The Kingdom of God

The Kingdom of God

[ Thanks to Scott Stone for eliciting this post with his study and comments ]

I’ve done a lot of reading over the past few years on the Kingdom of God. It is one of the most important biblical themes to study in my opinion, because it is the central teaching of Jesus Christ as we know from the 4 gospels. I have this theory, I know I’m not the first to come up with it. I think much of what is happening in the American evangelical church today is sort of a “new reformation.” Or perhaps it could be termed a “protestant counter-reformation,” which deals precisely with the Kingdom of God theme in Jesus’ teachings. We are, in a sense, rediscovering the Gospel. Let me explain what I mean.

When Luther was battling with the Catholic Church over theology and the politics of the Roman Catholic Church, his personal/theological quest was to rediscover the Gospel. In rediscovering the gospel, he found out that many of the beliefs people held were in error, especially their views of penance which had to do, ultimately, with justification. He sought to free the German church from the erroneous views and to accent what he believed to be imperative: sola gratia & sola scriptura. Today, there is widespread study of the Kingdom of God theme in evangelical Christianity. Many theologians and pastors are waking up to the reality that we also have held a view of the gospel which has so been reduced and refined over time so as to actually diminish some of the central teachings of Jesus.

Many of those women and men who are writing about this theme in our time have noted that the past 150 years or so have been dominated by a reduced form of the gospel, i.e., a gospel of “sin management” as Dallas Willard puts it. This basically means the true gospel as preached by Jesus has been inadvertently (which is an important point for me) subverted by the church and it has morphed into a very individualistic way to deal with our sin through Christ so that we can go to heaven when we die. The theme of Christ’s teachings – the kerygma, which means his main message, was not how to go to heaven when you die. His main message was “The time if fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.” (Mark 1:14) This Greek word metanoia, which is translated “repent” in most of our modern versions is the source of a lot of misunderstanding. To fully appreciate the work being done with the kingdom of God theology today, one must understand how this word has been treated.

Three understandings of Metanoia:

JEROME: do penance
Jerome’s translation and revision of the Vulgate seems to have been completed around 400 AD. It grew in popularity and became the official version for the Roman Catholic Church for about 1000 years. Whether he translated the Gospels from the Septuagint or simply revised a Latin version isn’t really the point here. But however he constructed the Vulgate, Jerome translated metanoia “do penance.” Around this understanding/translation the whole confession/penance system grew up in the Catholic church including indulgences, which fueled the reformation.

LUTHER: change your mind
When Luther translated the bible into German he noted that Jerome was wrong in his translation of metanoia, (virtually every scholar acknowledges this as true now – even the Roman Catholic Church). The word is now rightfully translated as “repent.” Luther took this to mean “a change of mind.” He related it to trust or faith in a more wholistic way, but over time this understanding was reduced. Soon there was this idea that the gospel was all about what you believe. Change your mind and believe in Jesus and then you are set. The church in the enlightenment, modern era ran with this idea and over time the gospel really came to mean something like “give mental assent to these truth claims about Jesus, say a prayer reflecting this and you will go to heaven when you die.” This has been the understanding of the Gospel in evangelical circles starting in the reformation and has been more refined and in some sense reduced since then. This view still holds sway in much of evangelicalism.

POST-MODERNITY: change your whole direction/pursuit
Next came some serious theologians and writers working around the beginning of the 20th century and then in earnest after WWII (although there has always been this stream of thought – ironically much of it in the Roman Catholic church after the Catholic Counter-reformation as well as the Eastern Orthodox Church), which acknowledged a more complete understanding of metanoia. The word is still translated as “repent” but in the Greek, metanoia carries much more meaning than does this word “repent” in English. A common American English understanding of “repent” means to express regret. Some understand it as a turning, but this is often symbolic not actual. For the most part the change which is understood to happen in repentance is a rational one. But the original understanding of metanoia denotes more than changing our mind. It was understood as changing of one’s whole way of life and agenda for living.

Many believe, and I am persuaded by them, that this is a better understanding of what Jesus was saying in Mark 1:14. Jesus meant for us to change our whole way of life and agenda and to follow after him. This seems like a better exegesis of Mark 1 than simply changing one’s mind – it certainly invovles the mind but connotes much more than that.

A good example of how to understand the phrase “repent and believe” can be found in the writing’s of Josephus, a well known Jewish political figure and writer who lived in the time of Jesus. He fought against the Romans as a General in the Jewish revolt which saw the Temple destroyed in AD 70. From that war we have a letter written by General Josephus to one of his rival Generals who was fighting in his own battle in another part of the Empire. He was urging this rival General to come join him and come under his command and fight the battle differently. To express this and convince the rival to leave his current pursuit, Josephus wrote “repent and believe in me,” the same exact words in the Greek which Jesus used in Mark 1:14! What Josephus wanted this rival to do was leave his current way of bringing about the rule of God and come join Josephus and pursue his way of bringing about the rule of God. This is a good way of understanding what Jesus was asking us to do.

To simply understand Mark 1:14 to mean “you must give mental assent to truth claims about Jesus” really does not seem to fully express what Jesus taught. All of the kerygma expresses that to follow Jesus means to leave one’s current agenda of what they think it means to follow after God, or live in god’s rule and reign , and instead pursue the kingdom of God in the way which Jesus espoused. Thus Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount becomes paramount for us to discover what it means to pursue the Kingdom of God in the way Jesus recommends to us.

Now as with every sort of reform movement there are possibilities of over-correction. It seems pertinent to acknowledge that here and realize that any understanding of metanoia or “repent” must include the changing of one’s mind. We cannot throw out the baby with the bath water. There is also a sense in which Christ’s kingdom call will require penance, not as a way of earning our justification as the Roman Catholic church espoused before the reformation, but as the only appropriate response to the grace of God. Should we choose to jettison the previous understandings of what it means to “repent,” we should fall prey to new insidious distortions of the Gospel. We should hold these all in proper view as we interpret Mark 1:14.

The Good news of Jesus is accurately described as a turning from our own agenda to the agenda of Christ – which entails many things. His agenda involves the whole person, mind, body, soul and spirit. It means to believe in Jesus, to love him, to devote our bodies to him as we follow his teachings and to do all we can to see that he rules and reigns on earth as in heaven. I am pursuing this kingdom with all of my heart, mind, soul and strength and hope that this will be the direction of the church universal over the next 100 years and forever.


Here are a few great books that help to explore the Kingdom of God theme. If you have already read N.T. Wright’s The Challenge of Jesus, then this is the right order to read them. If not, I’d insert Wright’s book before McLaren’s. I know some people bristle at McLaren but his work is important and though you may not agree with all of what he says in this book, it is a very good description of Kingdom of God theology and will broaden our thinking with insight which seems important to me.

The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard
The Upside Down Kingdom by Donald Kraybill
The Secret Message of Jesus by Brian McLaren

About Tim Suttle

Tim Suttle is a pastor, writer, and musician. He is the author of several books: Shrink: Faithful Ministry in a Church Growth Culture (Zondervan 2014), Public Jesus (The House Studio, 2012), and An Evangelical Social Gospel? (Cascade Books, 2011). Tim's work has been featured at The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, Sojourners, and other magazines and journals. Tim is also the founder and front-man of the popular Christian band Satellite Soul, with whom he toured for nearly a decade. He has planted three successful churches over the past 13 years and is the Senior Pastor of Redemption Church in Olathe, Kan. Tim's blog, Paperback Theology, is hosted at Patheos.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/18301816672851346285 Scott Stone

    Thanks Tim for the the post. I’ve read the McLaren book and have just started The Divine Conspiracy. You are correct about people bristling at the mention of McLaren. I personally like to read his stuff. I always go into it with a pre-conceived notion about what he has written and I’m always amazed by how he gets me thinking differently. I don’t always agree with him but I like where he takes my mind. I’ve also spent hours perusing Dallas Willards web site. I really like his thoughts on epistomology. Thanks for the recommendations.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10974397437648079481 Tim Suttle

    I’m glad you are working on the Divine Conspiracy. I try to read the first three chapters every year.

    I actually went to see Brian McLaren speak a couple of weeks ago when he was at a church here in town called “Church of the Resurrection.” It was really good…I took a lot of notes from the discussion, but what I appreciated most was his attitude. He is always a pretty grace filled speaker. I think he has his finger on the pulse of some important things and I was glad to hear him talk about the church.

    It seems to me the disparagement of McLaren and his work too often descends into personal attacks and name calling…”liberal, heretic, dangerous, unorthodox,” or worse. But I’ve noticed that too much of the vitriolic name calling comes from people who have never read his work – they basically plagiarize other people’s attacks and add their own spin. That’s usually my first response to people when they start to dog McLaren. I just ask them how much of his work they’ve read. If it’s not at least two of his books, then they don’t know what they are talking about. At that point their characterizations are simply slander.

    I have a professor who says that if you’ll answer his questions for 10 minutes, he can make a heretic out of anyone. He says that no matter what system of theology you prefer, there are always ways in which your personal beliefs are not coherent with that system of theology. In other words most modern people have some heretical beliefs tucked away somewhere in our minds. So we are all vulnerable even in our theology. That’s OK, because we are all works in progress. But mean spirited, hateful attacks are never OK. I think it gives pretty good insight into the maturity of the people who attack others without first seeking to understand them. It really helps us to know how much, or little, credence to give what they are saying.

    What seems important to embrace is that all human systems of theology are based on language & analogy and these words and correlations are simply that – words, analogies, correlations, etc., and as such they are imperfect and incomplete. Describing God does not contain God. Explaining what God is like is never a finished task. That doesn’t mean these are not important tasks, it just means they should be undertaken with requisite humility and grace.

    In theological circles the majority of people are open to new ideas about God and fresh works of the Spirit when it comes to the articulation of theology & doctrine. There are little corners of the theological universe where some people really enjoy cruel and mean-spirited attacks on good folks like McLaren, Willard, Hauerwas, etc. All I can really say about that is that it makes me sad because it seems like we should at least attempt to understand these people before we bash them. I guess it should not be that surprising but it always is.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10974397437648079481 Tim Suttle

    I’m glad you are working on the Divine Conspiracy. I try to read the first three chapters every year.

    I actually went to see Brian McLaren speak a couple of weeks ago when he was at a church here in town called “Church of the Resurrection.” It was really good…I took a lot of notes from the discussion, but what I appreciated most was his attitude. He is always a pretty grace filled speaker. I think he has his finger on the pulse of some important things and I was glad to hear him talk about the church.

    It seems to me the disparagement of McLaren and his work too often descends into personal attacks and name calling…”liberal, heretic, dangerous, unorthodox,” or worse. But I’ve noticed that too much of the vitriolic name calling comes from people who have never read his work – they basically plagiarize other people’s attacks and add their own spin. That’s usually my first response to people when they start to dog McLaren. I just ask them how much of his work they’ve read. If it’s not at least two of his books, then they don’t know what they are talking about. At that point their characterizations are simply slander.

    I have a professor who says that if you’ll answer his questions for 10 minutes, he can make a heretic out of anyone. He says that no matter what system of theology you prefer, there are always ways in which your personal beliefs are not coherent with that system of theology. In other words most modern people have some heretical beliefs tucked away somewhere in our minds. So we are all vulnerable even in our theology. That’s OK, because we are all works in progress. But mean spirited, hateful attacks are never OK. I think it gives pretty good insight into the maturity of the people who attack others without first seeking to understand them. It really helps us to know how much, or little, credence to give what they are saying.

    What seems important to embrace is that all human systems of theology are based on language & analogy and these words and correlations are simply that – words, analogies, correlations, etc., and as such they are imperfect and incomplete. Describing God does not contain God. Explaining what God is like is never a finished task. That doesn’t mean these are not important tasks, it just means they should be undertaken with requisite humility and grace.

    In theological circles the majority of people are open to new ideas about God and fresh works of the Spirit when it comes to the articulation of theology & doctrine. There are little corners of the theological universe where some people really enjoy cruel and mean-spirited attacks on good folks like McLaren, Willard, Hauerwas, etc. All I can really say about that is that it makes me sad because it seems like we should at least attempt to understand these people before we bash them. I guess it should not be that surprising but it always is.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17770848680979316821 The Reluctant Pontificator

    Nice post. How do you think the mental assent situation became so prevalent? Do you think there are leaders of the church actively promoting the mental assent part? It would be easy to characterize the evangelists of the 20th Century to be guilty of the mental assent definition because of the simplicity of their message, but there is no way that Billy Graham would ever agree that “repent” meant anything less than an about face in lifestyle beginning with an internal change of heart. Heck even Ken Freeman would deny the assent definition even though he keeps statistics on his “conversions.” Is the prevalence of the assent definition the consequence of broken people trying to chalk up statistics to demonstrate their effectiveness rather than checking our egos and letting God get the glory? I think Sider hit the nail on the head when he was talking about the church failing to create a fully functioning community – a place where people are committed to ideals and living in a society that holds them accountable to those ideals (and those communities being accountable to other communities). I think the problem is due to the church being overwhelmed by an individualistic culture. I don’t think anyone set out to promote the mental assent definition, I think it is result of churches full of dead communities. I love Sider’s example of church discipline functioning in the form of a small group where husbands would point out the fact that one of the guys was beginning to take steps down a wrong path (not some grand inquisition). After growing up and being taught that all Catholics will go to hell (I don’t believe this), I keep coming back to the conclusion that the Catholic Church has a lot of great stuff going on that got corrupted. I think we could use a good dose of “someone out there might actually be smarter than me and maybe I ought to listen to him.” I not ready to sign off on a Pope just yet.

    So my question is how do you do this? Without pushing people away how do you get people in churches to sign off on the concept that if you’re going to do this Jesus thing, you really ought to expect some things in your life to change (i.e. grow) and if things are not changing maybe you are not catching what Jesus was talking about.

    BTW I loved it this summer when you told people “if you don’t have a free night during the week to do a community group, maybe you ought to think about dumping one of those activities” I wanted to stand up and cheer. I think stuff like that is part of the solution.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10974397437648079481 Tim Suttle

    Reluctant: I think you are right – there are probably very few who would promote the “mental assent” situation on purpose. Honestly I’m not sure how it became such a common idea (it’s almost a Gnostic take on Christianity), I think your assertion that it has much to do with radical individualism is certainly part of it. Here’s a few ideas.

    My disclaimer is that I don’t feel like it is worthwhile to debase that view as much as to promote a robust understanding of the gospel of the Kingdom of God. But, in answer to your question “how do you get people to expect life-change,” here’s my best shot.

    I once heard a wise older (Southern Baptist) preacher say there are three approaches to preaching:

    1. Teach the Bible: emphasis on Bible…you hear these folks talk about “rightly dividing the word,” and stuff like that. They say just lay it out there as clear as possible & let the Spirit work – Here the aim is simply to proclaim the truth plain and simple. Orthodoxy.

    2. Teach the Bible to People: emphasis would be on people. Learning has to take place for this mission to be accomplished. Here the aim is not only to proclaim the truth, but to make sure people are learning it. Orthodoxy again.

    3. Teach people to obey the Bible: this approach seems to integrate both of the above methods & then adds the final step which is catalyzing people toward life change. Here the aim is not simply right thinking, but right living. Orthodoxy & Orthopraxy.

    Most of the people I learn from are doing number 3. Most of our most vocal critics are doing the first one, maybe a little of the second & call the people doing number three names like “church lite.” I think if you simply do number one, you will eventually fall into the mental assent traps and begin to reduce God & theology to abstractions. I also think to attempt to do number three well without doing some combination of numbers one and two really well simply doesn’t work – it lacks the power of scripture & the Spirit. Does that make any sense? If you are going to teach people to obey the bible, now more than ever, you have to teach the bible well because most people are fairly confused about what they bible actually says. But if all you want to do is teach the bible, then you will likely fall to the assent trap. That being the case, how do we teach the bible well without falling into the assent trap?

    Critics of emerging churches (to be distinguished from the Emergent Church), often say they are style over substance…they are all couches and candles and incense and they whacked-out theology. Last year, Tim Keel – pastor of Jacob’s Well here in KC, spent almost the entire year preaching through the book of Mark…a whole year on one book. They went deep into the book of Mark and teased out not only the major themes, like the Kingdom of God and the New Exodus, but the subtle nuances, the structure of the text, the history involved, stuff like that – I mean they went to work on the book of Mark. I have a lot of respect for that. But the aim of Tim’s preaching is not knowledge alone but discipleship – the major theme was living in the kingdom of God. I think this is a very responsible way to preach.

    Now, there wasn’t a lot of “this is exactly what this verse means and you must interpret it my way,” going on. The tension inherent in the text was brought out, the themes were explored, sparks were flying and people were encouraged to go digging for themselves. Above all the Holy Spirit of God was at work in their community and it helped to cause life-change. It wasn’t bible class, it was midrash. Midrash is key…it is very different to do midrash rather than preach propositions that you want your people to give mental assent to. Don’t solve the tension in the text, pour gas on the tension because it is the fuel for life change. We only change because of tension.

    We do not need more knowledge to follow Jesus, we need to be obedient. But we cannot say we need NO knowledge to follow Jesus because that’s just not the case. So I think there has to be this synergy between appropriate learning (which comes from a midrash-type of approach) and biblical community where people are accountable to each other to become more like Jesus.

    Conclusion: sorry I’ve rambled for so long. This is the short of it:

    I think the answer to helping people to live differently in light of their trust in Christ involves at least these two things – I’m sure there are more:

    1. a midrash approach to preaching (which requires tension and open ended questions), as opposed to propositional preaching (which requires merely assent and a tight, closed theological system).
    2. a communal approach to discipleship which includes: community, prayer, bible study, confession, service to the poor in keeping with the teachings of Christ and the historical Christian church.

    That’s my two-cents, but I could be wrong.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17770848680979316821 The Reluctant Pontificator

    I think the orthodoxy people give the third category of churches a hard time because those churches typically focus so much on midrash/open ended issues (I had to look the word up, here is the definition that I found http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/03-Torah-Halacha/section-25.html) and skip over fundamental theological concepts. For example, the broad concept of atonement is ideal for reflection and open ended questions as the whole discussion reveals so many wonderful things about Christ’s sacrifice and God’s love for us. But that discussion starts with the fact that man is fallen. The critics of the Category 3 churches would say that these churches skip over this fundamental fact that is essential to have the most basic understanding of atonement and the need for justification. They would accuse Category 3 churches of skipping over this type of fact because it makes people uncomfortable and being uncomfortable doesn’t go well with couches, candles and coffee. I’ve been listening to Erwin McManus’ podcasts I think he is someone who is doing a good job of being a Category 3 guy who doesn’t avoid the hard stuff.

  • Casey T’s friend

    I love the discussion going on here.

    Tim, I just about cried when I read your line, describing God does not contain God. Do you suggest a way of trying to explain that to a seeker? I feel like sometimes when we are talking about an aspect of God or something I am trying to explain about Him in some way, I come up so short and even if I do a good job, sometimes they’re still going, well, I still can’t wrap my mind around that…but who can? Like you say, describing God cannot contain God. But I think that frustrates many seekers because they feel like, well, you just don’t know what you’re talking about or this is starting to sound made-up because you can’t explain it.

    I’m not sure that I would describe Jacob’s Well as what most people view as the emerging church. You still sit on pews there and they don’t have a coffee shop yet :) I haven’t been there a whole lot, but I also feel like they tend towards a more intellectual conceptualization of teaching, whereas I think one argument some have against the emerging church is that they are losing that–the thinking aspect in favor of ambiance (am I spelling that right?) and feelings. Maybe IHOP in Kansas City? or…the Gathering at Heartland in OP? The Passion conference? (I am not making any kind of argument that these are not thinking places. I just trying to think of something that others would argue is more “emerging” and generationally oriented)

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10974397437648079481 Tim Suttle

    hey reluctant:

    I love McManus – he’s been very influential for a one of my friends and one of my main mentors. Glad you are listening to him – where are you finding the podcasts? I’d like to listen.

    I don’t know if I agree with you that the reason the orthodoxy crowd gets on the #3 folks because they skip over fundamental theological issues, I guess I’d like to hear more about that. If they do then you are right they are vulnerable to protest. But that has not been my encounter with most of the churches that I think are trying to do that. What I mean is, I don’t think they focus only on open ended types of theological questions – I don’t think they focus on questions very much at all. If they (or we do) it is often on the route to a quick fix solution and that seems to short circuit discipleship. Things only grow in tension…we’ve got to work the tension.

    The reason I like the midrash thing (and I know I’m vulnerable to critique here because I don’t really do it when I teach – I still do way too much propositional stuff), is because it can be more focused on the whole of scripture. Most of the resistance I’ve fielded as I’ve worked in category 3 churches has been of the “church-lite” variety. It’s always a hierarchical critique “you guys really don’t teach the bible you just talk about situational ethics,” I’m not a fan of that part. But I sometimes think we’re susceptible on that charge if we’re not dealing seriously with the bible. But I think dealing seriously with the bible often descends into narrow interpretations and the orthodoxy police which is scary in the current religious climate in America.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10974397437648079481 Tim Suttle

    T’s friend,

    Thanks for the post – here’s how I’d answer the first part. I would say that it’s really important to remember that just because describing God doesn’t contain God doesn’t mean we give up on describing God. We still have to do our best on this. This is the purpose of doctrine and why we cannot let our doctrine become too static and rigid but let it remain flexible and pliable – open to fresh workings of the Holy Spirit over time. We need new ways to articulate our experiences of God and the most effective ones are personal.

    So I think the best thing to do is to read the bible everyday. Read good books of all kinds on theology. Dig into the depths as far as you can and wonder at the mystery of God. Creep to the edge of the abyss in your own Spirit and give yourself to God and then I really don’t think you’ll be at a loss for words when it comes to those conversations. You can trust the Spirit is at work, but we have a part to play.

    You also helped to shine light on one reason I think there is a lot of confusion about what emerging churches are and what the “emergent church” is. Jacob’s well doesn’t fit your mental description of what an emerging church would be, but Tim Keel is on the national directing board for the “emergent church.” He’s really involved there and is helping to guide that coalition – I think he’s doing a great job. Jacob’s Well is another example of the fact that this is not a homogenous movement, but has many shapes, colors and sizes. That’s why attacking it as though it were monolithic is sort of goofy.

    I actually think all of those places you listed are examples of emerging churches – whether or not they would align them selves with the “emergent church” is a whole ‘nother deal.
    .

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17770848680979316821 The Reluctant Pontificator

    Here’s the link.

    http://mosaic.org/podcast/

    I found my link through itunes. He’s been doing an awesome series. I just listened to the one on “Is there a Hell?” It was one of the best responses to this issue that I’ve have ever heard.

    I didn’t see a link to this on the webpage, but it is available on itunes. If you can’t find it and you want it, I’ll burn a copy for you.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/18301816672851346285 Scott Stone

    I may be falling into the trap you mentioned regarding over-correction but here goes. If Christ’s Kingdom (the Kingdom of God, which I believe we are living in) will require penance in the form you laid out how does much of the contemporary Christian church reconcile that within Ephesians 2:8? Let me explain. From the small amount that I’ve read and from what I infer from the words of Jesus I believe we are currently living in the Kingdom of God. If this is so than it requires a response, an action. I also believe a large portion of the Christian community has perverted various parts of the bible to suit themselves. All you need is faith and you are in. We seem to spend a lot of time on Pauline doctrine at the expense of the Gospels of Christ. I’m in agreement with your premise that true penance is the only reponse but so many people I know want stop a Epesians 2:8.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/18301816672851346285 Scott Stone

    Thanks for the book recommendations. I really was impacted by The Divine Conspiracy. After reading Willard, Wright, Green and Baker along with McLaren the past few years I’ve been wondering what I’ve really learned all these years. Thanks for the blog. By the way how do I purchase the new CD?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/06617451734463442966 Jim

    Tim,

    I just want to let you know that I reposted this entire entry in my own personal blog on metanoia, since I found it so appropriate. I credited you with it, and linked back to the original so that no one misunderstood me to be taking credit for it. It is an excellent summary of the subject.

    Thanks!

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10974397437648079481 Tim Suttle

    thanks jim,

    I continue to think about this idea of the kingdom of god. It so pervades the scripture, yet seems to have been somewhat lost in recent discourse. I take no credit for the thing I wrote. I would not have the meager understanding I have were it not for scores of gifted writers and thinkers who are shaping my thought.

    Peace,

    -t


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X