Pamela Cooper-White on the Psychology of Christian Nationalism

Meet Pamela Cooper-White, MDiv, PhD, LCPC, author of the recently released The Psychology of Christian Nationalism, which uncovers the troubling extent of Christian nationalism, explores its deep psychological roots, and discusses ways in which advocates for justice can safely and effectively attempt to talk across the deep divides in our society.

In this conversation, George and Pamela discuss what Christian nationalism is, the difference between nationalism and patriotism, the cult of personality and the fragility of democracy, and how to channel our energy and outrage into education and advocacy for social change.

Pamela Cooper-White, MDiv, PhD, LCPC is the Christiane Brooks Johnson Professor Emerita of Psychology and Religion and Dean Emerita, Union Theological Seminary, New York, an Episcopal priest in the Diocese of New York, and a licensed psychotherapist.

Watch the video, here.

GEORGE (00:04):

<silence> Welcome to Good God, conversations that matter about faith and public Life. I'm your host, George Mason, and I'm delighted to welcome to the program today, the Reverend Dr. Pamela Cooper White. She is the Christine Brooks Johnson, professor of Psychology and Religion at the Union Theological Seminary in New York City. Uh, she is also an Episcopal priest and a pastoral psychotherapist. And so she comes to this work, uh, with, uh, broad experience and training, uh, and we specifically are going to be talking about her book, the Psychology of Christian Nationalism, and what that entails. And we'll, uh, get into that in just a moment. But first of all, Pam, welcome to Good God.

PAMELA (00:55):

Thank you so much.

GEORGE (00:57):

Well, part of the reason for our conversation is that we will be, uh, joining with the Luther Center in Dallas on November the 16th, uh, to welcome you as keynote speaker, uh, about your book. And, uh, faith Commons, my organization, as well as, uh, the organization called Christians Against Christian Nationalism, uh, will be joining in that program. And so we thought it would be well to give a preview of that in a sense and a summary of your book. But again, this book is titled The Psychology of Christian Nationalism, the subtitle being Why people are drawn in and how to Talk across the Divide. I think that subtitle, uh, really captures some of the importance of the book that goes beyond just a sociological or political analysis of Christian nationalism, uh, something that really is important to people on the ground, in their families, in their churches, in their communities. And so, uh, let's look at the subject, uh, to begin with of Christian nationalism, but then get into your specialty a little deeper. Uh, first of all, we have now a new speaker of the House, uh, who is, uh, in a sense, a poster child for Christian nationalism. Uh, but I think a lot of Americans, uh, Dr. Cooper White would look at, uh, Mike Johnson and say, seems like a nice guy.

PAMELA (02:39):

Mm-Hmm, <affirmative>,

GEORGE (02:40):

Uh, why are we criticizing a, a, a family man who, uh, is serving his country and is, uh, a, a Christian and who is a patriot? And, uh, it isn't, isn't that criticism just another way of dividing America, America, but there's something deeper about his philosophical and political outlook, and it is called Christian nationalism. So can you help us define that?

PAMELA (03:09):

Sure. Um, well, I have no doubt that, you know, he's an affable nice guy. Uh, many, many people who they may or may not describe themselves using the term Christian nationalist, but they adhere to the belief system, uh, are what we would consider to be good people. And that's part of what is so confusing about the movement itself, um, and why it's so difficult for us to understand sometimes how people can get drawn into this. But, um, basically what Christian nationalism is, is nationalism cloaked in Christian religious ideology, and I'll call it ideology, because in many ways it does not conform to what we think of as Jesus's teachings in the gospels. Um, it's a social and political movement with the goal of restoring the United States to a, I would say, fictional origin as a, an evangelical Christian nation with a not at all fictional origin in white masculine supremacy.

PAMELA (04:14):

And so, um, my most hard-hitting definition of it is it's white nationalism cloaked in an extreme and distorted right wing version of Christianity. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. So they oppose L-G-B-T-Q rights. Um, they in particular have targeted trans individuals, but, um, also, um, all kinds of L-G-B-T-Q, um, for example, um, marriage equality is something that they're trying to undo. Um, he himself says that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful and dangerous and a dangerous lifestyle. Um, that's a quote from him. Um, they oppose teaching critical race theory, which many Christian nationalists don't really understand what it is. What it is is simply teaching the whole history of the United States. Both are beautiful ideals, uh, which I believe in too, our Democratic enlightenment ideals, but also teaching the origins of the nation in the ways in which a, a, a traumatized, frightened group of people initially from Europe. The, the pilgrims came to, uh, escape religious tyranny, and then imposed religious and cultural and ethnic tyranny on the people they displaced and also kidnapped and brought over and enslaved other people, um, who they viewed as subhuman replicating their own trauma on other people.

PAMELA (05:45):

And so to teach the whole history of the United States, it seems to me is an important part of our education, just to, so that we don't keep reproducing the kinds of dehumanization that came with those folks. And then, of course, came the puritans who were my ancestors, um, who wanted to wipe out everybody else's religion and just adhere to their particular rules. So, you know, there's a history here that we need to understand in order to understand ourselves and some of the strands of hatred that still exist in the United States. Uh, so these are the kinds of things that they oppose. Um, they oppose reproductive justice for women and for, um, well, anyone who can become pregnant, uh, sort of disregarding the many ways in which bodies can become pregnant and have difficulties with pregnancy, either because of their social surroundings that don't enable them to be able to afford having a child, or because of the body itself, and to delineate 15 weeks or six weeks or whatever, just does not meet the incredible variability of human bodies and what can go right and what can go wrong. So those are just some examples.

GEORGE (07:03):

Um, so you, you've listed some examples of issues that mm-Hmm. <affirmative> Christian nationalists might, uh, have, uh, concern about, uh, disagree with in terms of what's happened culturally. Do you think that the desire to, uh, enforce a kind of Christian nationalism on the nation is a response to these particular issues? Or is it a more general response to what Charles Taylor has called a, a growing secularity in our society? Uh, a desire to bring religion, uh, back into public life in a way that they fear it's, uh, missing or, uh, growing away from, uh, we've had a fairly robust religious culture in America that has been, I would claim, uh, abedded by our first amendment and the notion of the separation of church and state. But that seems to have, uh, been interpreted by Christian nationalists as a kind of marginalizing of conservative Christians. And so what we get is not a resurgence of, uh, of Christians entering into public life, but a need for them to, uh, abolish the notion of church state separation and create a Christian nation as an answer to it. Uh, I'm not sure that I have a clear question for you, but I'm, I, I'm wondering, is it, is it issues that have brought them to the fore? Or is it a, a larger matter of, of this fear of a loss of religious, uh, identity in the nation?

PAMELA (08:57):

Great question. I think, um, it's, it's a combination of things. Um, I think the things that you are describing as, um, increasing secularism in United States is certainly something that many conservative Christians view as an existential threat. Yes. Um, and it's, um, in fact, true that according to Pew, the largest number of, um, the, the largest category that they divide up into different religious groups are the nuns. N-O-N-E-S, uh, not not religious sisters. Uh, N-O-N-E-S, um, is the largest growing group in America. Now. Uh, evangelical Christians still have the largest percentage at about, I think it's 38% now, um, whereas mainline or liberal Protestants have declined, and evangelical Christians are also declining. But, um, for example, the Southern Baptist Convention has lost members, but it has actually gained congregations. And so there's a kind of a consolidation, uh, around somewhere 85 to 90% of evangelical Christians also adhere to the principles of Christian nationalism.

PAMELA (10:17):

So there's an increasing consolidation of, of those beliefs. There are, of course, uh, many Baptists and many evangelical Christians who do not agree with Christian nationalism, but they're somewhere in the 20% range or below. Um, so we have to recognize that it's still a complex picture, but I, I also think we have to recognize that, whether it's been called Christian nationalism or something else, this is something that goes back, um, decades and all the way to the beginning of the founding of the nation decades in terms of white evangelical Christians making rather cynical political alliances in the Reagan era in order to gain power over what they then perceive to be the dominance of mainline liberal Christians, who they basically thought were not Christian at all, based on beliefs. Um, and there's been 30, 40 years of very carefully concerted, sometimes covert alliances that have been made in order to, uh, increase mutual power between right-wing operatives, very, very right-wing operatives and, uh, and evangelical and, and fundamentalist Christians.

PAMELA (11:38):

But there's been a strand of this, uh, kind of evangelical fervor tied up in a kind of a patriotism motif that goes all the way back to the revival movements at the very beginning of, you know, in the, in the 18th century and the 19th century, these things come and go in waves as well. So we're seeing a current iteration of it, um, that is particularly, uh, I think, divisive and polarizing. But it's not the only time that, that something like this has happened. And I, I just wanna also make a distinction between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is love of country, and we all may love the land we grew up in. Um, we all, all may have, you know, the beauty of different parts of this nation and, um, the ideals on which the nation was founded on paper, but nationalism, and this is in other countries as well, nationalism isn't just something that's happening in the United States. It's a fight for ethnic superiority,

PAMELA (12:47):

Which leads easily to violence, and in its worse is genocidal. And you see this in the Russian attack on Ukraine. Um, nationalism wants to say that to be well, in the case of the United States, to be white and to be Christian is what it means to be American. And to be American, you need to be white and Christian, or at least act like white people and be Christian.

GEORGE (13:14):

So, to, to summarize this section of our conversation and to, you know, just sort of help people understand what the alternatives are in this case, uh, before we go deeper, uh, Christian nationalism would prefer to have a country that is, uh, dominated by a version of Christianity. Uh, as you say, that is that preferences, whiteness and maleness, and, uh, that, uh, has a kind of value system that is enforced upon everyone, uh, which by its very nature, is willing to be undemocratic in order to achieve it. Uh, whereas the alternative, uh, has been a project of, uh, democracy in which, uh, uh, people, uh, aim toward equality and, uh, uh, and, and, and respect of differences, uh, rather than an enforced, uh, unity. Uh, the, the idea of democracy accepts diversity, uh, in, in all of its various forms, uh, and sees itself as an unfinished project, whereas Christian nationalism sees itself as reinforcing something that should have already existed or does already exist. So this is where some of the maga uh, influence comes in, I think, in that. So, uh, is, is that a, a fairly reasonable way to recognize the polls that we're dealing with here?

PAMELA (14:53):

Yeah. I mean, that's a great summary. Um, you should write your own book, <laugh> <laugh>. Uh, well, we're

GEORGE (14:59):

All, we're all wrestling with it, right? And trying to, trying to come up with some idea. So, so then let's go into the second section of your book, uh, is I think, something of your sweet spot. And that is to say, uh, you know, a lot of people have talked about, uh, Christian nationalism and talked about, uh, the sociology and, and politics of it. Uh, but you, you really try to help us understand the psychology of it, uh, that is, uh, what are the conscious needs and the unconscious lures, uh, that lead people to Christian nationalism. Can you summarize those for me?

PAMELA (15:41):

Sure. So, um, well, because of my <inaudible> <inaudible>, OGC, both conscious and unconscious motivations for this, and the conscious motivations are things that we can understand more sociologically. Um, but I see four of them. One is just the very human need for belonging. And, uh, with the increasing, uh, sort of atomization of people in society these days and feelings of isolation, we know that loneliness is an epidemic. Uh, mm-hmm. <affirmative> at this point. Uh, people can be drawn into a group that seems like it's joyful and family oriented and mm-hmm, <affirmative>, uh, the sort of love bombing that happens at the beginning of people coming into to belong to, it's not just mega churches, but they're kind of the, the model for this. Um, and so you come in, I think most people are drawn in by this quest for belonging and for some kind of spiritual feeding, and then they get captivated by the political rhetoric that gets wrapped up in that Christian, uh, language. And so now you've got belonging with a sense of great purpose, a moral battle to engage in with other people, and even a cosmic battle of good versus evil.

GEORGE (17:47):

Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>.

PAMELA (17:49):

Then there's a couple of aspects of fear, which you've touched on too. Um, the fear of loss of white social status, and in fact, the US Census Bureau predicts that the year 2042 will be the end of a white majority in the United States. So for some of us, we think that that increasing diversity is a gift and a wonderful enhancement of our cultural life. But for people who have clung to white identity as maybe the only thing that allows them to feel superior to anybody, uh, they see it as a, an existential threat. Um, and then another fear, and this goes to the heart of, um, evangelical theology, the fear of the loss of male headship as a theological value. Men should be the head of society, of government and home, and the loss of patriarchal authority, um, both in home and in the public.

PAMELA (18:50):

And so the recent revelations of the Southern Baptist Convention's coverup of sexual abuse is not surprising, really given the tendency to protect and elevate men's rule over women and children. And the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe versus Wade also relates to control over women's bodies. Um, so male headship also, um, gets entangled with masculinity. Um, Kristin Cobas domes has written a wonderful book called Jesus and John Wayne, uh, where she talks about masculinity as one of the values that, um, Christian nationalists are afraid to lose. And in relation to that, the group, uh, the religious group, again, according to Pew that owns the most guns, is evangelical Christians. Nearly half of evangelical Christians own guns and black Protestants own the least. Uh, so I, I talk about it in terms of the Outback motto, no rules, just rights. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, the insistence on the Second Amendment right to bear arms has been twisted into a kind of distorted, um, insistence on masculinity as, uh, an American value. And then these fears can slide over into paranoia, really, and that's where the allure of conspiracy theories comes in. Um, and about 50% of white evangelical Christians agree with Q anon, uh, according to Dennison University and, and one in five Americans overall. So we can't just paint Christian nationalism all with the same brush, because there are also mainline Christians who, uh, believe all of these things.

GEORGE (20:48):

Wow.

PAMELA (20:49):

In terms of unconscious motivations, um, which is kind of my bailiwick. Um, we see cult-like recruiting tactics that move people along from being visitors to seekers, to believers starting with love bombing, but then giving messages that increasingly separate us versus them isolating people and saying, one of the most nefarious tactics is to inoculate themselves by saying, now those evil liberals are going to tell you this, and they're going to tell you that we are wrong, but they're lying. And so they turn things upside down. Uh, and so people will, whatever, uh, a person of moderate views might say, they will say, well, that's a lie, because we know that Trump won the election. We know there's election fraud, and we, we know that somewhere there's this nefarious cabal of Democrats who are running a child abuse ring, and what if they're, what if, what if qan is right? We have to protect the children. And so it snowballs into those kinds of mutually reinforced ideas that just group think the pressure of being in a group and that where that need to belong gets turned into a trap. Um, what Freud added to that mix about the, um, the power of peer persuasion in groups to keep people together, is the importance of the narcissistic leader. And I think we see all across the globe, not just in the United States, we see this rise of strong man leaders who really want to be dictators or already are, um, who are masculinist in their presentation. They are, um, full of braggadocio, they are militaristic, and, uh, quite frankly, not very, <they need> in human rights. Say that again.

GEORGE (22:58):

R ight. And they need constant praise. They need constant praise and affirmation.

PAMELA (23:02):

Right, right. So the narcissistic leader is very manipulative and able to say, I love you. I understand you. I know what you need. When in fact, he really doesn't care anything about those things. He wants the adulation. Yeah. And so Freud said that basically there's a, there's a, an unconscious giving over of what at that time, Freud called the ego ideal. But, uh, or you could say the super ego or just giving over one's conscience unconsciously to this person who will tell me what is right and wrong. And now I am relieved of the burden of trying to figure out these complex moral issues for myself. I just, just know what to do because he has told me. And so make America great again. Haps captures the, the essence of that because these are folks often who don't feel great anymore. Yes. And it's more about, let's make you great again. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, because I understand you, and at one point Trump actually said, I am your redeemer and your retribution.

GEORGE (24:14):

Um, so let's, let's stop there for a moment because

PAMELA (24:17):

Yeah. That's, that's a good place to stop <laugh>. I think

GEORGE (24:19):

It's an interesting question about the nature of the narcissistic leader in, in that, on the one hand, you could argue that this person is an outsized narcissist in that he, and it seems always to be a he, uh, it, it requires more than just family adulation, personal relationships or business relationships. But now it has grown to the point where, uh, he needs a, an entire country to feed this. On the other hand, looking at it from a different perspective, I wonder historically if we could say that this is also the reality of, uh, of the way government has functioned across time in empires with emperors, uh, in, in, in countries with, with monarchs, where they represent in themselves the whole country that is, uh, the country needs to personify itself in a person. And, and the very idea of a democratic republic like ours, which is relatively young in the span of history is, is to say, let's try something else.

GEORGE (25:53):

Let's, let's move away from the cult of personality and the individual personalization of our identity. And let's s uh, let's speak to individual rights and a, a democratic environment where everyone is equal, uh, including the one who represents us in the highest office. And, uh, and this is, is probably unrealistic to think that just because we have 240 some years of this experiment, that it's going to quickly erase the memory in the history of the human race of the way we've organized ourselves. Right? So, isn't it logical that we're gonna see this sort of thing recur as we seem to make progress? On the other hand, I,

PAMELA (26:43):

I do think that is true. Um, and I also think, you know, democracy is a very fragile thing. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, because it is perfectly possible within a democracy. And we've seen this happen time and time again to vote in a dictat or.

GEORGE (27:03):

Right? Right.

PAMELA (27:04):

Uh, Hitler being the obvious, um,

GEORGE (27:07):

Yes,

PAMELA (27:07):

most evil example, but there are many, many examples. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>. Um, and it's a fine line between someone who has enough healthy narcissism to put themselves forward to be the leader of a nation or the leader of the free world. I mean, we talk about the president in those terms, uh, but not to be authoritarian. So, ah, can you, can you be willing to take on authority that is legitimately given to you and take responsibility for what happens, good or bad? Um, be the lightning rod for people's discomfort and, and discontent Mm-Hmm.

GEORGE (27:46):

<affirmative>, uh,

PAMELA (27:47):

And try to address that without becoming authoritarian.

GEORGE (27:51):

Yes.

PAMELA (27:52):

And that's not always so easy to see because a lot of authoritarians, especially during campaign season, masquerades as healthy narcissists to Right to authority. Uh, so I am really very nervous about the upcoming 2024 election because I think we, as you know, a group of people as a nation could undo our own, uh, rights and our own democracy. Right. Uh, but yes, I, I think that, you know, the old saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is inherent in the human condition, and we need to have the most robust safeguards that we can in the laws of our country, or any country, which the founders, this is something the founders really did do. They tried to build in guardrails and safeguards so that someone could not assume such tyrannical power, because they had all too much awareness of living under tyranny.

GEORGE (28:57):

Yes.

PAMELA (28:58):

And they wanted to stop it. Uh, so it's, we're on a, a, a sort of a razor thin edge, I think right now in terms of people who are, because they've already benefited psychologically by giving up their individual conscience in favor of someone who can tell them what it is that's right and wrong. And also at the same time, uh, stroke their sense of resentment. They can believe that handing over the reins to someone like that is a good thing for, and not recognize what a dangerous thing it is for the whole nation.

GEORGE (29:38):

So we have some safeguards in terms of law that is, are supposed to protect us on the one hand, but they don't necessarily solve the cultural debate in a sense that, uh, that we experience in our relationships. And that when the, when election season comes about, our neighbors are hard to talk to our, our family members at the Thanksgiving table as the, um, uh, epitomizing, uh, event, uh, for all of us. Uh, so, uh, the, the last section of your book is about how to talk across the divide. And in, uh, in that, uh, section, you give us some helpful hints about how to, we'll use your word triage Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, the, the relationships to figure out, uh, whether this is too toxic to proceed or, uh, something that we could begin to engage with. Could you c sort of help us, uh, with that triage model a little bit as people really would like to know, uh, how to protect themselves, and yet how to make progress in these relationships?

PAMELA (30:54):

Sure. Well, well, first of all, just speaking in terms of the ways in which this particular iteration of nationalism is so wrapped up in Christian rhetoric, you know, it, it becomes even more sensitive and more existential for people because identity as a Christian gets involved. And so, um, one thing I wanted to say a little earlier, simply that what I've observed from televangelists and other Christian nationalist preachers is they tend to jump over what they see as a wrathful God in the Hebrew Bible, which is a very over simplified view of God in the, in the Old Testament, straight to the apocalypse, in the book of Revelation. They don't say very much about what Jesus actually taught in the gospels about love and healing and justice, right?

PAMELA (31:42):

But for folks who've gone down this rabbit hole, uh, many of them actually subscribed to not just Christian nationalism, but a sub, a pretty large overlapping subset of, uh, dominionist who believe that God has called Christians to rule this nation and to bring it back to a biblical law as they see it. But it's really very much, um, a law of exclusion. So when we think about talking to someone, we have to understand that now, you know, they may have had their, their Christian identity fused with these, uh, political and ideological, uh, beliefs. And that goes to a very tender, very personal spot. So what I say is, before you even think about the triage, and I talk about green light, yellow light and red light, um, the first questions we have to ask are, am I the right person to be having this conversation?

GEORGE (32:43):

Ah,

PAMELA (32:44):

Um, and is this the right place and is this the right time? Probably the thanksgiving table is the least right of any of those

GEORGE (32:52):

. Yes.

PAMELA (32:54):

Uh, especially if it's been fueled by a little bit of red wine or whatever. Um,

GEORGE (32:59):

I have been guilty of that myself. So

PAMELA (33:02):

<laugh>, yeah. Yeah.

PAMELA (33:03):

Um, right person, you know, maybe as somebody who they already see as a bleeding heart liberal Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, uh, is not the one who's going to be able to have a real dialogue with them, as opposed to someone who maybe belongs or belongs to a conservative Christian Church, but has said, you know, there's something wrong with this whole message here, and we need to think about our democracy. That person might be better positioned to have that conversation than say, me. Uh, and I also say the very first thing is before you even think about engaging in a conversation about these matters, that argumentation does not work, period. Because the Christian nationalists have already given people all the reasons to disbelieve us. Uh, and so they will not hear it, uh, as a debate and debating will just raise psychologically raise the other person's defenses, because we may, we may think we're debating ideas, they feel like we're debating their existential life.

PAMELA (34:13):

Um, so yeah, channel, if you can't have that conversation, channel your energy and your outrage into education and advocacy for social change, and, you know, writing op-eds and, uh, getting out there, um, on the streets to oppose legislation that is exclusionary, get involved politically run for office, you know, but you may not be able to have that one-on-one conversation as a debate with somebody if, if you perceive a yellow light that that really means there must be some prior common ground that you can both trust and depend upon. Um, uh, the, the psychologist, Jonathan Haidt has talked about how we all have a set of, of values, but that Democrats and Republicans, that's the way he's framed his argument, tend to lean into certain values more than others. So, whereas Republicans, for example, lean into things like, um, loyalty, um, and responsibility, liberals tend to lean into fairness and care.

PAMELA (35:29):

It's not that we don't all care about all these things on a spectrum. So where can we find the values we share? And also simply building relationship comes first. So if I don't really know you well, it's not, it's not a good idea for me to start engaging in a discussion about this with you. Right? But if we already have a common ground as neighbors, as friends, as family members who really love each other, then there's no reason why we might not be able to just share using I statements say, you know, well, this is what, what I've thought about this, and I'm curious. I'm interested to know what you think and, and be genuinely interested to understand where they're coming from to Mm-Hmm.

GEORGE (36:13):

<affirmative>

PAMELA (36:13):

Empathy doesn't mean agreement. Yes. You can try to really understand what is it about their life and their, um, struggles that might cause them to come to these beliefs and right. And be genuinely interested to understand. Mm-Hmm, <affirmative>. Then maybe the, you know, what they think of as the horns and the tail that we have might drop off. And at some point down the road, probably not in that conversation, it might cause them to think, Hmm, well, I respect her and I know she has very different views from mine, but maybe I ought to think about this a little bit more. So, I'm a great believer in the long term and planting seeds, and the green light really does mean respect and kindness. You can't heal them or pounce on their errors or correct them. I mean, who would like that? So condescending, uh, it's, it's a question of calling in as Loretta Ross says, to conversation, not calling them out in a humiliating or public way. So build and maintain relationship. Find common ground. Listen more than you talk, make I statements and try to understand genuinely where they're coming from. Those are all parts of the yellow light and the green light.

GEORGE (37:35):

So the psychology of Christian nationalism, uh, an analysis of Christian nationalism, a a deeper dive into why people are drawn in, and then some prescription for how to talk through this with your neighbors and family, uh, how, how to address it in a way that maybe can help us. Bring us together. Dr. Pamela Cooper White. We are so grateful, uh, for your book and for your work, and we look forward to welcoming you to Dallas November 16th. Thank you for joining us on. Good God,

PAMELA (38:12):

Thank you for having me. I look forward to our time in Dallas. Great.