Ep. 285: Politics and the Gospel

Daniel Markin:

Hey, welcome to Indoubt. My name is Daniel Markin, and today on the program I have with me, Bruce Clemenger. Bruce is the president of EFC, or Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, a Christian organization that look at equipping churches to think through all things politics, and religion, and faith, and how those sort of things work together. He does a lot of work in Ottawa as well. So, we had a long, great discussion on how to live in Canada, and live in an increasingly political society, and also be faithful Christians. So, really looking forward to sharing this conversation with you.

Daniel Markin:

Hey, welcome to Indoubt. My name’s Daniel Markin, and today I’m joined by Bruce Clemenger. Welcome to the program. Thank you for joining us today. I want you to introduce yourself to our audience. We’ve got listeners from across Canada. Introduce a little bit about yourself and a little bit about the work and ministry that you’re currently doing.

Bruce Clemenger:

Sure. I am president of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. We’re a national association of evangelical denominations, a ministry of organizations, higher education institutions, local churches. We have about 47 denominations, so pretty broad swath of evangelicalism included, from Pentecostal Charismatic to Baptist Reform. And we have about 33 or 34 higher education institutions, including 13 seminaries from across Canada, and a whole number of ministry organizations that would include domestic oriented, international focused, campus ministry, inner city work, and so on. And then, local churches also belong. So, we spend a lot of our time facilitating conversations, research projects, activities amongst our affiliates. We publish a magazine called Faith Today and a magazine called LIM, Love Is Moving. And then, we also do a lot of work in Ottawa on law and public policies, so we regularly appear in the courts and before Parliament committees on a whole range of issues. So, that’s what I do professionally; my background is in actually political philosophy and I live in the Ottawa Valley, about an hour outside of Ottawa, with my wife and my two daughters.

Daniel Markin:

Wow. And with your background in political philosophy, what was your original desire with that sort of background? Was it to get into politics or was it always to try and bridge the gap between politics and your Christian organization? Because there’s many options you could go with a background like that.

Bruce Clemenger:

Actually, particularly in university, I was studying economics and history and two shaping influences on me were… One was Francis Schaeffer and the other was A.W. Tozer. So I’d read A.W. Tozer’s devotionally, and then I’d read Schaeffer to understand culture. He wrote a book called “How Should We Then Live?” So, as a Christian living in an increasingly secular environment, secular culture, what does the Gospel require of us? How then do we work out our faith, and fear, and trembling in a very religiously and culturally diverse society. And so, that intrigued me. As I went on in my studies, I narrowed that down to more the political side, the political dimension of how we live out our faith, and that brought me to EFC. I was hired on as a researcher for the then president, a guy named Brian Stiller.

And then, I became head of national affairs, moved to Ottawa to open up our office where we make submissions to Parliamentary committees, and also intervene in court cases on everything from prostitution through to euthanasia, religious freedom, educational issues, and so on. And then, I became president of EFC so I get to continue to really sort through that calling of “How Should We Then Live?”, and do so within the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, collaborating with all sorts of ministry leaders across Canada, asking a question, how do we bear faithful public witness in our contemporary society?

Daniel Markin:

Right. Quick question before I dive into a topic I want to chat with you about, and you could say we’re going to get political. So, when you say intervening, what does that mean? Intervening in court cases, you mentioned ones with prostitution, and I’ve chatted with one of your colleagues before; we were talking about human trafficking. But what does that look like? Are you a witness on the stand? Are you providing research to the case? How does that work?

Bruce Clemenger:

Intervener status before a court, in the Latin, it’s often referred to as friend of the court. So, there’s two parties contending about an issue. Let’s say it’s an individual versus the government. So, an individual is challenging the laws on assisted suicide euthanasia, and so it’s their name versus the government. And then, what we do is we apply to intervene as an interested party. If we’re successful… and we give reasons to the court why we have a vested interest in the outcome and the kind of arguments we want to bring to bear in the issue. And, if we’re granted, then we’re normally able to make a written brief and usually an oral submission before the court. So, we’re there because the court thinks that we have something to contribute to the argument, to their understanding of the case. So, we’ve done that over 70 times, I think, more than 30 times at the Supreme Court level and the remainder at the lower court level, leading often to cases going to the Supreme Court.

Daniel Markin:

Wow. So, have you ever been standing in a case in the Supreme Court and what’s that like?

Bruce Clemenger:

No, I’m not a lawyer, so I help [crosstalk 00:06:08] and guide. We use outside legal counsel to do that. But, including Zoom, I’ve pretty well been in every court case at the Supreme Court level that EFC’s been involved in. So, what would happen is that the lawyers for the one party… The lawyer for the party for say the person challenging the government’s decision will speak first, and then the interveners on their side will speak, and then the lawyer for the State, or the government, will argue, and then interveners behind them. So, there’s kind of a sequence to it. But, it’s been fascinating over the years to watch the judges, and you try to anticipate what they may decide based on their questions, and sometimes it’s hard to tell. So, sometimes they’ll make it really difficult for lawyers who they actually agree with because they’re trying to shore up their arguments that they’ll make in their decision. Sometimes they’re absolutely silent; you have no idea what they’re thinking. So, it’s quite a process, but in terms of bearing witness, it’s doing so in a legal sphere. So, the arguments we make, we build upon Biblical principles, principles we think that should apply. Religious freedom, equality, conscience, whatever the argument is, and then we make those arguments. The lawyers we work with are all Christians. And so, we make those arguments in the language of the court, and using precedents from previous court decisions to argue our… to plead our case before the court.

Daniel Markin:

Wow. So, let’s get political then, because so often I’ve heard that we shouldn’t cross religion and politics, right? There’s a separation of church and state, and these are things that I’ve heard all around evangelicalism, and here you are leading an organization that is seeking to do both. And, I want to get your perspective on how you balance those two things, because it sounds very much like you are using Christianity to influence politics and you want politics to be influenced and checked and balanced by Christianity. Because I believe that the Christian worldview is the worldview that would bring about the most flourishing. However, oftentimes we’ll say… And I learned in my political sciences classes, we always debating can you actually check your religion at the door? Because you can say you don’t, but then you walk in that door and everywhere you go, there you are, with the witness of the Holy Spirit, or someone else who, if they are a Muslim, that they have that worldview scattering around in their brain. So, I want to hear your perspective on how you balance religion and politics.

Bruce Clemenger:

Okay. Let me unpack that a bit. So, I would make a distinction between church and state and faith and politics. So, politics is a dimension of life, as is faith, whereas church and state refer to more structural, kind of more organizations. So, does the state have interest in what churches do? Yeah. We have building codes, fire codes. Churches are required to follow employment contracts, things set up by the state to ensure fairness. And likewise, I think churches have things to say to the states. So, when the state’s thinking about what does justice mean? What does human dignity mean? What does freedom mean? What does conscience mean? When you look at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there’s Section 2, which deals with freedom and conscience. It deals with thought, opinion, belief. It deals with freedom of assembly, et cetera. When you look at Section 7 of the charter, it talks about life, liberty, and security of the person; Section 15 talks about equality. Well, although that language is all in the charter, but the charter itself doesn’t tell you how to define equality, or what life, liberty and security of the person means, or what freedom of conscience, or religion means. And so, there, I think, on some of those points, churches, as other groups within civil society, have something to say to help the government, help the courts think through how to understand those terms, and how to apply those terms for the benefit of all. So, justice doesn’t mean just for us, but it means justice for everyone. And so, that’s where I think that the church has a legitimate role in speaking to governments, just as I think governments, from time to time, have a legitimate role in engaging with churches. But, those are two separate spheres that they overlap, and so there’s interchange between the two. But again, in my mind, the church should not try to be a state. Whenever the church has kind of gone in bed with, or aligned itself with any one political party, it’s never worked out well for the church, or for the political party, or for the state in the long run. So, I think we need to keep those distinctive and separate, though they do interact and engage. So, as a citizen, you can be a member of a church; you can also be a member of a political party and that’s legitimate. But, I think we have to be careful where we’re trying to recruit the church into becoming a bulwark for a particular ideology or political vision of life, or when the state itself decides to take on the task of a church and tries to foster civil religion, or a set of values that everyone should belong to. So, you got to keep those separate. Faith and politics, however, there again, as I said before, I would argue they are dimensions of life. And so, every politician has some faith dimension to them. Now, they could be completely pragmatic, which is usually a scary scenario, because they only do what utility demands, but basically most politicians I’ve met come with a set of values, set of principles. Some are Christians. Some are Jews. Some are Buddhist. Some are Sikhs. Some are no particular religion at all, but they all come with a certain vision of life, a worldview, a comprehensive doctrine, whatever you want to call it in whatever literature you’re reading. And so, they bring that to bear into their politics, so you can’t really separate faith from politics, whereas you can create a distinction between church and state. So, usually the argument is about imposing immorality. Well, it’s the state through the criminal code that imposes morality. So, the criminal code tells us what is illegal, and if it’s not in a criminal code, then it’s not illegal. Right? And, some things are badder than others. Some things get five years, some things get 10 years, and some things are just a fine. And so, it’s a common project within a democracy to determine what’s in the criminal code and what’s not, and that’s usually where the big debates in Parliament take place on is whether something should be illegal or not illegal. And so, that is a moral code. And so, we have an interest in making arguments about what should be in that moral code and how that should be understood, just as other groups in civil society would have that interest as well. So that’s how I decide. I’d say church and state, they’re separate institutions, I think commissioned by God to do different things, and they do overlap, and so they do intersect, and they have a conversation dialogue one with another. Faith and politics, you really can’t take faith out of politics because politics itself will be animated by some worldview, some perspective, some vision of life.

Daniel Markin:

Yeah. I think that distinction’s really helpful because it speaks to this idea of church and state being structures and, I think, faith and politics being direction. And, I think that the sphere of life is important to understand because we always see the caricature of the church in the United States, like they’ll have the big American flags and the pastor will go up there. I’m just using an example, but they’ll be like, “This is a Republican church,” and we would say, “Well that’s not helpful.” That’s a blatant example of crossing church and state, right? But what about when… Because I tend to think that right now to speak out against our culture, I think from a Biblical worldview, whether we like it or not actually is a political move. And so, how would you… As you counsel churches who are trying to speak to a church that’s living in a very secular world, the Biblical statements they’re making, you could argue, are political statements. So, how do you coach churches and the churches you’re working through, who are trying to think through balancing the return to church after COVID-19. A lot of the stuff they say could be interpreted as political statements. And, they would say, “Well, if you’re pushing for more reopening, that makes you more conservative. Therefore, you are pushing that politic on me.” Or, if you want to keep locked down, “Well, you’re more liberal and you shouldn’t be pushing that politic on me.” How have you been able to work with churches to balance that?

Bruce Clemenger:

Yeah. Is the Gospel political? Well, yeah, it is. I mean, the Gospel, the Good News, the Evangel. In the Roman era, when a new emperor came to power, the Evangel was sent out, the Gospel, the Good News is proclaimed that there’s a new sovereign in place. And so, when Jesus… I mean, just the interaction between Jesus and Pilate, right? Is your kingdom of this world? Well, my kingdom is another world, but it has impact on this world, the whole dialogue about what is truth. And so, we as Christians, we are citizens of the kingdom of God. And that, according to a number Gospel writers, that should take precedence over are being citizens in Canada. So yeah, it’s issues of sovereignty, of authority, and so it has political dimensions. Secondly, I’d just say that you alluded to some churches in the U.S. being Republican churches and so on. That’s where I think actually… Canada, I believe I can say this, I think they’ve drawn a line quite well between what is partisan and what is not partisan. So, if a church is a charity in Canada, then you’re not supposed to engage in partisan activity, which means you’re not supposed to vote one politician over another or one party over another. And so, I think that’s good advice because again, I don’t think the church, the Gospel should be clearly aligned with any political ideology, or political actor, or political party. I think there needs to be that difference. But, yet churches will… During election time, we encourage churches actually to talk about the issues that are the issues of the day that will probably be discussed in the campaign. You don’t link that issue to any one political party, or any one political politician or candidate, but you can talk about euthanasia. You can talk about freedom of conscience, and you can talk a whole range of things because they have bearing on what’s going on in our country, politically. Likewise, I’ve talked about interventions before the court. That could be seen as political activity. We also appear before Parliament committees on things like human trafficking, or euthanasia, or prostitution. Again, we’re commenting on a political issue of the day and we’re giving advice, as it were, on how we think the law should be applied, or what should be illegal, or what should not be illegal. And so, we are making political pronouncements, animated out of our Christian understanding and out of the principles we find in scripture. You can be political without being partisan. Maybe that’s one way of saying it. But then, the political is only one dimension of life, and there’s other parts of life that we need to do speaking to as well. And so, if your church is engaged in articulating, and advocating, and expressing the full Gospel, then you’re dealing with all dimensions of life, not just the political. If you get fixated on the political, I would ask the question, “Well, why? Why is that becoming so important that you’re spending your time on that and not other dimensions of life as well?”

Daniel Markin:

Yeah, because obviously… And, we encounter this, too, for the church that I’m a part of. We preach expositionally, and so as you move through a passage, right? As you move through… If you’re working through the gospels and you get to that conversation with Jesus and Pilate, well, that’s a political conversation right there. So, the scriptures, as you teach through them will actually lead you to actually have to talk through those things. And, I think to be faithful is to actually at least engage in all the topics that the Bible is bringing forth. Let me ask you this. You’ve brought up conscience a few times, freedom of conscience. And I think that’s a really relevant topic right now in our world. And even just current events wise, you’re in Ottawa. And, I know right now there’s a massive convoy of truckers in Ottawa right now, and one of the reasons that they’re there is they’re protesting mandates. And I believe it’s under the freedom of conscience and security of the person. I’d love to hear some of your perspective on that, some of the stories that you’re hearing, and how, as Christians, we should be thinking about this event, because it’s quite a big event. I think a lot of people are noticing some of these things happening. I mean, if you were driving on the freeway, you might have seen tons of people, even here in BC on overpasses, right? So it’s definitely taken the country by storm. There is, worldwide, people now paying attention to this. I’d love to get your perspective on how we should be thinking Christianly on this and any wisdom you could offer to that situation, how to think the through this.

Bruce Clemenger:

It’s also within the church. I mean, we did some polling. We, being the Evangelical Fellowship, did some polling right after the election. And we asked a number of questions on a variety of issues, including COVID-19. And there, we found that on some issues like whether people should be required to get a vaccine in order to keep their job, or should employers, government, or employers regionally accommodate those who haven’t been vaccinated. We’re almost divided. I mean, this is 48 to 48, or 48% to 46%. On issues like should a passport be required for someone to attend a religious service of people over a number of 10 people, 57% said yeah, a passport should be required; 37% said no. But on those other issues, it’s literally evenly divided. So, even within evangelicalism itself, there’s deep, deep divisions on accommodation, on vaccine status, and so on. And our churches had to navigate this. Now, EFC, we have a whole range of denominations that belong… There’s probably about 7,000 individual congregations that belong to EFC, and only a handful, only a few actually publicly defied the restrictions. So most churches felt that for the safety of the general population, this is how we show love to our neighbor, and we follow the restrictions. But within the churches, there’s live debates about whether they should follow them or not, or then when the churches were allowed to open up, did they open up fast enough or were they too slow? Those kind of things. So the broader disagreement within society about vaccine mandates, passports, restrictions, and so on, is reflected in the church itself. And the question is always, then, where do we find the point of unity? Are we going to let something like vaccine status harm or hurt the unity of the church?  More broadly, then, in society we have to realize that again, there’s deep disagreement, especially in the time of Omicron, and as people start reflecting on their restrictions, whether they’re necessary. And again, you got the complete spectrum of opinion about how quickly we should open up, or how slowly we should open up, or masking, non masking, et cetera, et cetera. And so, my concern from where I sit with Evangelical Fellowship, is how do we not let something like mandates, and passports, and masking undermine the unity, which is ours in Christ, as opposed to… What we see in John 17? And how can we find out ways to rise above, in a sense, and remember that our unity is in Christ, and we are all citizens of a kingdom, and that we’re all brothers and sisters? And then, how do we foster civility, respect for one another with deep differences, and not become uncivil, and not push us apart where we should be united? In terms of conscience, and currently in our society, when you talk about conscience, it’s seen to be an individual thing. It’s usually seen to be something argued by the dissenter. So, “my body, my choice,” is often a slogan used to affirm abortion or affirm a hastened death, assisted suicide, right? And then, so how can those who advocate for abortion… And then, their argument stands for conscience rights for abortion and for euthanasia. And then, they get into vaccine mandates and “my body, my choice” means that you should be in favor of abortion. You should be in favor of euthanasia. You should be in favor of vaccines. Well, how does vaccines link into abortion and euthanasia? And yet, the same rhetoric is being used in all three categories. I think what’s going on there is that our society is a society of choice. And, it’s the society that champions what often is called human autonomy. You see it in the court decisions; you see it in the language of cabinet ministers and others in our society. And the idea of autonomy is that we are autonomous individuals, therefore we should be sovereigns for ourselves. We should be free to make the choices we want to make, and we need to push against anything that restricts, or inhibits, or infringes on our freedom to choose. Whether it’s tradition, religion, whatever it happens to be, we push back against that which would restrict our choice. And the interesting thing is that usually conscience is understood to be something that restricts choice. So, it’s not just conscience means I’m free to choose something, but conscience means I’m free to not to do something, right? And so, there’s this clash between conscience and choice. And I think what I see is that often those advocating for choice sometimes take a dim view of conscience because conscience is invoked when you’re dissenting from the majority. So there’s an interesting clash going on with our society between conscience and choice and what freedom means. And again, what is the expression of conscience? Is it for personal good or is it for a social benefit? And, often our government and other influences on our society are trying to maximize choice. So, if you get vaccinated, you have more choices than not vaccinated. Abortion provides more choice than anti-abortion. Pro euthanasia provides more choice than anti euthanasia. And so, I think that’s where the dissenters and nonconformists are usually seen to be, are arguing for conscience, because conscience is, in a sense, in that way, can be seen to put a check on freedom. But in terms of the broader issue, I just pray that the church will have wisdom of discernment that will speak truth with love, courageously within our society. And that we don’t let ourselves get bogged down in disputes, but somehow are able to rise above and ensure that our debates and dialogues in our society are civil. There’s a mutual respect; there is respect for conscience, and that we sort out where the lines should be drawn, and do that well.

Daniel Markin:

Yeah, absolutely. As I’ve thought about the freedom of conscience piece, I think a lot about some of Paul’s words when he’s talking about those who are strong in faith and those who are weak in faith. And it’s that same sort of idea that there’s some who, in their conscience, felt that eating the meat sacrifice to idols… While they might have known deep down that it’s probably fine if I eat it; it’s okay to eat this meat. Deep down in their conscience, they were like I just feel sick about it, and I might be wrong, but at this time, I feel sick about it. I think that Paul’s words to us to bear with that person and to allow them to operate in their conscience. In the same way that someone who may struggle with… Maybe there was alcoholism in their family growing up, and then if they get invited to go for drinks and they just struggle with that, with all that stuff that it brings. I think the scriptures help bring us to a place of love for that person to say the best way I can love you right now is to respect your conscience. And that person might come to a place later on where they’re actually like, “You know what? I struggled a long time with drinking, but I’ve come to a place now where they can’t,” but that’s an example of bearing with someone in their conscience. And I feel like that’s something that’s being lost right now, because, like you mentioned with the choice piece, I think as Christians, we still have to be like, look…

Daniel Markin:

Either side, because I know people on both sides, unvaccinated, vaccinated, there’s going to be people who are struggling in their conscience, and I think that’s where it gets, it gets tricky because Paul would say, “That’s a law unto Christ,” right? For people to say, “Well, I’m going to make you do this against your conscience,” then, if it’s a church saying that, that gets tricky, because they would say, “Well, Christ is the one who’s influencing my conscience.” And so, I think we have to have a lot of care and tenderness to that issue right now, and maybe not enough people had really thought through that.

Bruce Clemenger:

No. And again, that’s where the idea of conscience usually is where you feel compelled by your beliefs to do something, or usually it’s understood negatively, compelled by your beliefs not to do something. Whereas, again, the promotion of choice in our society is just that freedom, human dignity resides in choice, so you need to maximize the choice everyone has. And so, that’s sometimes where conscience and choice conflict, right? Because conscience is sometimes a break on a range of choices that says some of those choices are not appropriate for you, not good for you. So, that’s where they conflict. And so, in the theoretical literature, conscience or choice are set opposed to one another. But, I think underneath it all, for Christians… I mean, that’s the secular debate. Underneath it all, for Christians, and you’ve commented on it, it’s really we are slaves to Christ; we are citizens of the Kingdom of God. So, what does freedom mean for us? And it actually means that we are free not to do things that we think are otherwise, perhaps, appropriate for ourselves. And we’re free to do things that will serve others, even though it may not be in our self interest to do those kind of things. So, we’re free to love our neighbors and do things that loving our neighbors requires. So, as you just alluded to earlier, we have that freedom and are we using that freedom well? And I think that’s probably what these last couple of years we’ve learned a lot about, is what does it mean to be free? And, how do we serve our neighbors well? And, how do we express the love of Christ properly, in a way that could be understandable, and would reach out to others, and not put barriers in their way? So, in that sense, I’m free to do what I think is required of me to love my neighbor well, and that puts a whole different frame on the freedom of conscience versus choice. Well, as a follower of Jesus, where does my freedom take me? I think also more broadly for me, especially when you deal with conscience and issues of choice, and how they’re framed within our society. I remember reading a book about… Oh, just a second, I’ll… Jacques Ellul. The book was, “The New Demons”. So, he’s a French philosopher, wrote a lot of books on propaganda, and so on. And, he was engaged in the World Council of Churches, and he’s seen the growing secularization of Western Europe, North America, and so on. And in a postscript, he talked about religious freedom. And normally we think about religious freedom as a defensive engagement to protect the scope of our freedoms as Christians, right? So we can live out our faith with integrity and not be told we can’t live out our faith and bear public witness to what we believe. He spun that around and said, “You only have religious freedom if you really understand what you believe.” So for him, the advocacy for religious freedom isn’t as much about a defensive measure to protect our freedoms as people of faith, but it’s actually to help our neighbors understand what they actually believe. Because only if they understand what they believe, can they really be religiously free to continue to believe what they believe or to change their beliefs. So, the more thought you’ve given into what you believe, what your doctrines are, what you don’t believe in, then you essentially have religious freedom to make those determinations. But, if you’re not aware of what you believe, then do you really have religious freedom? So, it reminded me that part of our task in a pluralized secular society, and part of how we speak into that society, is to try to begin disclosing and helping other people distill what exactly they believe. Why do they follow this ideology or that ideology? Why do they fit conscience versus choice? Those kind of questions drive down to our core understandings of the principles that shape our lives, that guide our lives, and I think that’s where we need to have that more robust conversation. So, I’d like to feel there’s ways to take the contemporary controversies over vaccines and mandates, and so on, to start to peel back the layers of the onion. And say, “Okay, what does sovereignty mean? What does conscience mean? How do you determine that? When are your buttons pushed? What’s causing them to be pushed, and how do we define and identify that, and how do we contrast them to the freedom we have in Christ?” And so, I think that’s where part of our task is, as Christians, to read our society to understand that it is religiously plural. So, it’s Paul, back in Acts, in talking about witnessing to others and saying, “You are a very religious people. You have a number of gods you believe in. Let’s begin talking about your gods. Let me tell you about who I worship and serve.” And can we distill the conversation down to that point? It is difficult work because a lot of people don’t think they believe in anything or they claim to be a-religious, but if they were once religious and now they’re a-religious or nonreligious, something’s filled that void. And I think that’s where, as people of faith, we can engage in a conversation with others, moving beyond or above the politics, and engage in conversations of faith, and have that interfaith dialogue, and ask the good questions to pierce below people’s stances and their rhetoric, and to understand at their gut level, what is their aspiration? What’s their understanding of human flourishing? What do they understand to be the good life, a life worth living? Then, compare and contrast whether their gods and idols can satisfy that in contrast to Jesus.

Daniel Markin:

Yeah, you mentioned something there, which is everyone makes religious claims, right? They’ll be like, “Don’t push your religion on me. I’m a-religious,” but the moment they start speaking, ironically, they’re now pushing their a-religion on you, and I think also understanding that helps in the dialogue.

Bruce Clemenger:

Just to say, you talked about Ottawa, the demonstrations there right now, and you see on both sides. I mean, it’s like night and day what they think is happening, right? So, what’s underneath that? How do they understand? Why are some willing to take their trucks and park them in downtown Ottawa and honk their horns and protest? And why do others see that as so harmful, insidious to democracy and to freedom? Why this clash over choices and over freedom? And I think we can only begin to understand if we delve down into the animations, the motivations of those engaged on all sides of the issue to understand what is it they hold fundamentally true and important, and how they see that as being threatened or compromised. And, how do we express that well? Because that’s going on in both sides, all sides of this debate.

Daniel Markin:

Yeah. Well, Bruce, thank you for being here with us. And, we look forward to having you on this program again, because I feel like it’d be interesting to be able to have this conversation a few months from now, to see how things have changed. How is our culture doing? How is Canada doing spiritually, and philosophically, politically? All that stuff. There’d be a lot to talk about. And it’s really, I think, refreshing to talk about Canada because so often we hear about stuff in the United States, and so I appreciate you coming on and being able to reflect on Canada. So thanks again.

Bruce Clemenger:

Thank you. Pleasure to be with you.

Daniel Markin:

Hey, well, thank you again, Bruce, for being on the program and in particular, I was really enjoying our conversation, especially on the pieces of conscience and how to think through those things, and actually also make distinctions between choice and conscience and how those things are playing out in our society right now. Really helpful. There’s so much further we could go. If you want to find more resources from EFC, you can actually head to their website, evangelicalfellowship.ca, and there’s a lot of articles Bruce was mentioning that are on there for you to go deeper and to be thinking through a lot of the stuff that we talked about today. So, thank you for listening and take care up there. All the best.