It goes without saying that Jack's radical critique of Christian doctrine will be resisted by the great majority of American Christians. Human beings are reluctant to admit that the theories and explanations upon which they have relied most of their lives are wrong. This tendency is as influential for mundane matters like why Aunt Betty is such a nuisance as to the nature of God and the meaning of life. It might help those of us who find it easier to accept change to consider the implications of the relatively new psychology of "cognitive dissonance" which offers an explanation of humanity's difficulty accepting new explanations for old experiences. CD posits that all human begins, regardless of culture, will resist new ideas that are dissonant to those upon which they have traditionally relied. New ideas threaten the stability of long-held belief systems and throw a person into a state of anxiety and stress which he/she tries to avoid by doubling down on tradition. Those of us who challenge tradition should not, therefore, be surprised at the vehemence with which our "radical" theories are rejected. How, then, might the implications of CD help us present our ideas in ways that are not as likely to be rejected by so many of our fellow human beings and Christians?