, Luke. That's very helpful just in making the case for people who don't accept any kind of biblical case for religious freedom. And I think it's really helpful, I think just to show how protecting religious freedom is actually, instead of being more divisive, actually contributes to peaceably resolving some of these conflicts about which we feel deeply and passionately in our culture. You used what you call the abortion compromise as a model for how some of these religious freedom conflicts should be resolved. Can you spell out for us a little bit why you think that's a good example? Because most people think abortion is still one of the most divisive conflicts in our culture today.
Luke Goodrich: Yeah. I talk about the abortion example. Even before then, I talk about the Quaker lesson, and I think the Quaker lesson is so closely tied to the abortion lesson. At the founding, one of the first major religious freedom conflicts at the founding was over the Quakers who refused military service in the colonial militias, and they were brutally punished in the colonies. And it led to tremendous social upheaval. But over time, the colonies realized they weren't getting anywhere by punishing the Quakers for refusing military service. And eventually the law was bent to accommodate the Quakers and to accommodate a conscientious objection to military service, and recognize, hey, nobody should be forced to take human life and they should be allowed to step aside in accordance with their conscience.
Luke Goodrich: That Quaker lesson has really informed the way our legal system approaches the issue of abortion today. So on the very same day that the Supreme Court decided Roe versus Wade, it also decided a case called Doe versus Bolton, and recognizing that religious individuals and religious organizations should never be forced to participate in an abortion. So we have this deeply divisive issue of abortion in our government, in my view, wrongly has said that individuals have a right to obtain an abortion and they can't be restricted by the government in that.
Luke Goodrich: But if we're going to have that as a law, it's a really good thing that the very next step was for the law to say, "Hey, even though we are going to allow for abortion, we're going to draw a hard and fast line that nobody can be forced to participate in an abortion in violation of their conscience." Religious individuals, religious doctors, religious hospitals, just like the Quakers, they have to have a right to step aside. Abortion has obviously remained a controversial issue, but at least when it comes to religious freedom and abortion, it's generally been fairly calm that, even though this is legalized, no religious person can be compelled to participate in it, in violation of conscience.
Scott Rae: Well, Luke, what's the status of this conscience clause today? I'm aware in some states that it's explicitly being challenged, not only with regard to abortion, but with participating in assisted suicide and even forcing physicians to refer patients to places that will perform these practices even when they recuse themselves. And I know a lot of physicians who view referring to those facilities as just as morally problematic as doing the procedure themselves. So update us on the status of that conscience clause today.
Luke Goodrich: Yeah. This compromise on the issue of abortion that religious people should be allowed to step aside in accordance with their conscience is definitely under attack in a very real sense. And you see a number of key battlegrounds. One is what I fought at the Becket Fund in the contraception mandate on behalf of Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor. These were laws under Obamacare that required religious individuals and organizations to use their health insurance plans to provide coverage for drugs that could cause an abortion.
Luke Goodrich: And fortunately we won that case on behalf of Hobby Lobby at the US Supreme Court. We got a good ruling for the Little Sisters of the Poor about... There are a number of states that have sued the Trump administration when that administration was accommodating the Little Sisters of the Poor and those like them. And so, we're back for a third round and hopefully a final round in the US Supreme Court representing the Little Sisters of the Poor. And that case will be decided by the end of June. So that's the issue of contraception and abortion mandates in health insurance.
Luke Goodrich: You also see a number of jurisdictions trying to impose speech restrictions on groups like Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Like you mentioned, referring for abortions or using signage that talks about abortions and helps people know where they can get an abortion. And we also see the emerging issue of assisted suicide. And we're representing a religious hospital system right now that's being sued because it wouldn't allow physician-assisted suicide to take place on their premises.
Luke Goodrich: But in all these areas, I kind of address these areas in the book and lay out the legal arguments on either side. I have a very strong hope. We've had a compromise on this issue since at least 1973 and we have strong legal grounds for just maintaining this fundamental principle that religious individuals and organizations have to be allowed to step aside in accordance with their conscience on matters of human life.
Sean McDowell: I love that you point to the example in Daniel chapter one as kind of a model for scripturally approaching religious freedom conflicts. Why is that story so important and what can we learn from it?
Luke Goodrich: Yeah. I think a lot of people are most familiar with Daniel and the lion's den, or Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the fiery furnace, and these kind of spectacular conflicts where the government demands something and the religious person says no, and then God sends a miraculous rescue. But that's not the only pattern throughout scripture. And I have a chapter with over a dozen religious freedom stories in scripture, and Daniel chapter one is one we don't focus on as much, but that's where Daniel and his friends are brought to the King Nebuchadnezzar's court and they're given the King's food. And this is viewed as a great benefit.
Luke Goodrich: But the food is not kosher, and Daniel and his friends would be violating the Old Testament dietary laws if they ate the king's food. And so what did they do? Do they engage in civil disobedience and provoke a big conflict and have a miraculous rescue? No, Daniel quietly, behind the scenes, went to the steward that was assigned to them and said, "Hey, we really don't want to eat the king's food because we have vegetables instead." And the steward said, "Well, you're going to endanger my head with the king when they see you looking more haggard than all the other youths."
Luke Goodrich: And Daniel said, "Well, try us. Test us. Give us vegetables for a short period of time. And if it's really that bad, we'll eat the King's food. So he asked for a test, and the steward gave them vegetables and they looked better than all the other youths. And they were given what was really, in legal terms, a religious accommodation, something that they negotiated for.
Luke Goodrich: I think there's so many different approaches in scripture to religious freedom conflicts, but this is one very important one today, that we don't always have to provoke a religious freedom conflict or engage in these showy acts of civil disobedience. There is a very important place for negotiating behind the scenes, for demonstrating, testing religious freedom, and showing that religious freedom actually is a benefit to society, through the good works that it produces and using that persuasive power to preserve religious freedom in our culture today.
Scott Rae: Luke, one final question for you. Let me follow up on that just briefly because I think there's a part of your book that I think could be misunderstood if it's not properly explained, You point out, and I think understandably so, that people of faith, not just Christian faith, but generally across the board, people of faith could become angry and want pretty swift justice when they get concerned that their religious freedom is being stripped away from them. But you maintained this attitude toward winning these conflicts is the wrong way to approach the question. That sounds a little odd coming from a religious freedom lawyer who's protecting their client's rights to religious freedom. So tell us, what do you mean by this statement? I think it has something to do with Daniel's approach to negotiation.
Luke Goodrich: Yeah. So every time I go into court, I want win. That's what I work towards and what I owe to my clients. But when I talk with Christians about the issue of religious freedom, and the question is, what do we do, given the religious freedom challenges today, what do we do? I think a lot of Christians, their mind first goes to the question, how do we win? What steps can we take to make sure we win cases, win elections, and preserve religious freedom for the years to come?
Luke Goodrich: But in the book, I point out that much of scripture is written to Christians who are losing in religious freedom conflicts or the early church, which was suffering persecution. And we, in America today, even though we're not suffering persecution like Christians are in the Middle East or like they did in the early church, we as Christians need to reclaim the message of scripture to the persecuted church, which teaches us not so much how do we win religious freedom conflicts, but what type of people are we called to be in the midst of religious freedom conflicts.
Luke Goodrich: And these are principles we all know, and we don't always think about them in the context of religious freedom. The principles like expecting suffering. Everyone who desires to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. Second Timothy says rejoicing in the midst of suffering, or Matthew five, blessed are you when people persecute you and insult you and falsely say all kinds of evil because of me. Rejoice and leap for joy for great is your reward in heaven.
Luke Goodrich: And so, we expect suffering. Rejoice when it comes. We fear God rather than fearing men. We strive for peace with all men. Hebrews 12, strive for peace with everyone. We continue doing good even when it hurts. Luke 6, love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who persecute you. These are all commands of scripture and they need to be the starting place.
Luke Goodrich: When we as Christians find ourselves in the midst of a religious freedom conflict, or see religious freedom being taken away, starting from what type of people are we called to be in the midst of religious freedom conflicts, mirroring the life of Christ. And once we start there, really transform our mindset. And there are so many stories in scripture like the story of Daniel that illustrate this transformed mindset. Then we also do need and want to talk about, not only what does it mean to be innocent as doves, but how can we be shrewd as serpents?
Luke Goodrich: What practical steps can we take as leaders of religious organizations? We're pastors, we're people in the pews, what are the practical steps we can take to preserve religious freedom for the generations to come? And I do address a whole section of the book to that. But it needs to flow from the mindset, their mindset of seeking Christ's likeness in the midst of conflict.
Scott Rae: Luke, that that is such a helpful way to end this. And so, I think just a very encouraging, but also realistic note. Sean and I are so grateful for your book and for your work. I want to recommend to our listeners your book Free to Believe: The Battle Over Religious Liberty in America. Not only is it biblically and theologically incredibly well grounded, it's legally sophisticated. It comes out of your years of experience in fighting these conflicts at the highest levels of our United States Supreme Court.
Scott Rae: So Luke, thanks so much for coming on with us for your book, for your work. Our listeners I know will be committed to praying for you in the months and years to come as you continue to be on the front lines of these conflicts over religious freedom, and our prayer is that they could be resolved in a way that's peaceable, in a way that doesn't require going to court. But yet, instead of religious freedom being code for bigotry, it could be seen as protection for diversity in the years to come. So very grateful, Luke, for your book and for your work. And thanks so much for coming on with us.
Luke Goodrich: Thank you, Scott. Thank you, Sean. It's been a pleasure.
Scott Rae: This has been an episode of the podcast, Think Biblically, conversations on faith and culture. To learn more about us and today's guest, Luke Goodrich and his book Free to Believe, and to find more episodes, go to biola.edu/thinkbiblically. That's biola.edu/thinkbiblically. If you enjoyed today's conversation, give us a rating on your podcast app and be sure to share it with a friend. Thanks so much for listening and remember, think biblically about everything.