One of my favorite areas in Christian apologetics deals with morality. Part of the reason for this is because of how relevant morality is to everyday life, from what goes on in our own personal lives regarding ethical questions. But morality is also relevant to our evangelism. Some of the reasons people give for not making a committment to Christ is not because of the historical evidences but because of moral objections.

What are these moral objections? Basically they can be wrapped up in one word that is so ingrained in our society--relativism. Yet relativism doesn't settle for encroaching just into morality; it encroaches into every arena of our lives, religion not withstanding. "Christianity is true for you, but not for me" -- hence religious pluralism. Paul Copan's fiesty little book of hard hitting, slam dunking material, is a must for anyone who wants to begin developing a Christian mindset that goes against the status quo of secular society's most cherished sacred cow as well as provide some great defenses against some strong objections to Christianity.

In Part I, Copan looks at the myth of relativism by answering some basic questions about truth. Is there such a thing as objective truth? Can something be true for you but not for me? Is it arrogant to believe that our belief system is true? Part II takes us into the area of morality--the real existence of moral truth. That is the fact that morality is not culturally conditioned or a mere matter of individual preference.

Part III takes a look at religious pluralism--the assertion that all faiths lead to salvation. Part IV examines the claims of Christ in the light of world religions and Part V addresses the enduring question about the unevangelized: What about those who have never heard of Christ? Are they inevitably condemned? Each section comes with study questions for groups or individuals and there are footnotes which add explanatory or advanced material which often cite sources helpful for further reading.

This book is so good I have to provide an example. Paul Copan provides a excellent concise answer to the question that some of the resident atheists on the AOL message boards like to throw around--"If you grew up in India you'd be a Hindu." Has it ever occurred to some of these guys that just because one grows up in India it doesn't necessarily FOLLOW that they would become a Hindu? This line of reasoning doesn't obstruct us from evaluating one system as superior to others, much like we do with politics!? Just because there have been many political systems and we could have grown up in an alternate, inferior system (i.e. Nazism) doesn't mean we are arrogant for believing one is simply better.

Also the pluralist has to apply this to himself...you know the old saying, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." Pluralism isn't big in the rest of the world (look at Islam), but if the pluralist had been born in such places as Madagascar he probably wouldn't be a pluralist. Does it follow that he SHOULDN'T be a pluralist? Or that his pluralist beliefs are produced in him by an unreliable belief-producing process? Why should the religious pluralist think his view is less arbitrary or conditioned than the exclusivist?

This stuff is easy reading and easy to understand. If you have encounter anyone who is relavtivist in your evangelism (as I am sure you will) or even in day to day contact with unbelievers, this book is a little power house for taking the wind out of their sails.