Wednesday, August 3, 2016

"Evangelicals and Trump: Why I Care So Much"

Lately on Facebook, I've posted some comments and articles that are uncharacteristic of me. I say "uncharacteristic" not because I'm politically disinterested, or disengaged from the political process, I just usually stay away from debates on social media concerning politics. However, an event has taken place recently motivating me to enter the firestorm of political debate on social media: the Republican nomination of Donald Trump for President of the United States. While some of my posts have been directed at Trump and why I believe he should not be President, the majority of my comments are a focused criticism of a large voting bloc responsible for Trump's nomination, Evangelical Christians.

For those unfamiliar with the term "Evangelical," let me provide a quick explanation: Evangelical Christians trace their heritage back to the Protestant Reformation, The Great Awakenings, and early 20th-century American Fundamentalism. The term "evangelical" is intended to reflect belief in the Bible as the Word of God, and its central message of the necessity to personally accept the work of Jesus on the cross for the salvation of our sins. "Evangelical" shares its root meaning with the word "Gospel," which means "Good News." While often associated with American Christianity, Evangelicalism is a worldwide, inter-denominational movement, consisting of close to 300 million people. While there are many different expressions of Evangelicalism, essentially, the group is unified around the concept of the truth of Scripture and the need to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ.

In the United States, Evangelicals have been considered a political force since the election of Ronald Reagan as President in 1980. The late pastor, Jerry Falwell, and his now defunct, "Moral Majority," have been credited to having made it possible for Reagan to beat incumbent, and Southern Baptist Convention member, Jimmy Carter. Since then, the Evangelical vote has been coveted and courted by most politicians of the Republican Party. While there are exceptions, the majority of Christians who identify as "Evangelical" are typically socially and fiscally conservative, and register Republican.

Ever since I have been able to formulate my own personal theological and political opinions, I've been associated with the Evangelical Movement. While I'd consider myself more right-of-center politically, theologically, I'm more in line with Evangelicals than any other expression of Christianity. It is for this reason that I care a great deal about Donald Trump being the Republican nominee for President.

Polling and voting data indicate that Trump received a large percentage of the Evangelical vote during the primaries. While 60% of Evangelicals split their vote in the primaries between Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson, a solid 40% supported Trump, helping him to win narrow races and pull well ahead in others. Knowing this reality, in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump thanked the "Evangelical and religious community for their support," even though admitting, "I'm not sure I totally deserve it."

Why is it troubling for me that Evangelicals are largely responsible for Trump's nomination? Just four years ago, Evangelicals supported Mitt Romney for President. As a Mormon, Romney is about as far apart theologically from Evangelicals as Hillary Clinton is politically. However, I voiced no concern for Evangelicals supporting Romney for President. So, why do I care so much about the Trump nomination that I've spent most of my Facebook time lately discussing it?

First of all, Donald Trump does not represent my values and virtues. I don't expect politicians to have the same faith I profess, but I'd like for them to represent the best of humanity, which includes treating people respectfully. For as "classy" as Donald Trump's hotels supposedly are, he does not conduct himself with class. His behavior during the Republican presidential debates was beneath someone wanting to lead the American people. Evangelicals would not stand for their pastors to act the way Trump did in a church Q&A forum with a disagreeable church member. Yet, they were not only willing to accept how Trump interacted with other Republican candidates, but lauded him for "telling it like it is."

Another reason I care so much about Trump's nomination is it represents a "win at all cost" mentality. Back when I was the Athletic Director of a Christian high school with an elite boy's basketball program, I had to confront this mentally with the pastor of the church that owned the school. In my first year, I had to declare a top-100 player academically ineligible in the middle of the season. However, because the Senior Pastor was also the chairman of the school board, he could overrule my decision. As he explained his reasons for overruling me, he actually said that it was "good for the future of the church and school" if we did not observe the academic requirements for athletes at that time. Rather than offer my resignation and walk out, I accepted his answer. I allowed a slick-talking, megalomaniac, (who eventually spent three years in federal prison for defrauding the school of over a million dollars) convince me that doing the right thing in the short-term was the "wrong thing." For me, this is what the Trump nomination is - a win at all cost mentally. Regardless of what we as Evangelicals personally believe and hold dear in our faith, many of us are willing to allow a slick-talking, megalomaniac represent us just so Hillary Clinton doesn't become President.

A final reason why I care so much about Donald Trump's nomination for President of the United States is because he represents thinking that is not only antithetical to the core of Christian teaching, but also the Constitution of the United States. When Trump talks about banning Muslims from entering the United States, and says things like "this is a country where we speak English, not Spanish," it makes me wonder if he's ever taken a course in US history, or understands the First Amendment. Yes, I understand the realities of the world - I know terrorists enter our country and seek to do us harm. I know illegal immigration is a situation that needs to be remedied. These are incredibly important public policy issues that need to be considered wisely and carefully. However, the fact that Trump has at least made the suggestion of denying someone access into our country because of their religion, or degrades someone for speaking their native tongue, goes against everything this country was founded upon. This is not only anti-American, it's anti-biblical, and should not be tolerated by biblical Christians.

If you've taken the time to read my thoughts, I appreciate you doing so. I know I don't speak for every Evangelical Republican, including those in my family, church, or friends on Facebook. If I've given you the sense that I feel superior to Donald Trump, please know that I do not. I am a sinner saved by grace, and do not sit in judgement of his eternal soul. However, as a voting citizen of the United States of America, I can judge whether any candidate has earned my vote. At this point in time, Donald Trump has not earned mine. I hope you seriously consider whether he has earned yours.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

"Don't Fence Me In: A Response to Ken Ham and Young-Earth Christians" (Part One)

On Tuesday, February 4th, Creation Science proponent, Ken Ham, and celebrity-scientist and proponent of evolutionary science, Bill Nye, debated at The Creation Museum (founded by Ham) in Northern Kentucky. The debate received much attention by the media, and many people on both sides of the issue watched the debate online and gave their opinions in real-time on social media. As an Evangelical Christian, I am responding not to the one I share less in common with (Nye), but with the one I share a common faith - the native Australian, Ken Ham.
Ken Ham is my brother in Christ. We both affirm Jesus Christ as Lord and believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. While he has no idea who I am, I saw him speak a couple of times when I was in college. I appreciate what he is attempting to do in confronting science that has a philosophical foundation of naturalism, but I do not agree with his premise - that the earth MUST BE less than 10,000 years old or the biblical record is false.
Before I go further, a couple of disclaimers: First, I did not watch the debate. I didn't really care about it. However, I know enough about Ham's positions to know what he'd propose and that I disagreed with him on the age of the earth. Second, what I will be sharing is not a scientific response, because I am not a scientist; I am a theologian. The divide in the issue of the creationism vs. evolution debate isn't the only one in which there is a disagreement. Christians who believe that God is the Creator of the universe have much opinion about how that occurred and when. Therefore, this series of blogs will be my attempt at explaining why my fellow believers who are Young-Earth Creationists are wrong to insist that every Christian MUST believe in a young earth. The series will be presented in multiple, separate blogs addressing several theological, philosophical and scientific issues in the young/old earth debate.
                                               Issue #1: Six 24-Hour Days?
It is common knowledge that Genesis chapter one records God creating the universe in six days. However, not all Christians agree with the meaning of the Hebrew word yom - does it mean a 24-hour day or a longer period of time? The answer is both. Yom has multiple meanings in the Old Testament with the two just listed among them. While it is tempting to contend today that the biblical writer must have meant each day representing longer periods of time, we simply don't know that conclusively. So, we have to look at the context of the text to give us the answer.
Notice in Genesis chapter one that it wasn't until the fourth day of creation (1:14-19) that God created the heavenly bodies and the division of seasons. Why is this important? Because it was not until day four that God established the measurements of human time. We know a day is a day based upon the "rising" and "setting" of the sun. However, it wasn't until creation was halfway over that God created a 24-hour day. This begs the question, how were the first three days of creation measured as days? Were they three literal 24-hour days, or longer divisions of time? The answer: I don't know, it doesn't matter. This wasn't the concern of the writer of Genesis.
His purpose was not to promote a young or old earth, but rather to confront the mindset of the religions of Israel's neighbors. They believed the earth was the result of cosmic wars between the gods or was birthed by some monster-like god. The writer of Genesis beautifully described that one God created the universe personally, purposefully and precisely. The universe was not a mistake or a result of chaotic chain reactions, but the purposeful creation of a personal and loving God.
Young-Earthers insist that the writer of Genesis, likely Moses, meant that God created the universe in six, literal 24-hour days. So essential is this to their faith that they also insist that unless this is true the rest of the Bible cannot be believed. The reason they believe this is due to their view of Biblical Inerrancy, which states that the Bible is without error in what it records and reports.
While I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, I come to the issue in Genesis chapter one from a different starting point than my young-earth brethren. I contend that even if the writer of Genesis meant six, literal 24-hour days, he did so because he knew of no other option. Just like Isaiah 11:12 refers to the "four corners of the earth" because the writer did not understand the earth to be round, the writer of Genesis likely meant that God created in six 24-hour days even if that is not what took place. However, for the writer of Genesis, the days were not intended to be the focus, but the God who was the first-cause and active agent in creation. The ancients did not care whether the earth was young or old, they cared about what force was behind the creation of the universe - an issue that is the focal point in the modern scientific debate of the origins of the universe.
A final thought to conclude this blog and set up the next one is the insistence of Young-Earth Creationists that the earth must be young in order to be a biblical Christian. These well-intentioned brethren, in trying to defend the inerrancy of Scripture, actually end up piling on legalistic requirements for salvation. No where in Scripture is one required to believe that the earth is young in order to be a professing believer in Jesus. They insist upon something that Jesus did not address nor was a belief for the better part of 1,900 years of church history. Therefore, the next blog will address the history of Young-Earth Creationism and how it became the majority belief of fundamentalist Christians in the 20th century.  

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

To Jodie Foster: "I'm Sorry"

On Sunday, January 13th, I switched over to NBC after watching an episode of the highfalutin BBC/PBS soap opera, "Downton Abbey," to catch some of The Golden Globe Awards. I caught it just in time to see the presentation of their version of the "lifetime achievement award," The Cecil B. DeMille Award. The 2013 recipient was 50-year old actress, Jodie Foster. Ms. Foster is an accomplished actress, having been in the business since the age of three, and has received four Academy Award nominations, winning two. On top of all of that, she is a magna cum laude graduate of Yale University. Regardless of my disagreement with her personal spiritual beliefs, atheist, and personal lifestyle choice, lesbian, Jodie Foster is a brilliant and accomplished actress. So, when I saw that she was this year's recipient of the Cecil B. DeMille Awards, I anticipated a polished and eloquent acceptance speech. However, it was not what I expected. Quite frankly, I did not understand it, feeling on the outside of an inside joke. So, I did what most American, armchair prognosticators do - make a sarcastic comment on Facebook.

Most of my Facebook friends paid little attention to my snarky status update, "Jodie Foster: great actress, bad speechmaker." However, over the past week, I have been bothered about what I wrote. Here's why:

Last week, I posted a blog titled, "Do Manners Matter?" This article was motivated by some of the rudeness and lack of civility I witness by Christians on Facebook almost daily.
Case in point: yesterday, January 21st, as the inaugural ceremony for the second-term of President Barack Obama commenced, a well-known Seattle pastor, Mark Driscoll, "tweeted" this from his Twitter account: "Praying for our president, who today will place his hand on a Bible he does not believe to take an oath to a God he likely does not know." I do not follow Mark Driscoll on Twitter, but saw someone else "retweet" his status. Immediately, I was bothered by the statement and tweeted a response that I'm sure put Pastor Mark in his place. Anyway, back to Jodie Foster...

After thinking about the rudeness of Mark Driscoll's presumptious post, I woke up this morning and thought about my little jibe concerning Ms. Foster's speech and my blog on manners. I became convicted about my sarcastic comments about a woman I do not know, and publicly displaying poor manners by being overly critical of her five-minute acceptance speech on an evening honoring her excellent career. As a public speaker, I don't particularly like it when people make critical and sarcastic comments about my speaking abilities, and I should have remembered that when posting my thoughts to my 614 Facebook friends. What I said was rude and hypocritical concerning what I would write about manners just two days later. 

So, Jodie Foster, I'm sorry for my negative comments about your speech last week. While you have no idea who I am, and will likely never read one of my Facebook statuses, Twitter posts, or listen to my sermons online,, I hope you will forgive me. As a follower of Jesus Christ, I did not live up to the teachings of what Scripture teaches: "Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone (Colossians 4:6)." I hope to be more encouraging and positive in my comments whether spoken or written in the future.  

Also, Ms. Foster, while I really did not understand most of what your speech was about, what you said about your mother was beautiful. Congratulations on your Cecil B. DeMille Award! I thought you were great in Maverick.  

Monday, January 14, 2013

"Do Manners Matters?"

When Michelle and I learned we were going to be parents, she immediately began buying and borrowing baby books. As Prissy from Gone With the Wind, exclaimed, "I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies," Michelle and I knew little 'bout raisin' them. So, we both began to prepare for the challenge of raising a baby boy to a grown man.

While Michelle read multiple books about infant care, nutrition and child development, I read one, How to Raise a Gentleman, a small hardback I found at the checkout counter of my favorite men's clothing store. While the book was interesting, it didn't teach me anything new. However, it became a symbol for me, as I placed it on my living room coffee table, that if I wanted my son Samuel to have manners I would need to teach him, and model them myself.

Last summer, I posted this Emily Post quote on my Facebook status: "Manners are a sensitive awareness of the feelings of others. If you have that awareness, you have good manners, no matter what fork you use." Emily Post (1872-1960) was a writer whose name has become synonymous with etiquette and manners. While some may see her as a symbol of "stuffiness" and formality, I believe she was a modern pioneer of civility.

After I posted that status, I was asked a few times throughout the day if I had witnessed someone not demonstrating good manners. I kept my response short, but answered in the affirmative. On that particular July day, it wasn't just one person I witnessed not having good manners, but several, and unfortunately, they were in the church. No, it wasn't belching uncontrollably and passing gas (at least not that time), but an unawareness of understanding the needs of others - of not thinking before you speak and how your personal choices affect those around you.

By the way, the behaviors motivating this blog were not directed toward me. Nevertheless, it still bothers me greatly when I see people who make rude comments, lack sensitivity toward others, and are blase about their behavior - especially when it occurs with Christians!

Good and bad manners alike have been associated with geographical regions of our country. While someone may extol the virtues of "southern hospitality" and gentility, others may excuse their rudeness or bluntness as being a part of their city, state or region. However, I've known plenty of uncouth southerners, and many northeasterners who are considerate and polite. While culture can play a part in how manners are displayed, personal choice is still the determining factor in how one chooses to be considerate.

Philippians 2:3 says, "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves." One of the "Fruits of the Spirit," a list of spiritual qualities found in Galatians 5:22-23, is "kindness." These passages, and many other verses in the Bible, promote civility, consideration and common decency toward others in every day life. In short, manners do matter for the Christian, because they reflect the values and virtues of God. Civility, respect, and good behavior is not just fashionable, but should be the favored mindset of disciples of Jesus.  


Wednesday, December 19, 2012

"The Dictatorship of the 21st-Century American Mind"

It has not even been a week since the shootings at Newtown, CT that resulted in the deaths of twenty elementary school children dead and six adults. However, it seems like we have been dealing with this tragedy all year. Actually, we have...

February 22, 2012 — Five people in Norcross, GA were killed when a man opened fire inside a Korean health spa. Dometic issues are the suspected cause.

February 26, 2012 — One person was killed and twenty more injured when a man opened fire at a Jackson, TN nightblub.

February 27, 2012 — Three Chardon High School students (Ohio) were killed when a fellow classmate shot them.

March 8, 2012 — Two people were killed and seven wounded at a psychiatric hospital in Pittsburgh, by a gunman with two semiautomatic handguns.

March 31, 2012 — A gunman fired upon a crowd of mourners at a North Miami, FL funeral home, killing two people and injuring 12 others.

April 2, 2012 — A 43-year-old former student at Oikos University in Oakland, CA, killed seven people “execution-style.”

April 6, 2012 — In Tulsa, Oklahoma, two white men randomly shot at several black men killing three and wounding two others.

May 29, 2012 — A Seattle, Washington man opened fire in a coffee shop, killing five people and then himself.

July 9, 2012 — At a soccer tournament in Wilmington, DE, three people were killed when multiple gunmen began firing shots, apparently targeting the organizer.

July 20, 2012 — In a Denver suburb, James Holmes entered a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises and opened fire with a semi-automatic weapon killing twelve and wouding fifty-eight.

August 5, 2012 — A former Army veteran and white supremicist killed six people at a Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee before killing himself.

August 14, 2012 — Three people were killed at Texas A&M University when a 35-year-old man went on a shooting rampage.

September 27, 2012 — A 36-year-old man who had just been laid off from Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis entered his former workplace and shot five people to death and wounded three others before killing himself.

October 21, 2012 — A 45-year-old man killed his wife and three others at a spa in Brookfield, Wisconsin, before killing himself.

December 11, 2012 — A 22-year-old randomly killed two people at a mall near Portland, Oregon before killing himself.

December 14, 2012 — One man murdered  twenty-six people at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, including twenty children, before killing himself. Earlier that day, he killed his mother by shooting her in the face.

This is not a blog about "gun control," but rather self-control. While I personally do not understand why any civilian "needs" a semi-automatic rifle with a thirty round clip, I also do not understand why men "need" $100,000 sports cars (Although, I'm guessing Freud would have a theory about it).

We live in a nation of three hundred and ten million people where it is legal to own a variety of weapons. By-and-large, the third of the nation who own firearms are law-abiding citizens who either participate in hunting and sporting activities, or desire more security for themselves and their families. That is why, like the vast majority of Americans, I am not in favor of banning firearms, even though I do not understand the need for most of them. What I am in favor of is self-control. Something that the perpetrators of the murders in the list I gave did not have.

While it is true that if guns are outlawed people will find other ways to kill each other, it is unique to contemporary history the amount of civilians killing others in presumably safe, public places. A careful study of United States history will reveal that apart from times of war, we are living in the most violent time in our nation's history.

I am proposing that what we are seeing in our country is the "dictatorship of the 21st-century American mind." Since the time of our nation's founding, the rugged individualist has been valued, and recently, the post-modern emphasis on personal morality has been promoted. If a person was raised with the philosophy that their truth is the only one that matters, should it be surprising that so many, without provocation, are randomly killing people they do not know? This is what dictators of countries do: kill innocent people in order to increase their power and expand their kingdoms. The dictators of world history have not only gone to war against soldiers, but also civilians. Dictators are bullies with armies; mass murderers are bullies with access to sophisticated weapons that can kill a lot of people quickly.

There is a lot of justification that comes from taking somoene else's life. Usually, it results out of a sense of self-defense/protection, enacting justice, or revenge. Either way, there are standards people use to justify killing another human being. What we are seeing today with mass murderers is that they have processed in their depraved hearts and deranged minds that they are the arbiters of justice and truth. Whatever personal problems, pain or psychosis they are dealing with, they have come to the conclusion they have the right to kill other people because their truth is the final word.

Unfortunately, because mass shootings are happening so frequently we are becoming immune to it. However, this past Friday, December 14th, our national conscious was jolted awake because twenty of the twenty-six victims were ages six and seven. Should this matter? Do those lives count more than the twelve high school students killed at Columbine High School in 1999, or the thirty-two students and faculty at Virginia Tech in 2007? The answer is "no." What makes the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting more shocking is the amount of small children who had no way at all to defend themselves. They were not big enough to fight back,  or mature enough to form a plan to overpower their attacker. They were among the most vulnerable victims of violence (other than those aborted from wombs, but that's another blog) and I believe this may be the tipping point in what our national conscious will allow.

Throughout history, nations have revolted against dictators. Even in our own country, we fought against the oppression of a monarchy, the institution of slavery, and racial segregation. We have sacrificed the lives of our soldiers in foreign countries to free others from the likes of Hitler and Saddam Hussein. All dictators began with being lords of the kingdom of their own minds, and today, that is the battle we must win in order to eliminate more tragedies like this past Friday. It appears that the mind of a generation, who believe they are all that matters, is being lost to the dictatorship of their own minds, and we must defeat this dictator, or we risk losing a lot more lives.

As a disciple of Jesus Christ, I believe the only battle plan to overcoming this current dictator is doing what the Apostle Paul urged in Romans 12:2: be transformed by the renewing of our minds. This means relinquishing control of what we personally believe matters, and give ourselves over to the leadership and authority of King Jesus and his Kingdom. Whether a person is a mass-murderer or a law-abiding citizen, when we decide what is morally right and wrong, we have made ourselves the dictators of our own minds, which will eventually lead to the destruction of our kingdoms.  

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Letter to The Editor

This is my "Letter to The Editor" regarding a story you can access at It involves a statement that a member of my church, and good friend, *Rodger Diehl made regarding the allowance of a Gay-Straight Alliance club at Big Spring High School. Hopefully, it will be printed in The Sentinel soon.

*Because of Rodger's health, his statement was read by one of Community's Elders, and Northern High School history teacher, Marc Anderson.

July 25, 2012

To The Editor:

In a board meeting of the Big Spring School District, on July 23, 2012, Penn Township resident and Community Christian Fellowship (Carlisle) member, Rodger Diehl, gave a balanced opinion regarding the formation of a Gay-Straight Alliance club at Big Spring High School. As reported by The Sentinel, Diehl’s statement expressed the conviction of the majority of Evangelical Christians against homosexuality, but also stated Christian compassion toward students who make homosexuality their lifestyle choice, and a common-sense understanding that legal precedent allows for the existence of diverse clubs in a public school.
While The Sentinel reported opinions by other area Christians, Diehl’s comments were the most compelling and convincing. Other dissenting opinions to the club’s formation included fellow Christians invoking the ideals and morality of our nation’s “Founding Fathers (the framers and signers of the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution).”

Space does not permit a full commentary of the faith of our nation’s founders, but one fact needs to be understood: The majority of them were not Evangelical, or biblical Christians. Most of them were Christian Deists (believing God existed, but not engaged in the world) who were not looking to establish a Christian nation, but a pluralistic society governed by Enlightenment thinking. While we should be appreciative of the contributions of our nation’s founders, to invoke their posthumous authority on all spiritual, cultural and legal matters today is incorrect. However, if we insist to do so in this circumstance, one should only have to look at the First Amendment to understand that our founders desired a nation where diverse opinion was protected in the public conversation.

Rodger Diehl correctly stated the biblical view against homosexuality in his statement to the Big Spring School Board, but also presented a reasonable and rational viewpoint for the situation at hand. Big Spring High School is not a Christian school, but rather a public school where many ideas and opinions about faith and morality exists. If Newville area residents want to ban this club, then they will have to accept the ban on every club, like the Christian Club. Frankly, Big Spring High School, and all high schools, needs the Christian club more than they don’t need the Gay-Straight Alliance.

Sandy Adams Jr.
Lead Pastor, Community Christian Fellowship
Penn Township Resident/ Big Spring School District Taxpayer
Carlisle, PA 17015

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

"It's All Relative"

This coming Sunday, July 22nd, I'm beginning a six-week series on the prevailing philosophy of our time, Relativism. The series, It's All Relative: Challenges to Truth, will examine Relativism and five common statements that come out of it that challenge the biblical Christian view of absolute truth.

At risk of sounding melodramatic, this may be the most important series I've preached to date. Relativisim not only challenges core beliefs of the Christian faith, but is also responsible for, and reflective of, the lazy approach of most people in our country towards faith, morality, and the search for truth. One could say that Relativism was "made in the U.S.A.," which is ironic (and disturbing), because to many, the United States is considered, or at least was, a "Christian nation."    

I hope this series is embraced by my church, and listened to by many online. However, I'm fearful that some will look at it as a just a series of lectures on philosophy and not grasp the importance of understanding this topic. Therefore, please understand, if you are a Christian who believes in absolute truth, you are in the minority. Also, if you are a parent and are planning on sending (or already sent) your child to a non-Christian college, you should know that this will be the dominant worldview they will be exposed to. 

So, what do you tell your child when they come home and say "truth is determined by each individual"? How will you respond to your co-worker who says, "all religions basically teach the same thing"? What will your answer be to that person you just shared the Gospel with who swats away your impassioned presentation with "what's true for you isn't true for me"? Hopefully, the next six-weeks will give you a better understanding of the challenges we are facing from Relativism, and equip you with responses to statements like, "it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you sincerely believe." Yeah, that one makes my eyes roll too!