ok maybe i'm totally stupid (a highly plausible explanation) but do you actually SAY anything here or is this just plain rudeness?

what's your point? now that you've been asked, obviously, you could make some sort of post hoc argument that david or myself (probably both of us) are heretics of a particularly insidious kind by referencing any number of blogs we've posted over the years, but i know you have a point in this particular instance which silly people like me just don't see.

now, are you criticising david for selling art online? for using a blog to do that? or simply because, in your esteemed opinion, his art is not very good? now, if it's the first your beef is obviously with capitalism in general, so vive la revolution! teach us how to live communally. as one with particular sympathies for the ideals of communism, though not its practice, i'm excited about that answer.

or, do you not believe that "christians" should be "tentmakers" a la paul, anymore?

if it's the last reason, firstly i think you're just rude for stating it in the way you have, but additionally, i look forward to viewing your (better) art. can you please furbish me with a link to somewhere i can see it? thanks. also, in not liking david's art, it seems you're in disagreement with the galleries over the years who have proudly displayed his work and the many people who have purchased it.

why ahould david not be "shameless" in making a living from selling his quite excellent (in my uneducated opinion)?

lastly, as we try to grapple with the difficult subject of money, particularly as related to the church in general, and our own lives in particular, i congratulate you an having obviously sorted this entire issue - the practical solution to which has illuded the people of god for 3500 years. so is adsense (or advertising in general, anti-christ? what about the stock market? owning property? having a mortgage? how much should a christian earn before they are simply trying to thread themselves through the eye of the needle? again, as one of inferior spirituality who struggles almost daily to be godly in answering these questions, i look forward to hearing from one who has it all sown up.

your post was simply mean-spirited and rude - a personal attack on a good friend and disciple of jesus who i admire very much.

I say we sell enough pictures of "J"esus to buy "S"hane a shift button.

or is this the new grammar.

how do you make your spirit mean...do you tease it.

oh, that is dogs.

calling a disciple of jesus and friend of mine who i admire rude

how rude and mean-spirited huff puff

pots and kettles and blackness, WHERE will it end.

Have a nice day.

Shane!

First of all, I don’t think you are totally stupid. Perfection is very hard to achieve.

I suspect you come close enough to being “totally stupid” that the difference wouldn’t be easily measured without the help of scientific instruments, but I freely admit that there is a measurable gap between your stupidity and total stupidity. After all, you did spell some words in your comment correctly. I don’t suppose a totally stupid person could do that.

As for rudeness, I’m going to take a principled stand here and concede that my post tended ever so slightly toward the rude end of the spectrum. But I’m not inclined to apologize for it until you can tell me if Jesus was being rude when he treated the Pharisees as he did. Do you think Jesus was being rude when he cleansed the Temple?

My point (which you might have taken if you troubled to read this blog) is that you dilettanti have no clue, and for you and Haywire to stand in judgment of your betters is a) comical, and b) most ironically illustrated by David himself. He claims to be an artist trapped in a pastor’s body; that sort of comparison ought to be left to stand on the evidence, if you catch my meaning.

For the record, I don’t object to anyone’s posting his art, good or bad, on the internet. I have no problem with one selling his art. I have no problem with capitalism. The fact that it is bad art being flogged is just gravy. I loathe the work of Thomas Kinkade, but I’ve never whispered an objection to his selling it. The same applies to Kenon Renfrow.

Now if David were a Wyeth, a Gainesborough or a Cozens trapped in a pastor’s body, that would interest me.

As for why his work is hung in galleries, I really don’t think that people who understand the art world are at all confused as to how this happens. And I’m not at all surprised that you would defend a work not on its merits but because it hangs in a gallery. This is the philistine’s best clue to identifying art.

This makes my point effectively. Here you do achieve perfection.

As for why you should put quotations around Christians and tentmakers, I can only guess. But either way, I’m not likely to clarify your thinking for you. It’s like asking if I thought it would be safe to eat a “tomato sandwich”.

why ahould david not be "shameless" in making a living from selling his quite excellent (in my uneducated opinion)?

I think that if you stare at that sentence long enough an answer might suggest itself. (At the very least, you might notice a missing noun: “…from selling his quite excellent” what?) Let me put it this way: Would there be any integrity in selling shoddy goods just because Shane’s opinion of the merchandise is uninformed? Do you get any sense of how you missed the point? Your opinion is not dispositive.

how much should a christian earn before they [sic] are simply trying to thread themselves through the eye of the needle?

Of all the questions you’ve asked, this is probably the one I should most like to answer. I just wish it made sense. So while this in no way can be construed as a response to your wordclot, I will volunteer this: a Christian should earn as much as he likes. That is not for you to decide. It is not even for you to speculate about. Your simple-minded Ben&Jerry economic theory betrays you. Nowhere does the New Testament address the question; it addresses the issue of greed, it addresses the issue of stewardship, it addresses the issue of gratitude, it addresses the issue of generosity. If there is a point at which a Christian’s industry slips into avarice, it has not been disclosed to you in Scripture. How much a worker ought to earn is of more interest to Karl Marx than it was to the Evangelists.

Which brings us back to my rudeness.

You don’t know what you are talking about. You confuse the teachings of the New Testament with the glib moralizing of your age. People who value the teachings of the New Testament might enjoy having the differences noted. You are, on several counts, philistines posing as prophets. Whether it is David posing as an artist or you posing as an economist, it all comes out as the same silly vandalism that threatens piety.

And that vandalism interests me.

And what I am “saying” is not limited to this post. Your little video is merely an amusing example of the vandalism that characterizes Western Christianity these days, from Patch the Pirate to Veggie Tales to CT’s movie reviews to Fundamentalists’ performances of Oscar Wilde to your own economic theories. I comment on them all. I’m working for a cumulative effect here.

What is wrong will never be fixed while you people keep talking.

I was asked recently—and here I confide in you because I sense we’ve become good friends—if my opinions might not be treated more seriously if I were less acerbic. It left me wondering if the sort of people who set the blood of Christ to cartoon music could take anything seriously.

I’m still not sure it is worth the effort.

What do you think?

come on david maybe he really likes e e cummings ill grant that his punctuation needs to become a little less conventional but rome wasnt built in a day

I'm just sticking my neck in here to say I read your blog and the ensuing comments. I agree with you: I won't be remembered as an artist; I will never be compared to, say, Wyeth; I am a poser in so many ways; Shane is not perfectly stupid; John La Grou is more intellectual.

I like your sense of humor, your wit and sarcasm. I really do. You made me laugh a couple of times. That I am the brunt of it here makes me squirm a bit. But I'll get over it.

The fact is I use nakedpastor as a place to vent my struggles. The broader scope, when it is all said and done, will be that it was all just plain silly and unnecessary. I realize that. Nevertheless, as silly and unnecessary as my struggle is, it is my struggle. I try not to be ashamed of it. But I do often think it would be better for me to just shut up and retreat to a cabin in the woods to make a meager living off my bad art and leave the world of church and theology alone. But these people, mysteriously, want me to be their pastor. I wonder how that reflects on their intelligence and discernment, as must you.

Write on! We all have a part to play.

nakedpastor:

I appreciate what you’ve said here. Because of the questions Shane raised, more clarification is necessary, unfortunately.

His questions suggested we (you and I) have differences which we really don’t have. Our differences are serious enough, but they are not the ones Shane supposes.

First, I have no problem with amateur artists; I have no problem with people selling their arts and crafts on the web—as his wife does and as my own friends do. I have elaborated on this previously: in order to produce the Milsteins and Menuhins we want in this world we need millions of people swinging fiddlebows, and to produce the Wyeths and Grünewalds we want in this world we need millions of people swinging a paintbrush. And to get the Bernards and Ringwaldts, we really must indulge a lot of songwriters with modest talents.

This has never been my beef with anyone.

I was reacting to the precise point you were making: that your posts were being shaped not by content but by the demands of a marketplace. This was obvious to some of us, but you admitted it publicly. You were writing posts as you were counting pennies. I thought the image nearly achieved the status of Fable. Where we disagree is the sort of tenuous connection being made here which the (entire) religious community is too dim-witted to question. Take for instance your Jan. 4 post ending with the topless girl illustrating “authenticity”.

Please. This is neither art nor thought; this is promotion. And it is promotion for a selected demographic. This policy has ruined art and liturgy in the church—indeed it has ruined the possibility of art and liturgy in the church. And to have this commented on so inanely in that fakenaked video with two guys giggling and pushing egregious misrepresentations of “capitalism” and “fundamentalist literature” was about as illustrative as it could have been in 16 minutes and 51 seconds.

I have had similar discussions with evangelicals about movies and with fundamentalists about their brain-dead hymnodies.

Second, I don’t think you ought to shut up.

…when it is all said and done, will be that it was all just plain silly and unnecessary. I realize that.

Here is our difference: we have had all the plain silliness we can bear. There really are better struggles.

But I don’t intend to belabor our differences; I just wanted to make sure Shane’s objections didn’t derail the train.

As for your penultimate paragraph, my dream is for a luxury cabin in an enchanted forest. Maybe in the Millennium, in the meantime we struggle with what is good, true, and beautiful.

I suspect that when we are all on our deathbeds (if we are given that chance)... we will look back and confess that most, if not all, of what we thought, said and did was so much straw, including our blogs.

And I suspect that when we get up from those deathbeds we will see that in his inscrutable way, God will have done a wonderful thing in spite of us.

Our purpose is to be like him, not to unravel his mysteries.

Amen.

I was asked recently—and here I confide in you because I sense we’ve become good friends—if my opinions might not be treated more seriously if I were less acerbic.

Dissidens, were you to choose to become “less acerbic,” I have to wonder what excuse the scorners would then find to reject what you are saying. :) I noted the following in Weaver this afternoon and was struck by the degree to which what Weaver wrote concerning journalists and the media generally is equally true of fundamentalism and evangelicalism.

[I]ts oracles have been quick to assail those who come with disturbing notions–quick and unscrupulous, too, if they sense that the notions contain some necessary truth. In this they bear out the observation of Socrates that society does not mind an individual’s being wise; only when he begins to make others wise does it become apprehensive. . . . Has any brilliant social critic of the last century received something better than a sneer from the pundits . . . until his appreciation by the thoughtful forced a grudging recognition? . . . The proprietors of the Stereopticon have a pretty clear idea of the level at which thinking is safe for the established order. They are protecting a materialist civilization growing more insecure and panicky as awareness filters through that it is over an abyss (Ideas Have Consequences, p. 106).

wow, this is a strange post

Hallo,
I came here from the link at the "nakedpastor" blog, which I read fairly often (and often disagree with).

Having read the post and the exchange, I must agree with Shane: as far as I can see, you don't actually SAY anything - all you do is knock others down, but you have no message.

Or perhaps this is your gospel: "Believe in Jesus, and henceforth you will always know better than the other guy".
I'm sure you will forgive me for believing a rather different gospel.

Victor:

Sadly it is not in my power to forgive you for "believing a rather different gospel".

There is only one Gospel, as the New Testament makes clear. And the NT also indicates what sort of regard I should extend to people to teach other gospels. I'm thinking here especially of St. Paul and St. John.

If there is some passage I have overlooked, you are welcome to bring it to my attention.

Thanks for at least telling me that you believe the New Testament gospel (this was not clear from your previous comments). So it seems we have some common ground after all.
However, I still do not know what you mean by the New Testament gospel and how you would preach it to outsiders. If your method is limited to what I have so far seen here (i.e. telling other people where they are wrong), I would find that worrying.

Do you have a link that shows how you would present the God of love without personal accusations? It would perhaps put my mind at rest.

Victor, are you telling dissidens he is wrong in telling others they are wrong? If dissidens is wrong for telling other people where they are wrong, are you wrong for telling dissidens he is wrong?

I'm glad you are worried. It means you still care.

Semi,

All I'm saying is I don't know what he is saying.
What is the message of this blog?

Well, if I were to hazard a guess, I would say the message of the blog is:

"We reject the spirit of the age and the goblins of the day, and we oppose the gibbering philistines as they vandalize the few remaining certitudes of our life."

but that's just a shot in the dark.....which can be found in the banner of the blog. Do you see any connection between the topics discussed and that quote?

My impression was that you wanted to throw your two-cents in on the topic..we all jump in, it's part of the fun of a blog. But now you have made me wonder, if you really didn't know what he was saying why would you comment on something you didn't understand?

Hi Semi,
Perhaps you are right in concluding that the message here is wholly negative (reject/oppose/vandalise). Regrettably, I have not yet seen any other content here.
What mystifies me is how this purely cultural anti-everything stance can claim to have anything to do with the New Testament gospel. Sure, Jesus was not shy about taking a swipe at a number of people (mainly the "holier-than-thou brigade"), but no way could you say that his message was purely negative.

My Lord and friend is the one who promised to come and live in me - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - and who honours that promise. I haven't yet seen anyone arguing for his corner on this blog. My worry is that I suspect Jesus does not enjoy this blog as much as some folks seem to do.

Perhaps you haven't looked in the mirror recently or heard a recording of yourself but you remind me of a religious version of Perry Cox in Scrubs. Didn't you ever get to see Bambi when you were a kid? Thumpers mother had taught him that if you can't say anything nice you shouldn't say anything at all, and I know that even Jesus pissed people off on occasions but there is a difference between righteous anger and your brand of just plain rudeness. If I were you I would try to meditate on the thought that the way you treat those that you have least regard for is how you treat Christ.The funniest and most sarcastic things often sound better in your head, in your case I would keep them there.

Victor:

Q: Does dissidens have a link that shows how one might present the God of love without personal accusations?

A: No, he does not. Nor does he feel a pressing need to produce such a link.

First of all the premise of your question makes no sense to me. It conforms to the expectations of my parochially-minded contemporaries who pay lip-service to diversity and civility, but it doesn’t reflect the attitude I find in the New Testament. If I were to try to come up with a way to present the love of God without personal accusations, I would always be looking over my shoulder at the precedents set by, oh, say St. Paul and St. John, who did exactly what you disapprove. And they seem to have adopted the practice from Jesus himself. They not only put forward ideas, they also disputed and refuted contrary ideas. In addition they named individuals and classes of people to be corrected or condemned.

I know this is not the trendy way to do things, but I think it produces right thinking and right feeling.

As Semi pointed out, our banner gives some idea of what we are about. In addition there is our first post: http://remonstrans.net/index.php/2005/03/21/reading_list_3 which might help clarify matters.

And if you don’t mind a further clarification, I am amused by the attitude of these latter-day heretics. They have no qualms at all about challenging and denying the traditions and orthodoxies we’ve been given—and they do so with a wide assortment of personal accusations and judgments of motives. When people turn to defend themselves they are held to this artificial standard. I’d like to know where they ought to have found this standard. It is not in Scripture, it is not in their theological writings, it is not in their histories and it is not in the accusations of their opponents.

I think it is all a cheap trick, myself.

Finally, if this were a book instead of a blog, it would be better to have a premise followed by a more tightly constructed set of arguments or examples or proofs. But this is a blog. I have most certainly stated my premises, and inasmuch as they’ve provoked objections I’ve tried to respond. This makes for a good deal of meandering and topical detours, but I think it offers our readers a chance to do what they cannot do with an author: not just challenge his premises but to question his applications.

So I admit that you’re not likely to find as cohesive or exhaustive a statement as you might like. On the other hand I think it allows us to aim our fire over the entire battlefield; and it is our enemies that have made this a battlefield.

So I sleep well.

hmmmm...Bambi as a source of proper theology?

Trevor:

Thanks for the advice, I’ll give it all the consideration it deserves.

I don't watch "Scrubs" but maybe I can rent Bambi tonight.

Hey, Diss, exactly how and where do you "rent Bambi?" I thought it was something one hunted! ;)

Well, I was thinking of that canonical cartoon, Bambi. In some circles it has real authority for faith and practice, apparently.

Good Heavens, I wouldn't actually shoot a real deer when I could save the bullet for a communist or an illegal alien!

just a point of clarification diss: are you serious about that last line:
"Good Heavens, I wouldn't actually shoot a real deer when I could save the bullet for a communist or an illegal alien!"? If you are, see you later. If not, poor taste.

Makes one think of a famous last post...

Thanks for deigning to comment on my post, but having made fun of me, what about the way you treat others?
PS you really should read and watch a wider selection of stuff to get a more realistic view of yourself. I would try to teach you a few more lessons from Finding Nemo but you probably haven't seen that either. Its much better fun than stabbing people with selected Bible verses.

lilrabbi:

You see a real comparison?

nakedpastor:

So I take it, nakedpastor, that assaulting others’ pieties is important to you? Being sensitive to people’s feelings is essential? That tone is important?

Dearie, dearie me.

Whatever will become of Western Christianity?!

Trevor:

DUDE!

Finding Nemo; I got it on my list.

/me blinks

Similarities: The comment is quite similar and at least as funny. The N.I.C.E. police are after you.

Difference: You don't have to care about not offending certain groups and people who are too often offended on behalf of others. You don't have to mess with the politics of being important. :)

Dearest Perry,
That is excellent news, see if you can identify with Bruce, the shark who never knew his father and is trying to learn that fish are friends not food.You will eventually thank me for opening up a whole new world to you but I'm not holding my breath,
Love Thumper

PS
is your list like Bobs to do list in Becker?
Hoping you have seen this one or don't you do comedy?
T

They just don't get it.

Gentlemen,

As hard as it may be for some of you to understand, there are a few Christ-followers who are not conversant nor even familiar with all of the latest TV, cinema, and music the world produces.

For some strange reason, they have found other sources of information to form their thinking and give articulation to their thoughts.

There are some people who care little for relevance, coolness, and conversation with culture.

Lilrabbi:

True enough.

And in addition:

• I’m not representing an institution;
• The context was a joke rather than an inflamed reaction to a cultural provocation, and;
• I speak (in jest) of what I might do, now what others might do.

But you’re right, the nice police would seem to be back from their donut run.

Trevor:

So many cartoons, so little time…Ars longa, vita brevis.

Well, cartoons might have the edge on Dr. Phil and Oprah.

In Trevors defense, if you can't digest meat, buy popsicles.

N.I.C.E.

N.ot I.nternally C.ognizant of their E.ffeminancy

Have you read That Hideous Strength?

lilrabbi,

I have, but it has been so long ago and I am so old...that I can't remember anything about it, other than it's author.

EDIT: I wikkied it, and now I remember what it was about. N.I.C.E seems to get around. Perhaps this is a proto-N.I.C.E. ?

yes,Dissidens,it does take a long time to acquire and perfect your individual expertise and we all have but a short time in which to do it, so it just seems such a waste to use your obvious talents(and your tongue) to knock people down. I agree that you seem to know a lot but don't you know that knowledge puffs up and ,love builds up. And you are seriously puffed up, but not as much as some of your disciples. Adios and thanks for the banter big man.

(sigh) Methinks it would be helpful to insert an appropriate verse to passersby that would offer analogies and "haute couture" as a reasonable argument in defense of one's actions or thinking.

"If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds /KJV-affections/ on things that are above, not on things that are on earth."--Colossians 3:1,2 /ESV/

That, I think, is one of the reasons I keep returning to this blog. What so many people don't get is that so much of our current culture -even our "fundagelical" culture, leads us to set our minds on things below, not above. That's why, as strange it seems, some of us don't watch movies or television, nor even celebrate Christmas in the way we were raised. It is also why we don't "market" the ministries which which God entrusts us, and we don't trust contests or surveys or pirates, or even certain institutions.

Trevor:

Again with the resentment toward my disciples! This is fascinating. I wonder if you could recommend a cartoon movie that deals with the subject.

But your visits have been a genuine pleasure, Trevor. You’ve recommended some good cartoons that I’m sure will help me understand the subtleties of the human condition. I look forward to getting started.

I am slow. I am still trying to figure out how telling a shark that fish isn't his food is helpful?

Is that a jedi mind-trick? I am so confused.

Sorry I can't help you there; I didn't watch the Star Wars movies either.

So, over 30 years of living in the popculture wilderness then, you must be so sanctified you have a shiney face.

I know I have already said goodbye but it is SO hard to just let you have the last word even though I am reconciled to defeat on this one, and I don't really want to start entering into a dialogue with your disciples but tell David that he is not slow, just special, and if he was a true Jedi he wouldn't be asking that question, assuming that,like most of us, he identified with the protagonists in that movie. The Jedis were the goodies, in case you didn't know or indeed even care.

As for a movie that deals with the theme of resentment try "Arthur and the Invisibles" It's all about a ten-year-old who, in a bid to save his grandfather's house from being demolished, goes looking for some much-fabled hidden treasure in the land of the Minimoys, a tiny people living in harmony with nature.

Not that you would identify with this but it's a sort of a cross between "Honey I Shrunk the Kids" and "Indiana Jones" with some great animation and features well known worldlings such as Madonna ( not the mother of Jesus) and David Bowie.

I only keep suggest this medium as the simple stuff in the Bible seems too complicated for you.

Nevertheless, see if any of you can decipher this on from the end of 1 Peter 3:8 Finally, ALL OF YOU, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.

Sorry for insulting you and anticipated thanks for all your blessings.

Ok Scott, so who do you think shot JR?

Ok, Dave. I’ve been instructed to tell you that you are not slow, just special. And if you were a true Jedi, you would not ask these questions.

There.

I hope I haven’t ruined your day.

No class.

I don't have cable so pardon my ignorance but here's a quick recap....Maybe others can fill in my blanks.

Scrubs = how a Xian shouldn't act
Bambi = how a Xian should act
Nemo = deep rooted paternal conflict
Becker = ....???
Star Wars = proves dissidens doesn't have a clue
Arthur and the Invisibles = ???
Honey I Shrunk the Kids = ???
Indiana Jones = ???

....Outside of blogs, do you really go to this extent to relate movies you watch to the bible? Or is this a party trick you decided to prance about for us? To name drop so many shows in such short series of comments, I hesitate to imagine what your film-viewing bibliography would look like.

Have you ever watched a movie that you were unable to parallel to the bible? And do you find these links you see as justification for your devotion to movies?

diss - Young Anakin needs to change directions quickly. He knows the power of the darkside, but seems pitifully ignorant of the good.

I tend to ignore the ankle-biters, unless you can watch them cavort. This one only pontificates from a movie database consisting of the divine revelations of Hollywood.

The very essense of the Church of Pop.

The tricky thing about applying 1 Peter chapter 3 is that one must make sure that 1 Peter chapter 1 applies first. In light of 1 John chapter 2 and Romans chapter 1, how can one be hasty in these matters?

The contrast in these comments would be helpful to document and systematize for a comparative religions class. We who would be wise ought to observe with gravity the wiles of idolatry for our own protection.
Borrowing from Gordon Clark, "Such a clarification and comparison will be of use in understanding both points of view, and it might perhaps enable the reader to estimate how much of his intellectual capital is the result of reflective choice and how much is the result of imperceptible and desultory social absorption."

Gordon Clark.....is he related to Flash Gordon? Trevor must know.

I think he's distantly related to Gordon from Sesame Street, but Flash Gordon is set in the future, so it's hard to say. Maybe someday he will be. You're right, it probably is important to establish Gordon Clark's authority by relating him to an icon of children's entertainment. That way, he's accessible to everyone and not just a smart guy who actually sat down and thought about things. Who wants to listen to people like that when there is a vast ocean of insight in the cartoon section at Blockbuster?

remonstrate \rih-MAHN-strayt; REH-mun-strayt\, intransitive verb:
1. To present and urge reasons in opposition to an act, measure, or any course of proceedings -- usually used with 'with'.

transitive verb:
1. To say or plead in protest, opposition, or reproof.

I dislike stating the obvious, but it seems some just don't get the picture, and it seemed particularly advantageous that dictionary.com picked this word as its "Word of the Day".

Trevor, since your question regarding JR seems directed at me, I'll say this.

Were this knowledge a requirement for my imitation of Paul's desire to "press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus", I would know. (Phillippians 3:14)

As it is, it is one of the weights I lay aside in order to run with patience the race that is set before me. (See Hebrews 12:1)

Notice that Paul said to the Colossians, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly," not the words of Walt. I say this knowing that, for me, other books can be as much competition as movies seem to be, for you.

Hey Scott, it was Kristin, J.R.'s scheming sister-in-law and mistress, who shot him in a fit of anger. J.R. didn't press charges as Kristin claimed she was pregnant with his child as a result of their affair.

Now don't tell me that in 1980 you were so spiritually minded that you were not aware of the question that was gripping half the nation.

Never mind, it is not all that important in the whole scheme of knowing Christ,so don't stress about it. And anyway from my reading of your own blog I don't think we are that far apart,

So keep pressing on in the way that best suits you and I'll do the same, Love and peace, Trevor

Hey Chris and Semi,

Gordon Clark was actually a very significant Calvinist theologia