One could argue that we live in an increasingly polarized society in 2025. We are constantly told that we must choose a side on many issues. You must be either liberal or conservative, pro-Trump or never-Trump, pro-life or pro-abortion, pro-gun rights or in favor of more gun control—the list goes on. The COVID-19 pandemic only heightened this polarization, with debates over masks, vaccines, and other issues. Even our sports culture reflects this divide, where fans are so devoted to their teams that they go to extreme lengths to cheer for their own side and against their rivals.

While taking sides on societal and political issues has never seemed more important, a person’s stance on spiritual matters appears to have lost its sense of urgency. When it comes to religion, choosing sides no longer seems to matter. The prevailing sentiment is: “Believe whatever works for you, as long as it doesn’t infringe on others.” Given that pragmatism is arguably the only philosophy to originate in American society, perhaps this mindset is unsurprising.

But is it important to take sides on spiritual matters? Why does a more relativistic approach gain the most traction when it comes to religion? I believe the answer lies in modern culture’s misunderstanding of truth. Our society increasingly views truth as a subjective concept—something determined by individuals or by culture itself. This perspective diminishes the significance of truth in philosophical and theological discussions, such as: Does God exist? And if He does, what is God like? If the relativistic approach is correct, then the differences in how these questions are answered become trivial and unimportant.

But what if that’s not the case? It is crucial to expose the self-defeating claim of the relativist who asserts that there is no objective truth in religious matters. Is the statement “There is no objective truth in religion” itself objectively true, or is it merely a subjective opinion? If it is merely an opinion, then it does nothing to resolve the debate on the nature of truth. But if the statement is objectively true, then at least one truth exists in religious matters—undermining the very claim of relativism.

Once a person acknowledges that truth claims in religion have an objective nature, the significance of beliefs and statements about God takes on new meaning. The question of God’s existence and His nature is not a subjective one—it is an objective reality. This realization should prompt us to embrace the big either-or in our thinking, compelling us to take action. Either there is no God, in which case our lives lack ultimate significance, or there is a God, and nothing is more important than our relationship with Him. After all, He created us and designed the universe we inhabit.

More specifically, if the historical Jesus truly was who He claimed to be—if He entered the world to reconcile us to our Creator, our Heavenly Father—what is our reasonable response? It seems to me that the only fitting response is a life of devotion and worship. In the book of Revelation, John warns the church in Laodicea not to be lukewarm. In other words, he suggests that we cannot treat the claims of Christianity as insignificant, nor can we live as if they have no impact on our lives. Either Christianity is true, and we owe our lives to the service of Christ, or it is not, in which case it ultimately does not matter whom we serve.

Since the big either-or carries such immense weight, how could we not choose a side? While politics and sports may consume people during their brief time on earth, these human institutions will soon fade. If the Christian God exists and the gospel message is true, then living for Him takes on infinite significance. The hymn writer Isaac Watts expressed it best when he reflected on the wondrous cross:

"Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small.
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all."