God is love... Love keeps no record of wrongs

Sunday, February 10, 2013

God is love. 

If that's true, then Paul's famous hymn of love in first Corinthians 13 can be read like this:

God is patient, God is kind. 
God does not envy, God does not boast, God is not proud.  

God does not dishonor others, God is not self-seeking, 
God is not easily angered, God keeps no record of wrongs.  

God does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  

God always protects, 
always trusts, 
always hopes, 
always perseveres.
God never fails. 

Wow. God does not envy? God does not boast? That might make us reconsider some of the songs we sing to him on Sunday morning then. God does not boast.

God keeps no record of wrongs? Do we dare to just sit and let that be, without immediately protesting "yes, but..." Can we simply allow God to love all of who we are (and all of everyone else!), no matter how broken, ugly and helpless we may feel? God keeps no record of wrongs. Selah.

Why is it so hard for us to accept that this is what God is like? Is it that we do not really believe with Paul that "love never fails"? Do we think that we should try love... until it fails and then pick up our swords? 

When Paul talks about us trusting, hoping, and persevering, what that means is that we are trusting in the way of love, hoping for the victory of love, persevering through the means of love, and we can have that hope, perseverance, and trust because love never fails

That does not mean we sit passively and accept abuse. Because, as Paul says here, love always protects. But it protects through the means of love, by "overcoming evil with good, instead of being overcome by evil" (Romans 12:21).

Right after John declares that God is love, he tells us that God demonstrated that love for us in Jesus. That's our model, seen in God revealed in Christ. That's why we are supposed to have Jesus-shaped lives too. "Dear friends" John writes, "since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.  No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us." (1 Jn 4:9-12). No one has ever seen God, but we know too that God looks like Jesus. When we love, we make the invisible God visible.

So don't listen to those toxic voices that say love is not enough, that promote fear. As John says "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." Fear and punishment here are set up as polar opposites of God's very nature. Sit with that a moment. It's so important that we get that deep down in our bones. There is no fear in love. God is love. God drives out fear. The closer you are to God, the further you will be from fear and punishment. To the extent that we embrace fear and punishment, we push God out.

"If we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us" John says. God's love is made complete in us when we do not envy, because God does not envy. God's love is made complete in us when we keep no record of wrongs, because God keeps no record of wrongsWhen we truly understand what love looks like, then we understand what God looks like. God is love.

So we trust in love, hope for love, and persevere in love. But since God is love that equally means that God believes in you, God has hopes for you, God relentlessly perseveres for you, and of course it goes with out saying that God loves you. And that love never fails.



At 2:19 PM, Blogger Robert said...

The Father of the Prodigal

At 4:08 PM, Blogger ofgrace said...

The closer you are to God, the further you will be from fear and punishment. To the extent that we embrace fear and punishment, we push God out.

So true! This is why the Reformers' theory of Penal Substitution (not objecting to the "substitution" part here) is such a problem. Atonement theory in the Western theological tradition is what drove me for refuge into the Eastern Orthodox Church! Penal Substitution theory bifurcates the nature and motivation of God toward his Creation into two competing and contradictory principles--one illustrated by Jesus as Self-giving/all forgiving Victim in our stead and the other proposed of the Father/the Godhead's equal need to avenge his "honor" and uphold "justice" by visiting his angry retributive punishment on Jesus, the Human, for our sin (with this "punishment" being a seen as a sort of end in itself).

At 11:28 AM, Blogger Samurai said...

I totally agree with your vision of God. However, in conversing with my more conservative brothers and sisters in Christ, I find that they often point to Revelation (or God's violence in the OT) to point out that God is not just touchy-feeling warm and fuzzy.

As one friend put it, "In the first coming, Jesus came as a suffering servant. But in the second coming, He says 'I'm bad!' He comes with a sword sticking out of his mouth, and comes as a destroying conqueror."

I feel that unless we seriously and honestly engage with these texts folks reference, people's narratives about what God is like may not change significantly.

At 6:49 PM, Anonymous Derek said...


Yes I agree that this is crucial to address. In fact, I'm working on a book right now that is focused on doing this! The short answer however is that we need to learn to read the Bible like Jesus did, and not like a Pharisee. Most conservative evangelicals read the Bible like the Pharisees did, and end up missing the entire point of the gospel and instead becoming cheerleaders for violence and judgement rather than ambassadors of grace and enemy love.

At 2:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I use to struggle with these very same issues as you when dealing with the problem of evil and suffering. In arguing about the problem of evil and suffering I use to try to place God in a human category and say He must behave a certain way. What I failed to take into consideration is the holiness of God. Holiness when applied to God not only refers to moral purity but also to everything that sets God apart from His creation and His creatures. We are to imitate God in certain ways but there are also ways we cannot be like God. For example: God is self-sufficient, God is all-powerful, God is all-knowing, God is infinite in wisdom. These are just a few ways we are not like God. To try to be like God in every way leads to pride and arrogance.

The Bible says God is love. It doesn't say He is ONLY love. And while it says God is love it's a Holy love. This is no mere human love. For the Bible says God is Holy, Holy, Holy. The Bible also says God has a Holy hatred as well. So, it's my contention that the problem of evil and suffering doesn't even get started. For God's love is a Holy love. This isn't the same omnibenevolence that we try to ascribe to God. For God has a Holy hatred as well. Nonetheless, God is completely Holy and deserves our worship.

.Many times I've wondered why God would allow suffering and bad things to happen. It is good to question and try to figure things out. But I think when we are dealing with a Being who is infinite in wisdom and knowledge we must realize our limited capacity to understand and grasp things and all His reasons for doing what He does. God is in a category all by Himself. I also don't see God as something to try and figure out. Rather, I trust in His infinite wisdom and goodness to run things no matter what they may look like at the present moment. I believe He brings beauty out of ashes. For I trust He causes all things to work together for good. His business is His business. My job is to trust Him, clean my own house, and help others as I persue to love and seek justice.

People who complain that God could have created things differently fail to realize that the laws of physics are based on symetries and those symetries are based on mathematical necessity. God would have to make those mathematical truths false. Hence, God couldn't have created things differently. He is a God of truth as well as infinite wisdom and perfection.

As I already stated, God's wrath or justice is holy. However, His anger doesn't last forever. But it will not turn back until He accomplishes the desire of His heart - the salvation of all. While I believe there is a remnant chosen by grace in this lifetime called the firstfruits there are also the second fruits. They will be purified in the fires of God's holy hatred as God restores all to Himself. That is, God's Holy Wrath destroys sin and the sinner in hell. They are then made new by grace and brought up into more of God's love and grace. God does sometimes have a Holy hatred towards sin and certain sinners. This is why He destroys them and makes them new as He is driven and motivated by His holiness.

At 1:58 PM, Blogger Samurai said...

Cole, interesting thoughts I never heard before. What exactly does it mean/look like for God to destroy a sinner, and make her/him new?

At 8:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 4:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what it looks like. It's my belief that God's judgments are eternal. He destroys the old forever in hell and makes new by His grace. Christ is the first fruits. The second fruits are those chosen by grace in this lifetime. The third fruits are those who receive no forgiveness in this age or the age to come. They must suffer eternal destruction of the old person in hell. God then makes them new. I base my understanding on how God judges in the O.T. It is said to last forever but He does make new. All will eventually confess Christ as Lord to the glory of the Father. It is only Satan and his angels that are tormented forever. After all, hell was created for them.

Isaiah 32:

10 In little more than a year you will shudder, you complacent women; for the grape harvest fails, the fruit harvest will not come. 11 Tremble, you women who are at ease, shudder, you complacent ones; strip, and make yourselves bare, and tie sackcloth around your waist. 12 Beat your breasts for the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine, 13 for the soil of my people growing up in thorns and briers, yes, for all the joyous houses in the exultant city. 14 For the palace is forsaken, the populous city deserted; the hill and the watchtower will become dens forever, a joy of wild donkeys, a pasture of flocks; 15 until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is deemed a forest. 16 Then justice will dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness abide in the fruitful field. 17 And the effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust forever. 18 My people will abide in a peaceful habitation, in secure dwellings, and in quiet resting places. 19 And it will hail when the forest falls down, and the city will be utterly laid low. 20 Happy are you who sow beside all waters, who let the feet of the ox and the

At 7:29 AM, Blogger Beverly T said...

Thank you for sharing this message. It is awesome to realize 1 Corinthians 13 is describing God's character. 1 Corinthians 13:5 states "Love (God’s love in us) does not insist on its own rights or its own way, for it is not self-seeking," Therefore we need to recognize that because God IS love He cannot prevent all evil or He would be removing angels and peoples freedom of choice. He would be the universal dictator. When sin comes to and end we will all know that it is sin that destroys, not God. (Romans 6:23)

Some of the other comments brought up these thoughts for me.

In Revelation the sword coming out of Christ mouth is what? (Psalm 149:6;Rev 1:16;Rev 2:12-17) Could we say it is the truth about His character of love. Could we say that God's Holy hate is for sin that destroys our relationship with Him, and destroys us? Can we say that sin is not believing God is for us?(Gen 3:4-5;Romans 8:31)
Perhaps we misunderstand God's justice as punishing sin rather than freeing the oppressed.(Deuteronomy 10:18;Deuteronomy 24:17; Psalm 10:18; Psalm 33:4-5;Psalm 82:3; Isaiah 1:17; Isaiah 5:7)When He transforms us He truly frees us from the oppression of sin. John 8:34-36

At 11:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've been thinking and I have changed my views in a paper I wrote:

The Cup Of Wrath

Matthew 26:39 - And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Those who hold to Penal Substitution claim that this is a reference to the Father's penal wrath. The claim is that God's penal wrath was poured out on Christ as the sins of the world were laid on Christ. But this can't be true. For Christ told two people that they would drink from this exact same cup:

Matthew 20:23 - So He said to them, “You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father.”

Now, to punish these people's sins on Christ and then punish them again on these people is a double payment for these sins. It's unjust. Therefore, the cup that Christ drank from wasn't the cup of God's penal wrath.

Christ took our place so that we wouldn't have to undergo the corrective wrath in hell. We know it is corrective because of Isaiah 53:5 -

The chastening for our well being fell upon Him.

The Hebrew word here is musar


discipline, chastening, correction

The NASB Strongest Exhaustive Concordance

There is no penal element in this word. It's for disciplinary and corrective purposes. It's a masculine noun meaning instruction, discipline. Christ didn't suffer the penal wrath of God. It was the corrective wrath of God.

At 3:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I think it was so severe because Christ was carrying the sin of the whole world. That's a lot of sin! We should expect it to be severe. We should discipline proportional to the sin. Not abusively.

At 3:29 PM, Anonymous Derek said...


I appreciate your concern to move away form the idea of retributive punishment. Like many others, you are suggesting that instead of conceptualizing punishment as retributive (i.e. vengeance) to instead view it as corrective. I can see how this has some appeal since it stresses the good intention of the one punishing. However, it ends up creating a problem of its own because it ends up justifying violence.

It’s important to understand the historical reality behind this idea of “corrective punishment.” Augustine advocated beating people, even killing them in the name of “corrective punishment.” He referred to this as “medicinal” punishment which was done “out of love.” That logic lead the way to the Inquisition and the Catholic and Protestant practice of torturing people in horrific ways as well as burning them at the stake, again as a way to “purge” their souls. This is the very real results of people believing in the truth of “corrective punishment.”

Until quite recently, it was believed that beating children bloody was “for their own good.” Today this is considered child abuse and illegal. Again, the same idea of “corrective punishment” is behind this. What we understand today however is that beating someone to “an inch of their life” is not “good for them” rather it is severely traumatizing and leaves mental scars that persist long after the physical wounds heal.

Now way back at the time of Isaiah they did not know this. They did not understand how physical abuse works. The same is true at the time of Jesus. Just as they did not know about germs, they also did not know what we now do about human development and mental health. But we do know this now, and because of this, we need to remember the brutal and bloody history of “corrective punishment” that I have described above and be careful not to become inadvertent advocates of it ourselves today. This is something the late Walter Wink has called the “myth of redemptive violence.” The myth is that violence is “redemptive.” The reality is that violence never redeems, it never heals. Violence always hurts, always dehumanizes. We are called to redeem and repair without resorting to violence.

At 3:55 PM, Anonymous Derek said...

"I think it was so severe because Christ was carrying the sin of the whole world. That's a lot of sin! We should expect it to be severe. We should discipline proportional to the sin. Not abusively."


You need to think through the logic of what you are saying. Christ was punched in the face, spat upon, whipped bloody, humiliated by being stripped naked, and then nailed to a cross to die a torturous death. That is a picture of abuse. What you are saying is that doing that to someone was "good for them" so long as their sin was big enough. That is just plainly false. It would not be "good" for that to happen to anyone. Ever.

What both Isaiah 53 and the Gospels make clear is that this was NOT a demonstration of "justice" at all. It was a profound injustice. It was abuse done by Rome. That's why Isaiah says "By a perversion of justice he was taken away" (Isa 53:8 NRSV) and Peter says in Acts "with the help of wicked men you killed the author of life."

The cross, as it is presented by the Gospel writers and by Isaiah, is an injustice. The redemption is that God is able to take this abuse and work it into life and resurrection. Likewise, God is able to take the abuse and wrong and hurt in our own lives and make something beautiful out of the ashes.

Physical punishment is always abuse. God does not abuse.

At 4:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I'm not saying it was because the sin was big enough. I'm speaking of the amount of sin. It was the sins of the entire world. Past, present, and future. All evil was laid on Christ. Physical punishment like spanking (non abusively) or time out actually works in some situations. It's not abuse at all. They both require some suffering.

At 4:30 PM, Anonymous Derek said...

Cole, all I can say at this point is that I think you are seriously in error, and hope you would consider that.

At 8:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 10:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


All disciplinary action requires a little bit of suffering. Think about it. Christ was carrying the sins of the entire world! That's a lot of sin! No wonder He went through what He did.

Here's another piece of evidence that the wrath Christ suffered was disciplinary and not penal from the book of Hebrews:

Hebrews 5:8-9

Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered
and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him

The purpose of discipline is to bring about obedience and make holy:

Hebrews 12:4-11

4 In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5 And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons: "My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, 6 because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he scourges everyone he accepts as a son." 7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8 If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! 10 Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. 11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

At 12:32 PM, Anonymous Derek said...

I think you are giving new meaning to the phrase "tortured logic" here. You are aware I hope of what would happen if you as a father "scourged" your son today, right?

Scourging means "to flay or skin" meaning to whip so as to draw blood. If a father did that to their son today they would be arrested for child abuse and CPS would take the child away. That is simply a legal fact. It is abuse. It is not "loving" nor would it "correct" anything. Solomon the writer of proverbs abused his children, and had multiple wives. We don't endorse polygamy today nor do we endorse child abuse. Even if a guy in the Old Testament does. Even if some other guy in the NT quotes him. It is still child abuse. Child abuse is wrong. They may not have know that, but we have no such excuse today.

That's really basic stuff Cole.Child abuse is not okay, even if you can find a Bible verse to support it, it is still child abuse.

When the Bible is read in a legalistic way it ends up justifying things like child abuse, and a host of other horrible and hurtful things (genocide, polygamy, slavery, etc.). You need to think about the consequences of what you are advocating. You are thinking with the logic of a Pharisee. That is not how Jesus wants us to read the Bible. The reason is that reading the Bible this way ends up justifying evil. Don't do that.

At 1:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 2:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The word means "to flog"

Given the context it means to criticize harshly.

"My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, 6 because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he criticizes harshly everyone he accepts as a son."

At 6:59 PM, Anonymous Derek said...

No, I'm sorry but it does not mean that. The Greek work here is mastigoō and it means whip, flay, scourge. Here's is how the word is used in the NT:

"We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over ... to be mocked and flogged (mastigoō) and crucified.” Mt 20:18-19

"Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged (mastigoō)" (Jn 19:1)

Pilate did not "have harsh words with Jesus as a loving father" he had him beaten bloody. That was common "discipline" as practiced in Rome at the time, and it is abuse.

It was also common practice in the synagogue:
Jesus says to the Pharisees "Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog (mastigoō) in your synagogues and pursue from town to town." Mt 23:34

The reality is, physical abuse was common practice then. It was likewise common for children to be whipped bloody at the time too. In other words, what we consider to be child abuse and criminal now was a common practice at the time. So was slavery which we also now consider wrong. So given the context, "whip" is exactly what mastigoō means in Hebrews because children where commonly abused back then. You may not like that, but it is simply a historical fact.

You are correct that God does not abuse. But mastigoō most definitely does mean "whip." Whipping children is abuse. God does not mastigoō his children. The writer of Hebrews is wrong. He did not know better. We do.

At 7:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Flog also means to criticize harshly. They did this too back then. This is the context because of the parallelism in the passage. It's parallel to rebuke.

"My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, 6 because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he criticizes harshly everyone he accepts as a son."

a) Discipline
b) Rebuke (criticize harshly)

a) Discipline
b) Flog (criticize harshly)

At 7:26 PM, Anonymous Derek said...

Nope. Sorry, that's incorrect.

At 7:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the context of Luke 18:32-33:

For he will be handed over to the Gentiles, and He will be MOCKED, INSULTED, spit on; and after they FLOG (criticize harshly) Him, they will kill Him.

Flogging here refers to the mocking and insulting so in this context it is to criticize harshly. Flog and rebuke are in parallel in the Hebrews passage.

At 7:54 PM, Anonymous Derek said...

That's completely absurd. This conversation is unfruitful, so I think I will end it.

At 9:04 AM, Blogger Samurai said...


I can see that the concept of violence as redemptive disturbs you greatly, and on a level far deeper than just a philosophical disagreement (as it should). I imagine there's a personal story behind all this that gives engine to your theology. Maybe a public forum isn't the place to share a personal story - or maybe it is for some people. Either way, I believe people benefit immensely from storytelling and story listening. In my work as a doctor, I've found that people are more moved to shift their paradigms by stories than by mountains of logic or abstract statements. Not that logic isn't useful as an adjunct, but as a good friend of mine put it "A person convinced against his/her will is of the same opinion still." I made the quote a bit more gender-inclusive for this board :P

Be that as it may, I can relate. When I was growing up, I was a super-hyper kid growing up in English-speaking schools in Japan, and I got into trouble all the time in school. I just couldn't follow directions or stay still. This was in the days before people thought of things like ADHD or SPD. If you misbehaved, you were a bad kid. So as the "bad kid", I experienced deep and intense ostracism - from peers, teachers, and family. I got punched, kicked, spat on, etc for punishment. One of my teachers even pinched me, drawing blood. I spent umpteen hours facing the wall or banished to the outhouse outside the main farmhouse where we lived - to be let back in the farmhouse only for mealtimes and then ordered back out. I spent many a day reading "Reader's Digest" to while away the hours of solitude. I won't go on and on, but suffice it to say - yes, it does leave lasting scars. I'm still living with that today.

So that's my story, in an extremely abbreviated nutshell. I tell it to offer up a different kind of theology around redemptive violence - the theology of real-life and story as written in my personal life. Yes, as a parent myself, I can say that we all want our children to learn right from wrong. We want them to learn not to misbehave. But I think the problem is that we focus on behavior, and not on the inner world of the person behind their behavior. Yes, behavior matters, but what's going on in their hearts?

For instance, even as I was misbehaving in school, I remember in 4th grade that I was resorting to OCD tactics in a desperate attempt to "control" my behavior. I learned that if I kept my attention fixed on a ritualistic sequence of images in my head, and refused to look right or left and respond to any stimuli around me, I could keep my behavior under control. But if my attention broke for one moment, I would feel guilty and would have to obsessively go through the ritual again to cleanse myself. Did anyone - teachers and parents alike - know that I was going through this while I was outwardly misbehaving? This wasn't just not knowing right vs. wrong, not having any desire to behave well, or anything like that. One small example of just how complex people's inner worlds are.

We need to think about that deeper complexity before we judge behavior, and "discipline" harshly. I imagine Christ's eyes do more than graze the surface. Like sunlight, I imagine they penetrate right to the bottom of the pool, and yet give us a safe space to change. And that's the key. Safe spaces. As a medical educator, I find that the more I attempt to "correct" struggling students who aren't performing well, the more I jack up the anxiety and worsen their performance. But the more acceptance and safe space I give them to mess up and try again - the more they flourish to their full potential. Berating and focusing on negatives do not get the job done. I've been impressed of this time and again.

I would imagine that our Father in heaven takes the same approach.

Love to all and thanks for hearing my rather lengthy comment out!

At 10:41 AM, Anonymous Derek said...


Thanks so much for sharing that. Personal stories really are important because they give us insight into how others experience life and where they are coming from. It's really important that we listen to each other with that.

At 6:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Derek,

I understand what you are saying. My Grandma use to beat us with switches and slap us pinching and clawing. I was made fun of my whole life. I never fit in. In my late twenties I had a psychotic break and was diagnosed as schizoaffective. I'm against abuse. The word scourge means whip. It's being used figuratively for punishment. This doesn't have to mean abuse though.

At 8:54 PM, Anonymous Derek said...

Cole, thanks for having the courage to share that personal story. I'm very sorry to hear about all that you had to go through and hope you can increasingly find acceptance, grace and healing in your life.

At 8:55 AM, Blogger Samurai said...

To all: I highly recommend reading Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's work "Strength to Love". It is a transformative work from someone who's faced down violence and injustice in a nonviolent way.

I've always "intellectually" believed in nonviolence, but never saw love as the most potent weapon with true power to change - until I read this book. Love is far from passive, weak-willed, or ineffective. It is the most powerful weapon in the world.

If God is love, then the Enemy is hatred. And hatred likes to use violence of every kind - sexual, physical, emotional, and verbal. To use these weapons, even for a good purpose, is to succumb to the Enemy. Of course, you can't use the more powerful weapon of love unless you become transformed and disciplined by love yourself.

At 11:48 AM, Blogger Samurai said...

So Derek, we're chomping at the bit here (no, okay I admit it - I'm using the royal "we" - I'm chomping at the bit) about your upcoming book. When should we expect the grand debut? My bookshelf is waiting :)

At 5:51 PM, Anonymous Derek said...

I appreciate the enthusiasm Samurai! The reason I've been taken a bit of a hiatus from posting here for a while is that I've been hard at work writing the new manuscript. So far I've got 11 chapters written, so it is getting very close to seeing the light of day!

I hope to be sharing some of the ideas from the book here in anticipation of its pending release very soon. So stay tuned!


Post a Comment

<< Home

This website and its contents are copyright © 2000 Derek Flood, All Rights Reserved.
Permission to use and share its contents is granted for non-commercial purposes, provided that credit to the author and this url are clearly given.