:Steve, did you even read the thread? I was responding specifically to Noloops's edit, "The problem is a conflict of interest, not religion. Also, in this case, the references aren't scholarly." I don't know how you interpret what he said, but what I understand is, 1) Noloop is alleging a conflict of interest, which I think is a red herring. There is no COI, if so, please explain, 2) Noloop is alleging the sources are not scholarly. My response was simple, if they meet the standards of RS they are acceptable. 

 :Noloop did not discuss balance, that is your topic and not germane to what noloop stated. Please be on topic and precise. If Noloop had alleged Evangelical excess, which he did not, then you might have a leg to stand on, but that is not what he stated. Is that your criticism? Exactly what are you proposing for the article and its improvement?