Part Two:  WHY IT’S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE UNIVERSE TO HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE OUT OF NOTHING

 Until big bang cosmology became the prevailing view for the origin of the universe within the scientific community, Darwinists assumed the universe was eternal. This view made a complete about face decades ago when the so-called big bang confirmed the universe had a beginning. Scientists now believe the universe is finite, and that prior to the big bang there was no space, time, matter, or energy. Nothing existed. Although this view is not far from a creationist modern of origins, advocates for divine creation argue that something did exist prior to the big bang—God.

With regard to the big bang, the issue is not so much whether it occurred but how it occurred. The majority of Christian scientists agree that big bang cosmology does not need to be viewed as contradicting Scripture—whether a creationist believes in a young Earth or accepts the conventional geological age of the Earth (old earthers). The Bible reveals that God spoke the cosmos and planet Earth into existence “out of what was invisible;” which can be interpreted to mean out of nothing (Ps. 33:6; Heb. 11:3).

For this reason, it is perfectly legitimate for young earthers to use big bang cosmology as apologetic/scientific evidence for creation—even if they disagree on when God spoke creation into existence. Old and young earthers both agree—and big bang theory supports—that the only explanation for the origin of the universe is divine creation.

The issue, then, is not whether the universe suddenly came into existence through the big bang but “who lit the fuse?”  Where did the matter and energy behind the big bang come from? There are no laws of physics that explain how matter or energy can arise spontaneously out of nothing; physics only proves that nothing comes out of nothing! If the universe is finite it must have had a beginning. This means something outside and more powerful than the universe must have caused the universe to come to be.

A creation model of origins is consistent with the laws of physics, in particular the first and second laws of Thermodynamics. Along with big bang cosmology, together they demonstrate the universe is finite, could not create itself, yet suddenly came into existence out of nothing. Since an effect can’t be greater than its cause, what caused the universe to be must be self-existing, all-powerful, all-knowing, transcend the universe, personal (because He chose to create), and vastly more powerful than the universe itself. This describes the God of Scripture. There is no other plausible explanation that is in harmony with both Scripture and science. ©

NEXT WEEK:  If the alleged “big bang” actually occurred, it should have resulted in a totally chaotic and disordered universe. In next week’s blog we’ll see what really happened.

Part One:  IS EVOLUTION PHILOSOPHY OR SCIENCE?

This new blog series will focus on the four foundational assumptions of evolution. I will demonstrate there is virtually no scientific way to prove any of them. In fact, I’ll demonstrate in future blogs that the evidences evolutionists claim support these four core beliefs, such as big bang cosmology, better supports divine creation! The reason for this, as today’s blog will show, is because evolution is essentially a philosophy rather than empirical, verifiable science. The order and design of the cosmos and the existence of life on Earth can’t possibly be the result of mindless natural processes with no cause, no purpose, and no goal. Hence, people who reject creation in favor of evolution are making a philosophical decision—not a scientific one.

Phillip Johnson, who has written extensively on evolution as a philosophy, observed that “the doctrine that some known process of evolution turned a protozoan into a human is a philosophical assumption, not something that can be confirmed by experiment or by historical studies of the fossil record.” (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 34-35)  

Although there are evolutionists who believe in the existence of God and even credit His participation in creation, evolutionists of the ilk I’m writing about represent the majority of evolutionists—often called Darwinists because they advocate Charles Darwin’s naturalistic theory that all organism arose from common ancestors and developed through natural selection. They typically flat out reject God’s involvement in creation and often deny His existence.

Darwinists are committed to a philosophical worldview called naturalism, which posits that all reality is merely physical and nothing supernatural or nonmaterial exists. Thus, they believe the origin and development of life and the cosmos can be accounted for by purely natural processes at work in a wholly material universe. Nature is a closed system that cannot be affected by any nonmaterial entity such as God. Of course, there is no observable or testable evidence for this worldview. Hence, again, evolutionary theory is philosophy.

The four foundational assumptions on which the entire structure of naturalistic evolution rests are essentially speculative—as future blogs will demonstrate. If any one of them is false, Darwinian evolution, as an alternative to divine creation, collapses. The first has to do with the origin of the universe, which will be the topic of next week’s blog article. ©

Next Week we’ll see that the best explanation for the origin of the universe is a divine creator.

Part Eight of The World Beyond the Church

Throughout the past hundred-plus years, as the cultural war between Christians and the secular world escalated—and Christian losses mounted—the church has responded in three ways. The first two were dismal failures, and the present one is no better. The following is how we got to this third ineffective response today.

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many seminaries attempted to accommodate the prevailing intellectual climate that favored naturalistic science and biblical criticism. They recast the church into the image of the secular culture—and their efforts failed tragically. Theological liberalism infiltrated most, if not all, mainline denominations, destroying many of the fundamental beliefs that formerly identified Christianity.

In the early twentieth century—as a response to the liberalization of American churches—a large segment of Christendom responded by separating themselves from the liberal churches as well as secular society as a whole (the so-called “Fundamentalist Movement”). This response also failed. It marginalized conservative Christians into an isolated subculture within the broader secular society, which contributed to Christianity losing much of its voice and influence in American culture. Christians became viewed as anti-intellectual and ideologically exclusive, a radical fringe group out of touch with mainstream America—an image that persists to this day.

The third response to the cultural war is the most prevalent today. Increasing numbers of Christians now live dual lives. They maintain well-defined boundaries between the spiritual and the secular aspects of their lives, and function within each according to the activities in which they engage.

During church-related functions they maintain strict biblical values. In the prominent moral issues of our time, such as abortion and homosexuality, they endorse biblical values. They support missionaries, encourage evangelism, and donate to Christian causes. However, at school and work and in entertainment these same Christians behave according to secular values. They compartmentalize the religious and secular aspects of their lives into separate, independent categories. The religious side is privatized and confined to church and Christian activities. The secular side governs virtually everything else. As one example, it’s not uncommon for Christians to go to church on Sunday morning and watch movies and television programs in the afternoon that are full of gratuitous sex, vulgarity, and graphic violence—and fail to see any inconsistencies with their biblical values.

The sad fact is none of these three approaches to secularism will win (or have won) any battles in the cultural war. The early church did not use these strategies as it fought its own culture war with the Romans. They did not accommodate, isolate, or live double lives. The early Christians engaged the culture and through God’s power eventually transformed most of the pagan Roman world into a Christianized world.

If the church is to have victories in today’s escalating cultural war, it must begin with each of us individually. We must identify areas of our lives that compromise our values as Christ followers, renounce them, and lead the transformed lives God expects (Rom. 12:2) and will empower us to do (2 Pet. 1: 3). We can then more successfully engage the secular culture, be more efficient in lifestyle evangelism, and create opportunities for sharing the Gospel and engaging in productive apologetic discussion. ©

NEXT WEEK I’ll begin a new series on scientific evidence that refutes Darwinism while supporting creation.

Part Seven of The World Beyond the Church

In this week’s blog—my last on “points of contact”—I provide seven topics of concern to many non-Christians. Depending on the person’s particular interest, all of them can be potential conversation starters and should provide opportunities for you to share the Christian perspective.

NATURE:  Many non-Christians claim they sense the presence God in nature. We explain why the God they sense in nature is the God revealed in Scripture. As creator, God revealed certain of His fundamental attributes in and through creation (Romans 1:20).

MORALITY:  All cultures maintain a similar understanding of right and wrong behavior. Where did this generic moral code, intrinsic to all cultures, originate (Rom. 2:14-15)? We point out it require a moral Lawgiver. This allows us to share why only the God of Scripture has the qualifications to be a moral Lawgiver.

SPIRITUAL YEARNINGS:  Virtually all people believe in deity and crave spiritual fulfillment. This is because God placed an innate awareness of Himself in the hearts all people—even if suppressed (Rom. 1:18-19; cf. Eccl. 3:11 ). This opens the door for a discussion on why only Christianity offers reasonable and verifiable evidence that the God they seek is revealed in Scripture.

SUFFERING AND EVIL:  Everyone agrees suffering and evil are real. Many people blame God or reject Him because He doesn’t stop it. Challenge unbelievers to remove God from the equation and then come up with a solution to suffering and evil. There is no solution if the God of Scripture doesn’t exist.

SCIENCE:  Most people trust science to reveal accurate truth. This can open a door for sharing scientific facts that confirm God’s existence and that He created life and the cosmos. Such evidence includes modern studies of the anthropic principle, astrophysics, information science, genetics, and microbiology.

SOCIAL SERVICES:  Hospitals, orphanages, relief organizations, and universities are vital elements of American society. All have their origins in Christianity.  Ask unbelievers what atheistic governments and non-Christian religions have contributed that bettered the human race?

FEAR OF DEATH:  Most people harbor a fear of death and wonder if there is an afterlife? Secular humanism and naturalism deny a future life. Pantheism offers only impersonal absorption. Other religions promote views of salvation that are irrational and can’t be substantiated. Why not examine the Bible? It can be checked-out and verified.

I explain the Christian perspective and provide evidences to support all these issues in my upcoming new book, Defending Your Faith: Reliable Answers for a New Generation of Spiritual Seekers and Skeptics. You can read a brief synopsis on my homepage.

There are many other points of contact from the world beyond the church. I’m not suggesting  they will always lead to a Gospel presentation. But they often do. At the least, they provide opportunities for us to explain the Christian perspective on issues. ©

Part Six of The World Beyond the Church

The Apostle Paul had to deal with many of the same obstacles to faith we do today. There were no Mormons or Muslims in the Roman Empire, but there were many competing religions and philosophical worldviews. In some cases, Paul witnessed directly from Scripture. The Bible was his point of contact. In other encounters, the Bible couldn’t be used, so Paul employed entirely different points of contact. (In last week’s blog I explain what points of contact are.)

The following is a short participation exercise I hope you will try. Below are three passages in the Book of Acts where Paul employs three different points of contact in his evangelism. Read each passage and try to identify what points of contact he applied in each case. I give the answers at the end of this blog, but don’t look until you try identifying each point of contact:

Acts 17:2-3

Acts 14:16-17

Acts 26:1-3

By far the best biblical example of Paul applying points of contact to initiate his evangelism is Acts 17:16-31, when he confronts the Greek philosophers before the Areopagus in Athens. In this classic example of superb apologetics, Paul applies four points of contact which he knew the Greeks would acknowledge as true without further discussion: Their innate sense of the divine (v. 22); the existence of a God whom they do not know (v. 23); creation (v. 24); and their own poets (v.28). Building on these apologetic points of contact, Paul presented an evangelistic message that resulted in some of the Greeks becoming Christians and an open door for the spread of the Gospel in Athens (v. 34).

Answers to the above passages:

 Acts 17:2-3:  To reach the Jews in Thessalonica, Paul “reasoned” from Scripture in the synagogue. The Bible was Paul’s point of contact because the Jews considered it God’s Word.

Acts 14: 16-17:  To reach the Gentiles in Lystra, Paul presented external evidence from creation (general revelation).

Acts 26: 1-3  In the case of King Agrippa, Paul applied logical reasoning based on common knowledge.

There are a couple of lessons we can learn in from these passages. First, Paul didn’t depend on his personal testimony or a first century version of the “Four Spiritual Laws” as the basis of his evangelism. In  Acts 17 he relied in part on secular sources, the Greek poets. He didn’t get this information reading his Bible or attending rabbinical school. Paul obviously spent time becoming familiar with their poets in order to witness more effectively. Paul did his homework, as we should too before engaging people with non-Christian religious and secular beliefs.

Second, when Paul witnessed to the Jews, Gentiles, and Greek philosophers, his goal was to lead his hearers to Jesus Christ—as all good apologetics does. He did not engage in merely intellectual debating. Paul was an effective evangelist because he was willing to accommodate what unbelievers’ believe—without compromising truth—as points of contact in order to gain a hearing for the Gospel. Paul knew that an initial point of contact was crucial if witnessing is to proceed. ©

Next week I will point out specific points of contact between Christians and non-Christians that can open doors to fruitful discussions in evangelism and apologetics.

Part Five of “The World beyond the Church”

Points of contact are evangelistic and apologetic springboards for conversation; topics of common interest or concern to both Christians and non-Christians; areas of mutual agreement from which productive discussions can develop.

If we begin a witnessing encounter from a point of common interest (such as a love for nature); or a widely held belief (some kind of God must exist); or a popular ethical issue (why should we behave morally?); or a historical fact (why is religion a worldwide phenomenon?); or some other non-threatening topic, we are more likely to maintain a spirit of open-mindedness than if we plunged in making bold declarations: (“The Bible clearly teaches that  . . . “) or criticize an unbeliever’s opinion (“You don’t what to hear the facts!”). The purpose of points of contact, then, is to get unbelievers engaged in discussions that allow the Christian perspective to be heard.

Whenever possible, begin such conversations with a question: “Why do you think people should behave morally?” “Why do you suppose religion is a worldwide phenomenon?” When they express their opinion, the door is automatically open for us to express ours – “with gentleness and reverence!”

Oxford scholar and Christian theologian, Alister McGrath, observes that “a point of contact is a God-given foothold for divine self-revelation.”  In other words, God Himself provides points of contact. He does this by instilling in all people everywhere fundamental moral, spiritual, emotional, social, aesthetic, creative, and other basic needs. All of these are “divine self-revelations” in that their ultimate source can only be God. Thus, they are points of contact that can steer conversations toward God as revealed in Scripture. For example, both Christians and non-Christians possess an intuitive understanding of what constitutes proper moral behavior (Rom. 2:15). Both possess a sense of eternity (Eccl. 3:11) and a innate awareness through creation that God exists – even if suppressed (Rom. 1:18-20).

The presence of universal human traits and needs explains why pantheists and monotheists have different concepts of God, but both agree He exists. It explains why Muslims and Christians differ in their relationship with God, but both share common spiritual needs. It explains why theists and atheists disagree on whether God even exists, yet they use the same principles of logic to govern their conclusions. It also explains why all cultures, regardless of their worldviews, appreciate beauty, exhibit God-given creative powers through art and music, and endorse selflessness, bravery and wisdom while condemning selfishness, cowardice, and stupidity.

What is the best explanation for these universal needs and intrinsic knowledge? When the evidence is considered, the best explanation is the God of Scripture. Once an initial point of contact has been established, evangelism—and if necessary apologetics—can come into play. ©

NEXT WEEK:  In next week’s blog we’ll see how the Apostle Paul applied points of contact.

Part Four of “The World Beyond the Church?

In his book, Evangelism as a Lifestyle, Jim Petersen observes that Christian evangelists are: “given to extremes. Either we say nothing and an opportunity slip past us, or we say too much and drive people away.” (110)  I want to add a third communication problem: In our discussions with non-Christians, we often use words and phrases that are understandable to Christians but confusing to unbelievers.  For example: “born again,”  “led by the Spirit,” “bind Satan,” “living sacrifice,” “God spoke to me,” “rapture,” and others, which I mention below.

These expressions clearly communicate the particulars of our faith, but we can’t expect non-Christians to understand what they mean—unless we take the time to explain them or translate them into everyday language. In fact some of the words and phrases we employ convey to unbelievers entirely different meanings than what Christians intend.

Below are common Christian words and phrases that have specific meanings to Christians but may sound strange and ambiguous to non-Christians. In the parentheses following each word or phrase, I suggest alternative words, synonyms, phrases, or definitions that carry the same meanings but will be more understandable to non-Christians. The list is not exhaustive, and you should add to it yourself:

• “Believer” (Christian)
• “Fellowship” (Getting together with other Christians)
• “Faith” (Trusting God).
• “Spiritual warfare” (Our struggles against sinful thoughts and temptations).
• “Praise music” (Worshiping God through song).
• “Judged” (How God deals fairly with unbelievers).
• “Saved” (From what? Explain).
• “Hell” (Eternal separation from God. Explain).
• “Bind Satan” (Praying to God to protect us from the evil forces in the world).
• “God spoke to me” (Explain how).
• “Indwelt by the Holy Spirit” (God’s Spirit living in the hearts of Christians, empowering them for ministry and to resist sin).
• “Baptized by the Holy spirit” (When we first believe, the Spirit of God empowers Christians to resist sin and to serve Him).
• “Holy Ghost” (Too many ghost stories in the movies today; use Holy Spirit or Spirit of God, depending on context of discussion).
• “Father” (“God” since most unbelievers are unfamiliar with the Trinity).
• “Son of God” (Use “Jesus” since most unbelievers are familiar with His name but not His position in the Trinity).
• “Gifts” (The strengths and talents God gives us to serve Him in particular ways).
• “Rapture” (Christians alive when Jesus returns are taken directly to heaven without physical death).
• “Born again” (When someone becomes a Christian by receiving Jesus as  personal Lord and Savior, Jesus takes charge of their lives and they receive a new, eternal nature that is empowered by God to obedience and faith).
• “Resurrection” (Unbelievers need to understand they will receive physical bodies, not just spiritual, ghostly bodies. Be sure they don’t confuse resurrection with reincarnation).

When you talk to non-Christians, if you use theological terms such as “atonement,” “justification,” “reconciliation,” “redemption,” “sanctification,” “transformation,” “Trinity,” and so on, explain what they mean. Being careful about the words and phrases you use can make communication more effective and aid you in evangelistic and apologetic discussions. ©

PART FOUR OF THE WORLD BEYOND THE CHURCH

 In conversing with non-Christians, we should always follow the Apostle Paul’s advice in Colossians 4:6: “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” More often than not, our tone of voice, and our ability and willingness to listen attentively and respectively will count as much in apologetic and evangelistic discussions as what we say. This means we avoid loaded language: words and phrases that belittles, mock, or ridicule. As Kreeft and Tacelli point out in Handbook of Christian Apologetics,

 An argument in apologetics, when actually used in dialogue, is an extension of the arguer. The arguer’s tone, sincerity, care, concern, listening and respect matter as much as his or her logic—probably more. The world was won for Christ not by arguments but by sanctity: “What you are speaks so loud, I can hardly hear what you say.” (23)

Search Ministries produced an excellent workbook on lifestyle evangelism entitled, Connexions; Developing a Lifestyle of Evangelism among Friends. They make a similar point: “Only 7 percent of effective communication involves the actual words. Ninety-three percent of the communication process incorporates the non-verbal components. In other words, how you say what you say is critically important.” (38)

In appendix three of the same workbook, Search Ministries offers the following list of things to avoid saying. They begin by saying, “Beware of these responses. When someone forcefully expresses a view which belittles or puts down your faith, emotions soar and it is easy to respond with these kinds of statements. Here are the discussion stifles:”

• It’s a proven fact that . . .
• That’s just the way it is . . .
• There’s no question about . . .
• Only fools believe . . .
• (Using a condescending tone of voice) The Bible says . . .
• You don’t know what you’re talking about . . .
• That’s ridiculous . . .
• Look at the evidence . . .
• That just doesn’t fit the facts . . .
• You’re not serious . . .
• Well, if you believe that, then . . .
• There’s just no evidence for . . .
• That’s been totally disproved . . .
• Give me a break, that was refuted years ago . . .
• Hey, if you believe that, you are committing intellectual suicide . . .
• That’s a self-defeating argument; you’ve just said something that’s impossible.
• You’re being totally illogical.
• How can you even say that . . . (78)

All of us can probably add to this list. The message here is to avoid words and phrases that raise people’s hackles rather than open their minds. ©

If you wish to avoid missing any blogs, please join my private email list. I send out notices the day I post a weekly blog. Go to danstory.net, click on “contact,” and send me a request with your email address. I do not share email addresses.

Should Christians Make the Age of the Earth an Essential Doctrine?

 One reason many unbelievers reject Christianity is because of their skepticism that God created the cosmos and life on earth in six literal days. They throw out the entire creation account (and hence Christianity) because they think a six-day creation week is unscientific—merely biblical fantasy. So, should Christians make the age of the earth an essential doctrine?

The late Dr. Duane Gish, of the Institute of Creation Research, apparently didn’t think we should. Dr. Gish participated in more than three hundred debates, defending creation against many prominent evolutionists. And he uncompromisingly believed in a young earth. Yet in a seminar I attended years ago, Dr. Gish encouraged his audience not to debate the age of the earth!

Because the earth’s age is a serious obstacle for many skeptics, pointing out that belief in a young earth is not crucial to the reality of divine creation is an apologetic strategy that may diffuse or even eliminate this stumbling block for non-Christians. They are less likely to argue against creation when we point out that an old-earth model of origins need not contradict biblical creation.

The fact is many evangelical Christians, including numerous well-known scientists, theologians, and other scholars, hold an old-earth view of creation. These people love the Lord dearly and believe in the truth, authority, and reliability of the Bible, but agree old earth creationism is neither an obstacle to becoming a Christian nor a compromise of divine creation. They simply accept a model of origins that embraces the conventional geological age of the earth, such as progressive creation. Moreover, I know of no old earth evangelical—scholar or lay—who does not believe Adam and Eve were created thousands rather than millions of years ago.

The goal of apologetics is to defend the essentials of our faith. The fact that conservative Christians are divided over the age of the earth implies it is not an essential doctrine. Yet it can be a seriously divisive issue among believers. Christian scholar Nancy Pearcey gives this much-needed warning in her book, Total Truth:

Instead of joining together to oppose the hegemony of the naturalistic world, Christians often get caught up in fighting each other. The bitterest debates were often not with atheistic evolutionists but among believers with conflicting scientific views: young-earth creationists, old-earth creationists, flood geologists, progressive creationists, “gap” theorists, and theistic evolutionists. There were endless arguments over theological questions like the length of the creation ”days” and the extent of the Genesis flood.

       Meanwhile, secularists were happy to fan the flames. As Phillip Johnson once put it, “They all but said, ‘Let us hold your coats while you fight.’” For if Christians were going to endlessly divide, then it was clear that secularists would conquer. (173)

As Christians, we can all agree that God created life and the cosmos and is active in its continual existence (Col. 1: 16-17). Let’s consider the age of the earth an “in-house” issue that the Christian family can disagree over with charity and friendliness. But let’s not allow it be an obstacle to good apologetics and evangelism.

Finally, please understand that I am not expressing my personal view on the age of Earth, for the obvious reasons above. But also readers need to know that essential doctrines of our faith always focus on the person and work of Jesus. Cardinal are generally accepted by all orthodox (Bible believing) Christians, but they are not essential to our salvation, such the of the age of the earth, regardless of one’s view. Debatable “doctrines” we are free to disagree on, because they are not explicit in Scripture. ©

Sign Up Today: If you wish to avoid missing any blog posts in this new series, please join my blog email list. You will receive notices the day I post a weekly blog. Click on “contact” above and send me a request with your email address. I do not share email addresses.

How Can We Curb the Exodus of Young Christians from Leaving Their Faith after Entering Secular Colleges or the Work Places?

It is widely acknowledged that some eighty percent of young people reared in Christian homes walk away from their faith after entering secular colleges and universities—where they are immediately confronted by the thoroughly secular ideologies, evolutionary philosophy, and alluring worldly values of academia.

A good foundation in the Bible is not enough to keep young Christian committed to their faith. Apologetics is needed. And this training must be done before kids leave home to attend college or enter the secular workforce. Christian scholar and apologist, Nancy Pearcey, comments on this and provides a solution:

Today basic apologetics has become a crucial skill for sheer survival. Without the tools of apologetics, young people can be solidly trained in Bible study and doctrine, yet still flounder helplessly when they leave home and face the secular world on their own. . . .

     We need to make sure our own children leave home with [the] conviction burned deeply into their minds—that Christianity is capable of holding its own when challenged in the marketplace of ideas. . . . The church needs to redefine the mission of pastors and youth leaders to include training in apologetics and worldview. . . . A religion that avoids the intellectual task and retreats to the therapeutic realm of personal relationships and feelings will not survive in today’s spiritual battlefield.  (Total Truth, 125-127)

Youth leaders in particular must embark on a course of study that trains teenagers on how to respond to the anti-Christian rhetoric and secular ideologies they will encounter in the world beyond the church, especially in universities and colleges. If young people learn to recognize when their professors (and classmates) are peddling untruths and misrepresenting Christianity, it will provide them a shield of protection against the anti-Christian—and often hostile—dogma commonplace in modern academia and the secular world at large. Such instruction is crucial if Christians are to prepare themselves—and their kids—to defend their faith and to be effective in sharing the Gospel in today’s largely secular societies. ©

COMING UP IN JANUARY:  This week’s blog begins a new series titled, “The World beyond the Church,” which will include a variety of diverse topics. Following my annual two week Christmas break, I’ll resume the series in January with a topic that causes unnecessary divisiveness in the church: “Should Creationists Debate the Age of the Earth?”

Sign Up Today: If you wish to avoid missing any blog posts in this new series, please join my blog email list. You will receive notices the day I post a weekly blog. Click on “contact” above and send me a request with your email address. I do not share email addresses.