Christianity and Racism

Welcome to Have You Not Read, a podcast seeking to answer questions from the text of Scripture for the honor of Christ and the edification of the Saints. Before we dig into our topic, we humbly ask you to rate, review, and share the podcast.

Thank you. I'm Dylan Hamilton and with me are Michael Durham, David Kasem, Andrew Hudson, and we are firing off episode number two of this new season. We're glad to be back and glad to have you all with us again along with all these questions that have been sent in and we are thankful for every question that we have and we're going to put that out up front as we read these two questions next.

We truly are thankful for every question that we do receive and we do plan to answer them as best we can according to what the Scriptures have to say about the categories that are either brought up in these questions or that are latent within it and see what our Lord has to say about them.

I'm going to be reading two questions in tandem and the first question reads, Most white supremacists I have met are Christian. What is it about Christianity that attracts racists? I am an atheist and my atheist friends and I work to promote racial equality.

Why do you think atheism attracts colorblind people? Okay and the second question reads, Why are Christians so supportive of Donald Trump and his racism? The church includes all people. The church should be inclusive and diverse.

That is exactly what every tongue, tribe, and nation means. Biden is obviously a terrible president but at least he is not racist and what we need is to bring this country together, heal together, and then we can move forward from all this divisive rhetoric.

So there's a lot to unpack in both of these questions and they're a little bit different because it seems like the background of the questioner is different in each one so we're not going to assume that this is the same questioner but they're dealing with the same topic and Michael why don't you get us started on this?

So there are a lot of terms that are used and there are a lot of assumptions that are also made and obviously someone's working from a worldview and also they're working from sources of information and they're working from sources of authority that are giving them not only the definitions of their terms but are also supplying the moral framework by which they are making these determinations.

So it's I think a polite thing to do our best to try to understand where someone is coming from, what their worldview is, what those sources of information, those trusted sources of information that they rely on, and why do they find the moral framework that has been handed to them so compelling.

And those are all part and parcel to trying to unpack these multi-layered questions that in one way or another have greatly affected the regular church member of our church and other churches as well.

These topics have been extremely front and center in the mainstream media since 2012. And even as far back as 2008 there has been a lot of extra conversation about race and white supremacy and racists and so on since the you know late 2000s moving on to today.

It's been something of a resurrected topic shall we say. So the first characterization is most white supremacists I have met are Christian. So there's no offering of a definition for what white supremacist is.

So who gets to define that? What is that? My definition for white supremacist is probably going to be far different than the person who asked this question. And what definition are we going to rely on?

And who gets to be the observer to say who is who? And so on. So if somebody has a Marxist background they're going to be white supremacist in every bush in all of society. If somebody has a different background they're probably gonna have a hard time finding white supremacists.

So that's just going to be one difference. Now when they say most white supremacists I've met are Christian, what's your definition for Christian? Somebody who believes in God and the Bible in general.

Because my definition for a Christian is going to be once again much more narrow than somebody else's definition of what a Christian is. Okay so that once again there's definitional differences. There's going to be a big challenge for somebody coming from this worldview to be able to have a profitable conversation without you know we've got to define a whole bunch of terms first.

And obviously we would want to do that. And then a big assumption that is obviously a kind of assumption and a question that is condemning by nature. What is it about Christianity that attracts racists?

It's like walking up to somebody and saying when did you stop beating your wife? Okay so this is a logical fallacy. It's an inappropriate kind of discourse that's dishonest. Without two unproven definitions, white supremacists and Christians, based on one's personal experience most white supremacists I've they're Christian therefore Christianity attracts racists.

So tell me what about Christianity attracts racists? So this is a dishonest discourse. It's not a profitable question. And in fact when there is a desire and let's say let's assume I am assuming this is the same question on both.

If there's a desire to move away from divisive rhetoric to start this way is to insert divisive rhetoric from the very beginning. So when there's a saying I'm an atheist. I appreciate the openness and honesty about that.

I'm an atheist. My atheist friends and I work to promote racial equality. And again I'm interested. I mean what does that look like? How do you go about that? And then the question is why do you think atheism attracts colorblind people?

So once again the person is using some terms that I would be interested to hear more definition about. What is this racial equality that you're promoting? How is it that you're working to do that? But once again there is this dishonest discourse because of this person's personal experience therefore atheism inherently attracts colorblind people.

When you think about the definition of colorblind that's a very interesting term especially since many of the leading voices that are pushing for social equality and racial reconciliation they have labeled and identified the term colorblind as incredibly racist and emerging from.

White supremacy. White supremacist. Dog whistle they call it. Yeah it's a white.

Supremacist dog whistle. So here is this person asking a question and using terms that have been identified by leaders of racial reconciliation as white supremacist dog whistles. So based upon the own I would say assumed sources of authority to try to even describe what racial reconciliation is this question on the face of it is incoherent and not established correctly.

So that becomes a very difficult kind of question to answer but I would say that when these terms come up I would encourage striving for definition of terms and identifying those sources of authority.

And where are you getting your moral framework from. I'm very interested to hear how is it that you think that this is a coherent approach and a profitable approach. I'm open to hearing why are you taking this particular tack.

So I think that is a way of handling a question like that that makes assumptions and brings moral condemnation and asserts moral supremacy without actually establishing any kind of values openly. I mean this.

Person basically said in my experience most of the racists I have come across white supremacists I've come across are Christians and in my experience with me and my friends you know atheism seems to attract colorblindness.

Why is that the case? And your response is all right. Let's let's go over those definitions and let's how come your experience is normative because my experience has been the exact opposite and I've seen some pretty horribly racist and deadly actions from the atheist side as well.

I mean you just looking looking in history sort of decimates that but they're saying well this has been my perspective this has been what I've seen in this local context. I'm not talking about Mao's.

China in the 1960s. That's a good point. What about the United States in the 20th century? I mean we were like headquarters for atheistic eugenicists. Nazi Germany took a lot of cues from the United States and their policies so there's no clean hands on the atheist side.

We outdid Hitler in a lot of ways. Oh my. So another thing about this question because it is experience-based you know this is my experience with you know it obviously this person is not well traveled okay because if they spent any time where the Christian majority lives then you would find a whole lot more South Koreans and a whole lot more folks in Africa.

You would find a whole lot of people in Southeast Asia. Are you talking about the ethnos scattered across the globe? Yeah I mean if you're gonna count numbers and some people I think people as someone asking this question would be someone who is interested in statistics and probably deriving a lot of their assumptions from statistics and whether or not those statistics are being formulated properly is something to be discussed.

However the majority of Christians aren't white okay and if we're going to be what is it about Christianity that attracts racists okay but you're thinking white supremacists so your experience is very limited in understanding who Christians are especially from history especially in the present day where Christians are all over the world today in a variety of nations and cultures so I think it's a very limited experience and it's bringing some inappropriate assumptions.

To the question. You want to see some really stark racism go to go to the Middle East. You know the Arabs hate anybody who's not Arab it's not just non-muslim. You see how the the Arabs hate the Persians how they that the disdain they have for the Turk.

They have people from Indonesia the most populous Muslim nation in the world and they treat them as just dogs and servants.

Well you know because you're not Arab. Are you saying that every people group.

Has a group of racists? I'm saying that every people group has a group of racists.

My last observation about the question is that the assumption is being made why do you think atheism attracts colorblind people. I think that if anything if we were to look at where atheism is headquartered the shrines the temples of atheism we should look at the secular University.

And I would say that if there's any place in America today that is most focused on color and obsessed with what color you are and engaging in proactive segregation based on your skin color it would be the secular universities of our nation.

So that's my last observation about the question. That's why I find it incoherent and is not. I don't think it's very well rooted in some very basic observations but I see there is a sense in which they see something immoral about Christianity and something moral about atheism and mostly centered around.

What color someone's skin is well looking in the New Testament. Giving me a New Testament response. And this this flows into the next question I think. But the New Testament response to the atheism framing himself or themselves as morally superior the New Testament response is that in Christ those racial lines become secondary.

Your your identity is in Christ and you're identified as a Christian first. You don't lose those national identities or that ethnicity because we have from Isaiah to Matthew 28 to Revelation 7 where you we have the command of every tribe tongue in nation says every tribe tongue in nation there are people that I have called out for myself says the king and he is bringing these nations to himself and it is in Christ and in his authority.

And this is what the Scriptures say not just in the New Testament but throughout. I mean we talk about Psalm 2 and the kingdom of the Messiah is of every members of every single people group but they identify themselves as in Christ first.

And all of those kind of lines fade into the background because that's not the priority but Christ's priority is to take because he said he was going to do this every tribe tongue a nation to himself because that is what gives glory to the father.

So I would say and I love the statement most Christians aren't white and Andrew had said this earlier when who is building the church. Christ is building the church. This are the people he is calling out for themselves.

And yes some of them going to be white. Some of them are not going to be white. That's not the issue. The issue is Christ is calling them to himself and is building his church and it does look very very colorful and that's okay and that's great.

But he's the one who's building it. And if there's a particular church in particular area that has a particular people group and they happen to be monochromatic. Christ built that.

Church yeah I think it's in the following question is getting to how is Christ building this church. And the question is why are Christians so supportive of Donald Trump and his racism. Again this is another loaded question that is very much in the same style as the first set of two questions.

But why are Christians so supportive of Donald Trump and his racism. Well I've not met any Christian anywhere who is pointed out to anything where Donald Trump has said something racist and said boy I am I'm so supportive of that.

So again it comes back to the definitions. What are you saying is his racism. And where exactly do you find Christians supporting that racism. And who gave you that definition. And who what moral framework are you using.

So we have to go back to all those definitions of terms and see whether or not those moral frameworks and definitions are coherent or incoherent. Are they actually true or are they absurd. But if you spend any time at all listening to Christians over the last decade you are going to find that there is not monolithic support for Donald Trump.

We spend half our time yelling at each other about you know not supporting him and try not to support him too much. And here's how much you can support him or you shouldn't support him at all to lump all Christians together as some sort of monolith that they are so supportive of Donald Trump and his racism I think is unfortunate groupthink.

Christians aren't a monolith and they're always holding each other accountable about this particular issue. Now there are some who are political in nature and they're looking for power. I think Robert Jeffers you know is anointing Donald Trump as the second coming of the Messiah but he's doing that for political gain.

And there's you know there's TBN types who are looking for fame and they're gonna ride the coattails of Donald Trump. But no no Bible believing Christian trying to follow Jesus and do the right thing takes those people seriously.

Like who cares about what these dog and pony show people do. We know we know them by their fruits and we don't they don't speak for us. So we don't support Donald Trump for his racism. If we do vote for him and say he's a better option than the other guy most of the time overwhelmingly most of the time it's we think there's a better chance that he might appoint judges that might end up with less less babies being killed inside the womb.

That's generally the level of our support. And since abortion is one of the most racist and racially charged. Margaret Sanger. Yeah I'm gonna go back to atheist like any genesis any effort whatsoever to push back against abortion is the most anti racist thing you can possibly do.

And when it says of the church includes all people the church should be inclusive and diverse again those terms that you keep using those terms but I don't think that they mean what you think that they mean.

Right. What what do you mean by those terms. Because the definitions of inclusive and diverse according to a Marxist is going to be completely different in thinking about including others and having a wide plethora of kinds of people in the church.

Those terms from a biblical worldview are not going to be the same terms from a Marxist worldview. And so when someone is saying hey the church should be inclusive and diverse where'd you get those terms.

What do they mean. And when they say that is exactly what every tribe tongue and nation means. Actually we don't take definitions that are defined by the mainstream media and then take those terms and bring them into the Bible and say this is what exactly the Bible means.

That is interpreting the scripture in light of some other hermeneutic. Actually Jesus Christ Jesus of Nazareth who is the Christ the Son of the Living God died upon the cross and shed his blood and purchased unto God people from every tribe tongue and nation he redeemed them by his blood he suffered under the wrath of God completing all the righteousness that was required for them to have peace with God redeemed them unto God and was raised from the dead for their justification to be brought to God.

And so that's what every tribe tongue and nation means. And yes God loves the tribes. Jesus died for the tribes he died for all these different nations. And in fact we find when the gospel goes out the gospel first preach at Pentecost was preached to people from all over the Roman Empire and it was preached in such a way so they heard it in their own native heart language.

What do we learn from that. We learn from that that God loves it when the gospel is preached in the heart language of the tribes. Which is why Christians have labored and labored and labored for centuries and spent all this money and time to translate the scriptures into the heart languages of the tribes so that they can know the gospel in their best understood language.

We don't require them to learn English. We want them to know God's Word from the Greek and Hebrew straight to their heart language. And we got that model from Pentecost from Acts chapter 2. So yeah the church is very diverse.

It has all these tribes and tongues and nations and God loves that. And that's a good thing now and says so Biden's a terrible president but at least he's not racist again. Who said it. Who gets to define it.

Who told you that. And why is it true. And they said what we need to bring is to bring this country together heal together. And then we can move forward from all this divisive move forward to what. Well again I think the best way for us for our country to come together for a country to heal together.

The best way a country can move forward from divisive rhetoric is to stop talking about race so much. Let's stop talking about race all the stinking time. Let's stop talking about how much money some people have all the stinking time.

Let's stop being materialists. Let's stop let's stop focusing on pigmentation. Let's stop focusing on materialism. And the best way for us to move together heal together and get past divisive rhetoric is for us all to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

All of us to bow the knee and every tongue confess that he is Lord to the glory of God the Father. And that's going to be unity. Yeah there's no unity outside Christ. There's none. He is the Son of Man he is King of Kings.

He is the he's the king of all the rulers of the earth. And if you want unity then everybody bow the knee to him and make everything about him not about race. Like these questions do. So having said that everything we just said went right past the atheist.

Right. It just went right past the unbeliever maybe might have hit him in the head and fell on the floor and they stomped on it. So we are very careful to parse apart the definitions. We take loads of time to explain ourselves and then to be honest about these things from a biblical perspective.

But these questions always put Christians on the defense. I mean and push back on you guys if this is out there. But you don't get to determine what sin is for me. That's correct. Tell me why racism is sinful.

Yeah. Tell me what. Where'd you make up. Where'd you get that made up sin. I'm not finding it. Are you saying to explain their moral foundation. Where do they derive it. Yeah. But not just. No. Not just where do you derive it.

But how do you think. That's. How do you think that that puts guilt on me. How is you calling me a racist. Or even if I were to think that I'm a racist biblically where. Why were you making that up to hoist guilt upon me in order for you to manipulate me.

That's my territory. That's my Lord's territory. He says what the sin is. You don't. Right. And Christians have been taking these questions for 15 14 years now as if they're legitimate as if they're serious questions in order to to solve issues in the church that we actually have these problems.

And the one I mean white guilt it's in it's in their texts like they want you to feel that. That's the purpose of it. We need to quit being so defensive on these things and say no not a not a serious question not a real question.

And you and you don't get to come into my Lord's realm about sin and tell me how I'm sinful about things I just don't. I don't get the I mean I understand wanting to make a defense for bring a defense for every question or contrary opinion to the gospel.

I understand that. But we're talking about people who are using rhetorics to push guilt on to Christians in mass. Yeah. But that's the thing is. And that's why I answered the way I did because the argument is a is a moral argument and all kinds of truth claims are being made.

But where are you getting that from. And in generally it comes back to well the consensus has spoken. Well so you heard everybody say that. No no somebody spoke for the consensus and told me it was the consensus.

And that's why it's true today. Yeah true today. But that that changes and it's a really fun read to find out find out how many times what people were told was the truth turned out to not be the truth which is part of the human experience to continually be fooled by what you thought was the truth.

And and it's like well that's so when you're coming and saying Christians are this and Christians are that and they need to change and hoisting a moral a moral obligation and condemnation upon the church.

It's like hang on a second. You don't get to define truth and morality that belongs to Jesus Christ. Yeah. So let's let's talk about why are you deceiving and being deceived. Yeah. And that's what I'm trying to get to is like the moral framework for them doesn't matter.

They'll pick up a new one as soon as they can to defend the envy to defend the hate. And I think behind these questions like how many times we can list how many times the word white is brought up in the questions.

Right. Like what's the focus we were talking earlier in the first episode about the Lord whenever he wants to signal something to us themes come up again and again and again it's important again what's the most important thing I think in these questions what we will find most central and important is the word white.

Mm-hmm. Yeah. Christian comes up a lot too. But white is whites the the big one. And I think pointing out that you have a problem with envy you have it towards white people. You have it towards white men white male Christians.

This is your issue. Your issue is is not the fact that we act the way that we do. You have a hate in your heart and our Lord has a cure for that hate in your heart. For whether it be white or whether it be black or any other ethnic group you can think of I think getting towards the the motivation of these things they're signaling to us all the time.

And that's why we're getting just like inundated and beat down with the questions like we have to answer this the same way over and over again we can go to the basic motivations rather than because we do we are so careful we take so much time but how much of it is time wasting.

Rather than getting to the motivations and the heart of things I and I know that's been. They may sound pretty jaded but they can get tiresome hearing this stuff all over and over and ever enjoy reads.

Voice as we we heard earlier there's um we did make an assumption that the first question was you know from the atheist perspective but the second question may have been from the Christian a Christian perspective or somebody who goes to church at least in the the framing of the question appeared to be a little bit different.

How do you respond if this. I hate to put words in the questioners mouth. I do. But I'm making an assumption that when they said you know the church should be inclusive and diverse this is exactly what every tribe tongue and nation means.

They're trying to say. The Bible says every tribe tongue and nation so the church is supposed to be inclusive and diverse. And and you're not doing that so. Aren't you in violation of the text. How do you respond to someone who's he who appears to be appealing to the authority.

And I don't think they're trying to do it to ironically. I think they're actually I think this person is.

Trying to parse through this. It's using it as a support for their position right.

I agree I think so but but maybe the maybe the second person is the second question is in disingenuous I don't know but how would you respond if this person says. But your own book or our own book says every tribe tongue a nation we're supposed to be inclusive and diverse.

How do we respond to that. There's there's.

Three things here. First of all this is coming from an observation that has long been made the most segregated hour in America is Sunday morning church. You know there's the trope. Okay so first of all the assumption is made every single local church needs to look like Revelation chapter 5.

Okay but that's not what the text says and in fact the praise is coming from the 24 elders that are standing in for all of the nations that are redeemed. And the same group gets revisited again in chapter 7 the very same group but this time they're called 144 ,000 of the tribes of Israel.

But it's Israel re-envisioned in Christ and at the same time even though they're numbered you know 12 times 12 times 10 to the third power which is you know completion completion upon perfection and so on.

They're also called the multitude which no man can count. This is everybody. This is the entire scope of all of the redeemed all at once. So yes of course every tribe tongue a nation are seen together at the same time in this glorious vision and all true Christians rejoice.

So this is not about a local isolated church this is about the church the whole bride of Christ all at the same time. Now I said well shouldn't the local church look like the universal church. Shouldn't that be the way that it looks.

Shouldn't our worship on earth be a meaning that which we see in heaven like. Okay so now let me ask you two more questions. When you look at the local church and you're looking for inclusivity and diversity what are you looking for.

Because I would bet that if you're not finding inclusivity and diversity in a local church is because your theology is skin-deep and you are so focused on pigmentation and melanin that you don't understand what diversity is like as a pastor.

And I think about each family in our congregation all the cultural differences between each family in our congregation the upbringings that were different the histories that are different the different church backgrounds that different families come in.

Some have none at all and all the differences that are in each family and with and within each family. As I think about married couples and how they were brought together from diverse backgrounds. My only hope for unity day in and day out week in and week out is that we would love Jesus and that we would love Christ.

He's the only reason why we can have unity. Okay so when you think about a local church if your theology is skin-deep because you're so focused on race because race is everything to you and so you don't see different colors then you would think oh this is not diverse and inclusive but God has made us in his image.

It doesn't say that God made us in different colors. Okay so if we're going to find diversity and inclusivity let's let's use God's definitions and God's point of view on who we are. Okay the last observation is this.

This requirement that a local church should have different skin colors and this biological extension because of a Marxist presupposition moves into. Well you have to have equal number of women and men as on staff.

And now you have to have people from the LGBTQ plus community also favorably represented. And you have to have all of these little virtues present in order to be truly diverse and inclusive. This requirement for local church to somehow look all this way to someone's satisfaction of being diverse and inclusive.

That requirement is never placed on any church in Africa on any church in Asia on any church in Southeast Asia. Never placed on any church in Chile or Brazil or South Africa or in Lebanon. Never ever.

This is an American vanity and it is not theological at all. Is it American or is it European. Because I think this. I think this applies to the British and any of the other white countries as well. Europe thinks America has lost its mind.

A whole bunch of Europeans think America has lost their mind. I agree and I think a lot of Americans think that Americans have lost their minds. I'm saying like in the church is it not applied in the other white countries as well.

Okay so it is a far less of a deal in Britain. Okay you say there are some in Britain. In France you're gonna find some of the same pathos. Mm-hmm. But Europe is not monolithic. Oh I agree. It's very much is not monolithic.

Right. But what's happening is I'm listening to pastors like in Ireland pastors in the UK pastors in France. They talk about all the time how they're trying to insulate and protect their church from all of this woke ism coming from evangelical leaders in America and infiltrating their churches and causing havoc and division in their churches because they're being accused of not having the gospel not preaching the gospel.

Because you don't have a proper smattering of pigmentation. Yeah. I'm not saying that we're not the ones applying it to Europe because we are. I think we're the ones who are exporting it. But if you look at where where this is being exported to it is specifically the other white countries.

Right. Yeah. But I'm saying we're the fountain of it. I that's what I'm saying. I agreed. I was shocked by I.

Thought it was from Europe. Over. No no no no but I yeah I'm shocked by I didn't.

Know. No I that's what I'm saying. I'm I completely agree. But the point you're making is that it is being exported to specifically white countries and no other ethnic. There are uniquely American theologies.

Yeah. There are uniquely American theologies. Dispensationalism is uniquely American and it was UK but is uniquely American. It grew here school here. Yeah it's prospered here. The reason why it's in the rest of the world is because it's uniquely American cultivated American focused theology that was then exported.

And the same thing goes with this DEI evangelicalism agreed it's uniquely American and it's being exported elsewhere. But we exported dispensationalism to other places other than white countries. My I think my point is you're right back to the focus.

Yeah the focus of the question the focus of this happening in the church is you're saying again it's skin-deep and it is going to just those who have the white skin of European descended peoples. This isn't going to Africa.

This isn't going to Latin America. If it did there'd be more chaos than there is here. The only reason it's taken here is because we've had centuries and centuries of relative peace between the European peoples and a culture that is colored with Christendom and so we're able to swallow the guilt more readily and not go to not go to blows like the other ethnic groups around the world likely would because those those wounds haven't healed yet as much as ours have.

I think my point is the focus of the question the focus of this stuff in the church we're dealing with things theological but the root motivations are in before a very specific group. And I think when we swallow that pill as the American Church we can learn how to deal with it a little more directly and a little more offensively.

So the examples that we always try to pull out are. Well what about Africa. Or what about Latin America. Well it's not gonna go there. Yeah. But it is gonna show up differently. So the whole the whole idea of getting getting different groups to be at odds with each other because of disparities is Marxism.

Okay. So happened in Rhodesia. It happened in sure. Whatever. Yeah whatever that whatever that that leverage point is it's not like Marxism was created to cultivate white hate. It's just that's what works here and it.

But it. But it's something else. Yes. Where else. Where. I agree. I completely agree but the what I'm saying is the current iteration of it. The current iteration is very specific and it's not it's not morphed in those.

Because if it would if it would they would use a different lever point. So whoever works the problem that we're dealing with right now in the West is one that is very specific to white Christians or just white people in general.

Yeah. So I think part of the challenge as well as when we're saying okay hang on a second before we you know you're in you're gonna try to heap guilt of you know you're not inclusive and diverse enough.

What about all the nations. Yeah. What. What's a nation by the way. Yeah since you're gonna quote the Bible to me about nations let's get into the text and see what what is a nation according to the Bible.

Because you're probably thinking political empires. But what does the Bible mean when it uses the term Gentiles or ethnoid. What does it mean when it says nations. And how do we see nations. And how do we see the the church operating in the Bible itself and so forth.

So if we're gonna have that discussion let's have that discussion but this you use biblical terms and not import somebody else's a value system and somebody else's dictionary into the scriptures and then create a hash of things and join arm-in-arm with the devil and become the accuser of the.

Brethren right. Which is really what this this question has has done. It's taken the Marxist terms of oppressor and oppressor will be. Back then it was more economic. The the lever was their economic.

Of course they use the area. No.

That I mean they use the ethnic issues. I mean they they recruited loads of ethnic Jews after World War two and the Holocaust because that's what they had the grievances that they had. They they cover that on Martyr May the like five hour long podcast about communism or that that period of time.

And that's exactly what they did. They used ethnic tensions in the region to say and what they would do is they would say all Germans must die. That's what they did in East Germany. They put the Germans under the boot because they were a lesser.

Being at that point in the in the in the in the in the 40s at this point of 40s.