Author Archives: Dan C.

Are we part of the problem?

Posted by Dan C. on

I was recently pointed to an article at one of those sites that seems to be dedicated to exposing everything that is wrong with our government (both sides), and the vast global conspiracy that threatens all of our freedoms. The article I was pointed to had to do with the destruction of water restraining dams across the country. It was a bit of a rant (the language and tone gave it away), but it had some merit. I did a little digging and found out more about dam destruction than I ever wanted to know. What I found out is that there are good reasons, not so good reasons, and bad reasons for their destruction. I even found a site that detailed all of the factors that go into making a decision to destroy an existing dam. So I guess you could say that the ‘ranting’ served a good purpose; my researching a bit to get the bigger picture of the issue(s).

To make a long story short, I offered in a comment the sources I found, as ‘homework’ that might be profitable, except for conspiracy theorists. After being chastised for accusing the author of the original article of being a conspiracy theorist, I explained that ‘global conspiracy’ was in the title, and my personal experience is that most conspiracy theorists aren’t really interested in all of the facts. I further commented that I agree with much that was stated about our current administration and the federal government, will be at the polls, and viewed the whole global conspiracy theme from Biblical worldview. We’ll see what comes my way next.

Having said all that, I’m reminded of something I was taught a long time ago. We can be part of the problem (any problem), or we can be part of the solution. I doubt that there are a lot of folks who don’t know that axiom. I submit to you that it applies to things temporal as well as things spiritual.

The specific spiritual connection I am making concerns some in the ‘discernment’ community who have decided that certain leaders in the contemporary church are a bunch of antinomian (against the Law) heretics who talk about grace too much and who can’t tell the difference between justification and sanctification. Like the global conspiracy theorists who seem to enter any dialogue/discussion presupposing a global plot behind every action of the federal government (and rant accordingly), these discernment ‘gurus’ have already passed judgment upon men who are communicating the church’s need to rediscover the awesome power of grace in our lives, while digging up everything (out of context) that they can to try and prove their non-existent point.

And like many conspiracy theorists, they are relentless in their attacks, and offer no solutions. They just rant, gain a few followers, and refuse to listen to anyone who offers anything that might challenge their judgmental findings. Not only that, they refuse to listen to the teachings of the accused and already condemned brethren on their ‘hit list’ that soundly refute their rants! In other words, they refuse to do some honest homework to 1) find out if there is a real problem and 2) recommend a solution to any real problems that surface. Rather than go after blatantly unbiblical teachings and the wolves in sheep suits who fleece the flock on a regular basis, they would rather sit smugly in their certain conviction that there are antinomian heretics in our midst and we MUST expose them.

I find all of this tremendously sad, for what it communicates about the Bride of Christ to the lost souls all around us who love to latch onto anything to justify their running from God and rushing headlong into Hell, and because it takes us away from our sacred mission and privilege – to preach Christ, and Him crucified.

Well, is all of the above just another one of the personal ‘opinions’ floating around the blogosphere, or is there in it something of note to take away and act upon? I’ll take it as encouragement to be part of solutions, not a contributor to problems.

How about you?

Why Does God Do ANYTHING?

Posted by Dan C. on

I think it’s a good question, considering the current and widespread environment of self-centered Christianity. Here are four passages from a single chapter of Exekiel and a NT portion from Ephesians that might answer the question.

 “But they rebelled against me and were not willing to listen to me. None of them cast away the detestable things their eyes feasted on, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. Then I said I would pour out my wrath upon them and spend my anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt. But I acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations among whom they lived, in whose sight I made myself known to them in bringing them out of the land of Egypt.” (Ezekiel 20:8-9 ESV)

 “But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness. They did not walk in my statutes but rejected my rules, by which, if a person does them, he shall live; and my Sabbaths they greatly profaned. Then I said I would pour out my wrath upon them in the wilderness, to make a full end of them. But I acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations, in whose sight I had brought them out.” (Ezekiel 20:13-14 ESV)

“But the children rebelled against me. They did not walk in my statutes and were not careful to obey my rules, by which, if a person does them, he shall live; they profaned my Sabbaths. Then I said I would pour out my wrath upon them and spend my anger against them in the wilderness. But I withheld my hand and acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations, in whose sight I had brought them out.” (Ezekiel 20:21-22 ESV)

“And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I bring you into the land of Israel, the country that I swore to give to your fathers. And there you shall remember your ways and all your deeds with which you have defiled yourselves, and you shall loathe yourselves for all the evils that you have committed. And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I deal with you for my name’s sake, not according to your evil ways, nor according to your corrupt deeds, O house of Israel, declares the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 20:40-44 ESV)

 “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. “ (Ephesians 2:1-7 ESV)

Share

Atheists in the Pulpit — The Sad Charade of the Clergy Project

Posted by Dan C. on

Wednesday, August 29, 2012, Al Mohler

“It is hard to think of any other profession which it is so near to impossible to leave.” That is the judgment of Richard Dawkins, perhaps the world’s most famous living atheist, as he welcomes unbelieving pastors to join the Clergy Project, a group designed to help unbelieving pastors make their way out of the ministry. Apparently, some are not moving out very fast.

Dawkins explains that the Clergy Project “exists to provide a safe haven, a forum where clergy who have lost their faith can meet each other, exchange views, swap problems, counsel each other — for, whatever they may have lost, clergy know how to counsel and comfort.” Dawkins, who once held one of the world’s most coveted academic posts, has now reduced himself to addressing small gatherings of atheists and celebrating a motley crew of pastors who have abandoned the faith — even if some have not abandoned their pulpits.

The Clergy Project’s own statement is even more blunt, describing itself as “a confidential online community for active and former clergy who do not hold supernatural beliefs.” Most people, believers and unbelievers alike, are no doubt in the habit of thinking that the Christian ministry requires supernatural beliefs. That assumption is what Richard Dawkins and the Clergy Project want to subvert. More precisely, they want to use the existence of unbelieving pastors to embarrass the church and weaken theism.

This past Sunday, The New York Times Magazine told the story of Jerry DeWitt, once a pastor in DeRidder, Louisiana and later the first “graduate” of the Clergy Project. He is now the executive director of a group known as Recovering from Religion, based in Kansas. DeWitt told the magazine of his struggle as an unbelieving pastor. “I remember thinking,” he said, “Who on this planet has any idea what I am going through?”

As the story unfolds, DeWitt tells of being the pastor of a Pentecostal church. What readers will also discover, however, is that even by the time he assumed the pastorate, DeWitt “espoused a more liberal Christianity.” Though he never earned a college degree, he educated himself by reading authors such as Carl Sagan, an atheist astronomer, and Joseph Campbell, a proponent of the mythological. Later, he read Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, key figures in the New Atheism. By the time he had read Dawkins and Hitchens, “even weak-tea Christianity was becoming hard to follow.”

When he found that he could no longer pray for his own parishioners or preach a coherent message, DeWitt resigned, preaching his last sermon in Cut and Shoot, Texas in April 2011. Now he travels the country organizing Recovering from Religion local chapters and working with the Clergy Project.

The magazine also told of Teresa MacBain, once a Methodist preacher in Tallahassee, Florida and now another trophy of the Clergy Project. The magazine simply states that MacBain “resigned from her pastor’s position in Tallahassee and went public as an atheist.” That is a very strategic example of under-reporting the story. As National Public Radio reported, MacBain first told just about everyone but her church of her atheism.

“I am currently an active pastor and I’m also an atheist,” she said. “I live a double life. I feel pretty good on Monday, but by Thursday — when Sunday’s right around the corner — I start having stomachaches, headaches, just knowing that I got to stand up and say things that I no longer believe in and portray myself in a way that’s totally false.”

Of course, she didn’t have to say such things at all. She could have resigned and spared herself and her church the hypocrisy. MacBain told NPR of her experience with mounting doubts, and then of her “eureka moment” when she realized, “I’m an atheist. … I don’t believe.”

On March 26, 2012, she stood before the American Atheists convention in Bethesda, Maryland and told the 1,500 attendees, “My name is Teresa. I’m a pastor currently serving a Methodist church — at least up to this point — and I am an atheist.” As NPR reported, the crowd hooted and clapped for more than a minute.

NPR and The New York Times Magazine attempt to portray MacBain and DeWitt as victims. MacBain presents herself as unnerved by the fact that her church fired her and did not appreciate her declaration of atheism behind their backs at a convention hundreds of miles away.

The Clergy Project and similar efforts are rooted in a 2010 study undertaken by Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola of Tufts University. Dennett is one of the major figures in the New Atheism. He argues that belief in God once served an important evolutionary purpose, but does so no longer. Religious belief, he argues, is a vestigial remnant of our evolutionary past that modern humanity must overcome. He is hardly a neutral and dispassionate observer.

Nevertheless, Dennett and LaScola conducted and published a study known as “Preachers Who Are Unbelievers.” In that study, a small sampling of atheist or unbelieving pastors were considered, along with five representative profiles. These pastors clearly are not believers, at least in any orthodox or recognizably Christian sense. They spoke openly and in considerable detail about their unbelief, with the ministers explaining how they had abandoned any confidence in biblical Christianity.

Why didn’t they just resign? Most shockingly, some openly spoke of losing their salaries as the main concern. So much for intellectual honesty.

Dennett and LaScola made a very interesting and important observation in their research report. They acknowledged that defining an unbelieving pastor is actually quite difficult. Given the fact that so many liberal churches and denominations already believe so little, how is atheism really different? In the name of tolerance, the liberal denominations have embraced so much unbelief that atheism is a practical challenge.

In the words of Dennett and LaScola: “This counsel of tolerance creates a gentle fog that shrouds the question of belief in God in so much indeterminacy that if asked whether they believe in God, many people could sincerely say that they don’t know what they are being asked.”

The Clergy Project gets to the point more concisely, defining its membership as “active and former clergy who do not hold supernatural beliefs.” Nevertheless, this definition suffers from the same problem. Many liberal ministers hold to no supernatural beliefs, but they also tenaciously hold to their pulpits without admitting atheism.

The Clergy Project is a parable of our times, but it is also a pathetic portrait of the desperation of many atheist and secularist groups. They are thrilled to parade a few trophies of unbelief, but do they really believe that these example are serving their cause? They celebrate a former Pentecostal preacher with no education, who was already a theological liberal when called to his church, and who then educated himself by reading Sagan, Dawkins, and Hitchens. Seriously?

The Clergy Project is a magnet for charlatans and cowards who, by their own admission, openly lie to their congregations, hide behind beliefs they do not hold, make common cause with atheists, and still retain their positions and salaries. Is this how atheists and secularists groups intend to further their cause? They are getting publicity from the media to be sure, but do they think it will win them friends?

Ministers struggling honestly with doubts and struggles are in a different category altogether. Doubt will lead to one of two inevitable consequences. Faithful doubt leads to a deeper embrace of the truth, with doubt serving to point us into a deeper knowledge, trust, and understanding of the truth. Pernicious doubt leads to unfaithfulness, unbelief, skepticism, cynicism, and despair. Christians — ministers or otherwise — who are struggling with doubt, need to seek help from the faithful, not the faithless.

Christianity has little to fear from the Clergy Project. Its website reveals it to be a toothless tiger that will attract media attention, and that is about all. The greater danger to the church is a reduction in doctrine that leaves atheism hard to distinguish from belief. And the real forces to fear are those who would counsel such a reduction.

Share

The Foolish Worship of Fallen Men

Posted by Dan C. on

“Sin has made men worship either (1) a false God, which is idolatry; or (2) God falsely, which is superstition. Man has become such a fool that his worship, till enlightened and converted, is either a breach of the First or Second Commandment. He fails as to the object and manner of worship, and both speak man’s folly, that his religion is either idolatry or superstition.”

From The Sinfulness of Sin, first published in 1669 under the title The Plague of Plagues by Ralph Venning (1621 – 1674)

Share

Posted by Dan C. on

Jim's avatarZwinglius Redivivus

Of all the Christians in the 16th and 17th centuries, it was the Anabaptists who were most vociferously anti-intellectual and anti-education.  Anabaptists derided learning and claimed that their possession of ‘the spirit’ alone equipped them to speak of and for God.

All Christian anti-intellectualism in the modern church can trace its roots to the Anabaptists; despisers of learning in the Church unknown before their movement.

View original post

What is the Future of Evangelicalism? – David Wells

Posted by Dan C. on

As the articles in this issue of Modern Reformation suggest, evangelicalism is experiencing a change in seasons: former evangelical statesmen are passing from the scene, new evangelicals don’t seem to rally around the same issues and ideas as their forefathers, and it’s increasingly difficult (if it was ever really possible) to identify clearly what an evangelical is. If you have any warm feelings at all about evangelicalism, you want some answers: Where is evangelicalism going? Who better to turn to for answers than the individuals whose lives and work helped create and shape evangelicalism. Modern Reformation is honored to include the reflections of these evangelical leaders, pastors, and scholars as we seek to understand our own time and the future of the evangelical expression of Christianity.

The Evangelical Manifesto, issued in May of this year and signed by many evangelical leaders, gives a diagnosis of the movement which is true, clear, pungent, and with which I wholeheartedly agree.

It speaks of evangelicalism’s internal “confusions” and of evangelicals as being “in dire need of reformation and renewal.” Why is this? It is because biblical truth has been replaced by “therapeutic techniques, worship by entertainment, discipleship with growth in human potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism.” The result is a kind of culturally perverted Christianity in which “we ourselves are often atheists unawares, secularists in practice who live in a world without windows to the supernatural, and often carry on our Christian lives in a manner that has little operational need for God.” As if that were not enough, evangelicals, who loudly proclaim the doctrine of sin, are nevertheless turning a blind eye to their own sins and failings.

I applaud the honesty of this diagnosis. But may I ask an awkward question? During the last two decades, as I have been writing about this gathering storm, there have not been very many others who have expressed the same concerns. Where, I ask, have our leaders been?

Twenty or twenty-five years ago, the Manifesto‘s call for “reformation and renewal” might have made some sense and might have gained some traction. Today, though, it looks more like an earnest attempt to close the barn door long after the horse has disappeared.

By that I do not mean that nothing of worth remains in the evangelical world! Of course, there are churches that are flourishing in good and biblical ways, there are believers living authentic Christian lives, missionaries doing work in sometimes heroic ways, and a new wave of younger Christian believers is emerging, so to speak, who are really searching for the real thing and are disgusted by the very failures that the Manifesto describes. Unfortunately, though, much of what the Manifesto sees as wrong is now so thoroughly institutionalized, so much of it is a part of the warp and woof of evangelical believing, so much of it unashamedly practiced by the leaders, both pastoral and institutional, who should be about addressing what is wrong that no “business as usual” kinds of repentance are going to work. The truth is that there are now so many vested interests involved in preserving the failing evangelical status quo, there is so much cultural habit entailed, so many private ambitions at work, so much muddied thinking and emptied-out spirituality now fills its churches that any call to change these attitudes and habits without a matching call to address their causes behind them is bound to fall on deaf ears.

This story of postwar evangelicalism, however, is not at all unusual. Ebb and flow, expansion and decline, failure and renewal, have marked biblical believing in all ages and it is what we are seeing today. The early postwar years, the 1950s and early 1960s, saw the emergence of the movement that, despite undoubted mistakes and misjudgments, nevertheless built a sound biblical basis for the faith, undertook a massive publication effort in producing Bible translations and commentaries for this foundation, and began an energetic, evangelistic outreach. It is no small tribute, backhanded though it is, that half of American adults today claim to be born again. Being born again has won grudging cultural acceptance even as the culture itself has been given more than a grudging acceptance in the evangelical world!

It was in the 1970s and 1980s, however, that a different kind of leader emerged-no longer the pastoral/ theologians of the earlier period, but the CEO/entrepreneurs of the increasingly organizational and institutionalized period in the movement life that had grown out of these earlier years. The gathering strength in organization, wealth, and numbers that has continued to this day has, it turns out, been matched by a gathering decline in Christian authenticity-as Barna has been assiduously documenting-and by the evisceration of any serious meaning to the word evangelical. Who would have imagined, for example, that in 2008, according to the recent Pew study, 57% of evangelicals would say that eternal life can be found in many other religions? Had the biblical writers thought that, we would have no Bible today.

Evangelical is an honorable word with a history that at times has been magnificent. But today, it has been debauched by a mass of empty born-again professions, by fallen leaders, and by theological corruption. It is time, I believe, to respect what the word once meant by no longer using it of ourselves, at least for a generation. Let us put our own house in order before we think again of ourselves as being evangelicals.

Much of this mammoth world of believing, with its entrenched leaders, will resist reform to its dying day, but let the reform-minded, let those who really care about Christian truth, begin to network together, to work around the existing structures where necessary and with them where possible, to bring about a new day. A new day is possible and I am optimistic in thinking that we will yet see the current evangelical ebbing followed by a new reforming flow and our moment of failure by a fresh and invigorating renewal that may, in time, require new forms for its life and expression.

Dr. David F. Wells is Distinguished Research Professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts.

This article originally appeared in the Nov./Dec. 2008 Vol. 17 edition of Modern Reformation and is reprinted with permission. For more information about Modern Reformation, visit http://www.modernreformation.org or call (800) 890-7556. All rights reserved.

Share

How can I grow in my understanding of sound doctrine?

Posted by Dan C. on

1. Give heed to the preached Word. Listen attentively as your pastor expounds God’s Word each week. Discuss the sermon afterward with friends and family.

2. Study the Scriptures diligently. Aim for breadth and depth. That is, read through all of Scripture in order to see the big picture. But also, study smaller portions such as individual books, in the most detail you can manage. Read them over and over again. Meditate on them. Memorize them. Gaining a broad and deep grasp of Scripture is the most important way to grow in the knowledge of God.

3. Read good books. Ask your pastor for a list of the best theology books he knows and read them.

4. Discuss the Bible with mentors and friends. As you discuss the Bible’s teaching, apply it to your lives together.

5. Do evangelism. Explaining the gospel to non-Christians and answering some of their objections will strengthen your grasp on the gospel, sharpen your ability to communicate the gospel, and expose areas in your theology that you need to develop further.

6. Teach the Bible and theology to younger Christians. Teaching others, whether one-on-one, in a Bible study, in a Sunday School class, or even preaching, will compel you to study the Scriptures closely, understand them coherently, and communicate them clearly. All this will deepen your understanding of sound doctrine and enable you to use your knowledge to build up others.

HT: 9Marks

"Chosen to Salvation"–A.W. Pink

Posted by Dan C. on

“But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren
beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to
salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth”
2 Thessalonians 2:13

There are three things here which deserve special attention.

First, the fact that we are expressly told that God’s elect are “chosen to salvation”: Language could not be more explicit. How summarily do these words dispose of the sophistries and equivocations of all who would make election refer to nothing but external privileges or rank in service! It is to “salvation” itself that God has chosen us.

Second, we are warned here that election unto salvation does not disregard the use of appropriate means: salvation is reached through “sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” It is not true that because God has chosen a certain one to salvation that he will be saved willy-nilly, whether he believes or not: nowhere do the Scriptures so represent it. The same God who “chose unto salvation”, decreed that His purpose should be realized through the work of the spirit and belief of the truth.

Third, that God has chosen us unto salvation is a profound cause for fervent praise. Note how strongly the apostle express this – “we are bound to give thanks always to God for you. brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation”, etc.

Instead of shrinking back in horror from the doctrine of predestination, the believer, when he sees this blessed truth as it is unfolded in the Word, discovers a ground for gratitude and thanksgiving such as nothing else affords, save the unspeakable gift of the Redeemer Himself.

Share

Upsetting the ‘Christian’ Applecart?

Posted by Dan C. on

There exists in Cyberland a set of open discussion forums oriented toward folks connected to the military services in which one can find a couple of forum areas bearing a Christian label. I have been frequenting one such forum for some time now, but alas, it might be time to move on down the road.

Why? I have consistently failed to be obedient to a couple of moderators I have sometimes affectionately called the Sheriff and the Deputy. Don’t worry; I didn’t shoot either of them. (If you get that, you are probably old like me.)

Permit me to explain. At this particular cyber-venue we find the following forum rules:

"In the interest of maintaining good order and mutually respectful discussion within the Christian Corner forum, the follow policies apply to messages posted here.

This is a CHRISTIAN forum. Topics discussed here will be from a Christian/Biblical perspective. As such, some opinions expressed here may be controversial. As a Christian forum the topic of sin will be discussed. The term "hate the sin, but love the sinner" will apply to these discussions. Therefore, personal attacks, insults, and profanity will not be tolerated."

The above certainly seems fair and reasonable, doesn’t it? I interpreted those rules as meaning that the Christian/biblical perspective regarding topics discussed would be presented, and that rude, ignorant, and disrespectful conversation would not be tolerated. In other words, I believed they meant what they said. Well, after a year or so of hanging out at this particular forum, I think I finally got it figured out.

It’s OK to talk about ‘sin’, but in a general sense only, as the reason Christ died, but don’t talk about what that means in terms of fallen humanity, specifically. By that I mean don’t talk about such things as ‘natural’ fallen human beings being by nature hostile to God and deserving of His just wrath – that sort of thing. It upsets the atheists and unbelievers who might show up whom we are supposed to be ‘wooing’ to Jesus.

Perhaps most grievously, I missed the ‘therefore’ in the part that said:

“’hate the sin, but love the sinner’ will apply to these discussions. Therefore, personal attacks, insults, and profanity will not be tolerated."

I thought that the ‘not to be tolerated’ behavior applied to everyone engaged in discussions. I have since learned, and been specifically told (IN the forum), that this rule doesn’t really apply to unbelievers and atheists. Not that I have seen any Christians acting that way, but there are a few regular professing atheists who routinely mock God and engage in personal attacks/insults. To their credit I have not observed open profanity. I guess requiring them to adhere to rules long considered as proper behavior for human dialogue of any sort would be ‘unloving’ to those whom we are supposed to be ‘wooing’ to Christ.

I suppose the biggest eye opener was being counseled IN the forum, by the Sheriff and the Deputy Sheriff, in front of the gleefully watching God-mocking pagans, concerning my ‘intentionally confrontational’ behavior, while nothing at all is said to those who openly mock God and His followers. I just couldn’t understand it, until I was publically counseled concerning my misinterpretation of the rules. I also might have ‘offended’ the Sheriff and Deputy by suggesting the rules should apply to everyone.

That left me with two choices. I either need to go find some sackcloth and ashes, or move on down the road. Well, since the biblical model for evangelism has at its core the nature of fallen human beings and the issue of sin, and nowhere do we have an example of ‘wooing’ the lost to Christ by just proving how nice we are and how inoffensive our ‘gospel’ is, it’s time to do a little ‘dust shakin’.

The gospel message that actually has the power to save is offensive to the unbeliever unless God has softened a hard heart and opened deaf ears to hear it. Our job as believers is to lovingly and prayerfully present an ‘offensive’ gospel and trust God to do as He said he would – save sinners. To do otherwise – to ‘woo’ the lost to Christ with niceness and promises of how Jesus will fix all their problems would place me in the ‘God-mocking’ camp, whether or not I ‘profess’ Christ.

Links to Reviews and Interviews About ‘The Harbinger’ Novel

Posted by Dan C. on

After reading and hearing about it I decided to read it for myself. Well, I finally finished reading it and will withhold any personal comments. Instead I offer you a list of various links for reviews and interviews, some laudatory and others not. Call it an exercise in discernment.

Jan Markel Interview

Chris Rosebrough Interview

Chris Rosebrough’s Comments

Discussion between the author and David James (And a few other links)

David James Critique

Jack Kelly

Jim Fletcher WND

Gary Gilley

Berit Kjos

The Alliance for Biblical Integrity (David James Critique with Some good commentary and discussion)

T.A. McMahon

Thomas Ice

Enjoy!

Share