JoyaTeemer: Created page with '{{info}} Many think it is easy for God to forgive. I recall meeting a young and articulate French West African when I was studying in Germany more than twenty years ago. We were...'

2010-06-09T21:21:53Z

Created page with '{{info}} Many think it is easy for God to forgive. I recall meeting a young and articulate French West African when I was studying in Germany more than twenty years ago. We were...'

New page

{{info}}

Many think it is easy for God to forgive. I recall meeting
a young and articulate French West African when I was
studying in Germany more than twenty years ago. We were both
working diligently to improve our German, but once a week or so
we had had enough, so we went out for a meal together and retreated to French, a language we both knew well. In the course of
those meals we got to know each other. I learned that his wife was
in London, training to be a medical doctor. He himself was an
engineer who needed fluency in German in order to pursue doctoral
studies in engineering in Germany.

I soon discovered that once or twice a week he disappeared
into the red-light district of town. Obviously he went to pay his
money and have his woman. Eventually I got to know him well
enough that I asked him what he would do if he discovered that his
wife was doing something similar in London.

"Oh," he said, "I'd kill her."

"That's a bit of a double standard, isn't it?" I asked.

"You don't understand. Where I come from in Africa, the
husband has the right to sleep with many women, but if a wife is
unfaithful to her husband she must be killed."

"But you told me that you were raised in a mission school
You know that the God of the Bible does not have double standards
like that ."

He gave me a bright smile, and replied, "Ah, le bon Dieu, il
doit nous pardonner; c'est son métier [Ah, God is good, He's bound
to forgive us; that's His job]."

It is a common view, is it not? I do not know if my African
friend knew that the same words are ascribed to Catherine the
Great; he may have been consciously quoting her, for he was well
read. But even when people do not put things quite so bluntly, the
idea is popular, not least because some ill-defined notions of the
love of God run abroad in the land. But they have been sadly sent
imentalized and horribly stripped of all the complementary
things the Bible has to say.

This address reflects on a few of these other things, with the
aim of thinking more precisely and faithfully about the love of
God.

====The Love of God and the Wrath of God====

The Bible speaks of the wrath of God in high-intensity language.
"The LORD Almighty is mustering an army for war. . . . Wail,
for the day of the LORD is near; it will come like destruction from
the Almighty. . . . See, the day of the LORD is coming—a cruel day,
with wrath and fierce anger—to make the land desolate and destroy
the sinners within it" (Isa. 13:4, 6, 9).<ref>All Scripture quotations are from the New International Version unless noted otherwise.</ref> Even allowing for the
unusual nature of language in the apocalyptic genre, Revelation
14 includes some of the most violent expressions of God's wrath
found in all literature.

Wrath, like love, includes emotion as a necessary component. Here again, if impassibility is defined in terms of the complete
absence of all "passions," not only will you fly in the face of
biblical evidence, but you will tumble into fresh errors that touch
the very holiness of God. The reason is that in itself, wrath, unlike
love, is not one of the intrinsic perfections of God. Rather, it
is a function of God's holiness against sin. Where there is no sin,
there is no wrath, but there will always be love in God. Where God
in His holiness confronts His image-bearers in their rebellion,
there must be wrath. Otherwise God is not the jealous God He
claims to be, and His holiness is impugned. The price of diluting
God's wrath is diminishing God's holiness.

While the wrath of God is a function of God's holiness
against sin, it nevertheless has a powerful affective element. To
distance God too greatly from wrath on the ground of a
misconceived form of impassibility soon casts shadows back onto
His holiness. Alternatively this so-called "wrath," depersonalized
and de-emotionalized, is redefined as an anthropopathism
that is actually talking about the impartial and inevitable effects
of sin in a person or culture. That was the view of C. H. Dodd in
the 1930s. The entailment, then as now, is that the significance of
the Cross changes. If God is not really angry, it is difficult to see
the need for propitiation.

Further, to retreat to the distinction between the immanent
Trinity and the economic Trinity in this case would be disastrous. That tactic argues that God as He is in Himself (the
immanent Trinity) is immune from wrath, while God as He
interacts with rebels (the economic Trinity) displays His wrath.
But this leaves us in the dubious position of ascribing to God as He
is in Himself less concern for maintaining His holiness than
God as He interacts with the created and fallen order.
Conceptually this is a substantial distance from the picture of God
in Scripture; analytically it is slightly bizarre.

How, then, do God's love and His wrath relate to each other?
One evangelical cliché has it that God hates the sin but loves the
sinner. There is a small element of t rut h in these words: God has
nothing but hate for the sin, but this cannot be said with respect to
how God sees the sinner. Nevertheless the cliché is false on the
face of it, and should be abandoned. Fourteen times in the first
fifty psalms alone, the psalmists state that God hates the sinner,
that His wrath is on the liar, and so forth. In the Bible the wrath of
God rests on both the sin (Rom. 1:18-23) and the sinner (1:24-32;
2:5; John 3:36).

Our problem in part is that in human experience wrath and
love normally abide in mutually exclusive compartments. Love
drives wrath out, or wrath drives love out. We come closest to
bringing them together, perhaps, in our responses to a wayward
act by one of our children, but normally we do not think that a
wrathful person is loving.

But this is not the way it is with God. God's wrath is not an
implacable blind rage. However emotional it may be, it is an entirely
reasonable and willed response to offenses against His holiness.
At the same time His love wells up amidst His perfections
and is not generated by the loveliness of the loved. Thus there is
nothing intrinsically impossible about wrath and love being
directed toward the same individual or people at once. God in His
perfections must be wrathful against His rebel image-bearers, for
they have offended Him; God in His perfections must be loving
toward His rebel image-bearers, for He is that kind of God.

Two other misconceptions circulate widely even in circles of
confessional Christianity. The first is that in the Old Testament
God's wrath is more strikingly transparent than His love, while
in the New Testament, though doubtless a residue of wrath remains,
a gentleness takes over and softens the darker period: God's love is now richer than His wrath. After all, Jesus taught
His disciples to love their enemies and turn the other cheek (Matt.
5:39, 41).

Nothing could be further from the truth than this reading of
the relationship between the Testaments. One suspects that the
reason this formula has any credibility at all is that the manifestation of God's wrath in the Old Testament is primarily in temporal
categories: famine, plague, siege, war, slaughter. In the here
and now those images have a greater impact than what the New
Testament says, with its focus on wrath in the afterlife. Jesus,
after all, is the One who in the New Testament speaks most frequently and most colorfully about hell, this Jesus of the other
cheek. The apostolic writings offer little support for the view that a
kinder, gentler God surfaces in the New Testament at this stage
in redemptive history.

The reality is that the Old Testament displays the grace and
love of God in experience and types, and these realities become all
the clearer in the New Testament . Similarly, the Old Testament
displays the righteous wrath of God in experience and types, and
these realities become all the clearer in the New Testament. In
other words both God's love and God's wrath are ratcheted up in
the move from the Old Testament to the New. These themes barrel
along through redemptive history, unresolved, until they come to
a resounding climax in the Cross. Do you wish to see God's love?
Look at the Cross. Do you wish to see God's wrath? Look at the
Cross.

Hymn writers have sometimes captured this best. In Wales,
Christians sing a nineteenth-century hymn by William Rees:

<blockquote>Here is love, vast as the ocean, 
Lovingkindness as the flood, 
When the Prince of life, our ransom, 
Shed for us His precious blood. 
Who His love will not remember? 
Who can cease to sing His praise? 
He can never be forgotten 
Throughout heaven's eternal days. 
On the Mount of Crucifixion 
Fountains opened deep and wide; 
Through the floodgates of God's mercy 
Flowed a vast and gracious tide. 
Grace and love, like mighty rivers, 
Poured incessant from above, 
And heaven's peace and perfect justice 
Kissed a guilty world in love.</blockquote>

A second common misconception pictures God as implacably
opposed to us and full of wrath but somehow mollified by Jesus,
who loves us. Again, there is some wonderful truth here. The
Epistle to the Hebrews certainly lends some support to this way of
thinking, especially in its portrayal of Jesus as the High Priest,
who continuously makes intercession to God for us (Heb. 7:25).
All this is modeled on the Levitical worship established at Sinai.
Or more precisely the system established at Sinai was meant to
be, according to Hebrews, the shadow of the ultimate reality. Jesus
is the Advocate who speaks to the Father in the believers' defense
(1 John 2:1).

But other strands of New Testament theology must be brought
to bear on this subject. God loved the world so much that He gave
His Son (John 3:16). This does not mean that God was reluctant
while His Son won Him over; rather, God Himself willingly sent
His Son. Even though Jesus as the believers' great High Priest
intercedes for us and pleads His own blood on our behalf, this is
not an independent action the Father somehow did not know
about, or reluctantly approved, being eventually won over by the
independently originating sacrifice of His Son. Rather, Father
and Son are one in this project of redemption. The Son Himself
came into the world by the express command of the Father.

Thus propitiation does not mean the Son, full of love, offered
Himself and thereby placated (i.e., rendered propitious) the Father,
who was full of wrath. The picture is more complex. The
Father, full of righteous wrath against sin and sinners, nevertheless
loved us so much that He sent His Son. Perfectly
mirroring His Father's words and deeds, the Son stood over
against us in wrath (displayed vividly when sinners will call for
rocks to fall and hide them "from the wrath of the Lamb," Rev.
6:16), and yet He was obedient to His Father's commission,
offering Himself on the cross. He did this out of love both for His
Father, whom He obeys, and for us, whom He redeems. Thus God
is necessarily both the subject and the object of propitiation. He
provides the propitiating sacrifice (He is the subject), and He
Himself is propitiated (He is the object). That is the glory of the
Cross.

All this is implicit in Romans 3:21-26, a great atonement
passage. After devoting two and a half chapters to showing how
the entire human race is cursed and is rightly under the wrath of
God because of its sin (1:18-3:20), the apostle Paul demonstrates
how Christ's death was God's wise plan "to demonstrate his justice
at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies
those who have faith in Jesus" (3:26). God presented Jesus as a
propitiation in His blood, received through faith (3:25).

====The Love of God and the Intent of the Atonement====

How does the love of God shed light on the purpose of the Atonement, another area related to the sovereignty of God?

The label "limited Atonement" is singularly unfortunate for
two reasons. First, it is a defensive, restrictive, expression: Here
is Atonement, and then someone wants to limit it. The notion of
limiting something as glorious as the Atonement is intrinsically
offensive. Second, even when inspected more coolly, "limited
Atonement" is objectively misleading. Every view of the Atonement
"limits" it in some way, except for the view of the unqualified
universalist. For example Arminians limit the Atonement
by regarding it as merely potential for everyone. Calvinists regard
the Atonement as definite and effective, that is, those for
whom Christ died will certainly be saved, but they limit this effectiveness to the elect. Amyraldians limit the Atonement in much
the same way as Arminians, even though the undergirding
structures are different. It may be less prejudicial therefore to
distinguish general Atonement and definite Atonement, rather
than unlimited Atonement and limited Atonement. Arminians
(and Amyraldians, who may be lumped together for the sake of
this discussion) hold that the Atonement is general, that is, sufficient
for all, available to all, on condition of faith. Calvinists
hold that the Atonement is definite, that is, intended by God to be
effective for the elect.

At least part of the argument in favor of definite Atonement
runs as follows. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, the truth of
election.<ref>If someone denies unconditional election, as an informed Arminian (but not an Amyraldian) would, most Calvinists would want to start further back.</ref> That is one point where this discussion intersects with
what was stated about God's sovereignty and electing love in the
third lecture in this series. Election granted, the question may be
framed in this way: When God sent His Son to die, did He think
of the effect of the Cross with respect to His elect differently from
the way He thought of the effect of the Cross with respect to all
others? If one answers negatively, it is difficult to see that one is
really holding to a doctrine of election at all; if one answers positively,
then one has veered toward some notion of definite Atonement. The definiteness of the Atonement turns rather more on
God's intent in Christ's work on the cross than on the mere extent
of its significance.

Those who defend definite Atonement cite several verses for
support. Jesus will save His people (not everyone) from their sins
(Matt. 1:21). Christ gave Himself "for us," that is, for the people of
the New Covenant "to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify
for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is
good" (Titus 2:14). Moreover, in His death Christ did not merely
make adequate provision for the elect; He actually achieved the
desired result (Rom. 5:6-10; Eph. 2:15-16). The Son of Man came
to give His life a ransom "for many" (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; cf.
Isa. 53:10-12). Christ "loved the church and gave himself up for
her" (Eph. 5:25).

Others, however, respond that there are simply too many texts
on the other side of the issue. "God so loved the world that He gave
His one and only Son" (John 3:16). Clever exegetical devices that
make "the world" a label referring to the elect ar e not very
convincing. Christ Jesus is the propitiation "for our sins, and not
only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2).
The arguments marshaled on both sides are of course more
numerous and more sophisticated than indicated in this thumbnail
sketch. But recall for a moment the outline given in the first
address on the various ways the Bible speaks about the love of
God: (1) God's intra-Trinitarian love, (2) God's love displayed in
His providential care, (3) God's yearning, warning and
invitation to all human beings as He invites and commands
them to repent and believe, (4) God's special love toward the elect,
and (5) God's conditional love toward His covenant people as He
speaks in the language of discipline. If any one of these is
absolutized, a false system is generated that squeezes out other
important things the Bible says, thus distorting one's vision of
God.

In this case, if we adopt the fourth of these ways of talking
about God's love (viz., God's peculiar and effective love toward the
elect) and insist that this is the only way the Bible speaks of the
love of God, then definite Atonement is exonerated. But this is at
the cost of other verses that do not easily fit into this mold, and it is
at the expense of being unable to say that there is any sense in
which God displays a loving, yearning, salvific stance toward
the whole world. Further, there could then be no sense in which the
Atonement is sufficient for all without exception. Alternatively,
if we put all our theological eggs into the third basket and think of
God's love exclusively in terms of open invitation to all human
beings, we have excluded not only definite Atonement as a theological
construct but also a string of passages which, when read
most naturally, mean that Jesus Christ did die, in some special
way, for His own people, and that God, with perfect knowledge of
the elect, saw Christ's death with respect to the elect differently
from the way He saw Christ's death with respect to everyone else.

Surely it is best not to introduce disjunctions where God Himself has not introduced them If one holds that the Atonement is
sufficient for all and effective for the elect, then both sets of texts
and concerns are accommodated A verse such as 1 John 2:2
states something about the potential breadth of the Atonement The
proto-Gnostic opponents John was facing thought of themselves as
an elite group who enjoyed an inside track with God because of the
special insights they had received.<ref>At some length I have defended this as the background of 1 John 2:2 in my commentary on 1 John in the New International Greek Testament Commentary series (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, forthcoming)</ref> But when Jesus Christ died,
John rejoins, it was not for the sake of, say, the Jews only, or now
of some group, Gnostic or otherwise, that sets itself up as the elite
of the elect. Far from it, John says: It was not for our sins only, but
also for the sins of the whole world. The context then understands
this to mean something like "potentially for all without
distinction" rather than "effectively for all without exception"—
for the latter would mean that all without exception must surely be
saved, and John did not teach that that would take place. This is
in line, then, with passages that speak of God's love in the third
sense listed above. But it is difficult to see why that should rule out
the fourth sense in other passages.

In recent years I have tried to read both primary and secondary
sources on the doctrine of the Atonement from Calvin on.<ref>One of the latest treatments is G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536- 1675), ''Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs'' (Carlisle, UK Paternoster, 1997)</ref>
One of my most forceful impressions is that the categories of the
debate gradually shift with time so as to force disjunction where a
slightly different bit of question-framing would allow synthesis.
Correcting this, I suggest, is one of the useful things we may accomplish
from an adequate study of the love of God presented in
Scripture. For God is a person. Surely it is not surprising that the
love that characterizes Him as a person is manifest in a variety
of ways toward other persons. But it is always love. Both Arminians
and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all,
in the sense that Christ 's death was sufficient for all and that
Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring
the salvation of all, out of love (in the third sense developed in the
first lecture). Further, all Christians ought also to confess that in
a slightly different sense Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died
effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible
speaks of God's special selecting love for the elect (in the fourth
sense developed in the first lecture).

Pastorally, there are many important implications. I mention
only one. This approach, I contend, must surely come as a relief
to young preachers in the Reformed tradition who hunger to
preach the gospel effectively but who do not know how far they can
go in saying to unbelievers things like "God loves you." When I
have preached or lectured in Reformed circles, I have often been
asked the question, "Do you feel free to tell unbelievers that God
loves them?" Historically, Reformed theology at its best has never
been slow in evangelism, as seen, for instance, in George Whitefield
or virtually all the main lights in the Southern Baptist Convention
until the end of the last century. Obviously I have no hesitation in answering this question from Reformed preachers
affirmatively: of course, I tell the unconverted God loves them.

Not for a moment am I suggesting that when one preaches
evangelistically one ought to retreat to passages of the third type
(above), holding back on the fourth type until after a person is
converted. There is something sleazy about that sort of approach.
Certainly it is possible to preach evangelistically when dealing
with a passage that explicitly teaches election. Charles Spurgeon
did this sort of thing regularly. But I am saying that, provided
there is an honest commitment to preaching the whole counsel of
God, preachers in the Reformed tradition should not hesitate for
an instant to declare the love of God for a lost world, for lost individuals.
The Bible's ways of speaking about the love of God are
comprehensive enough not only to permit this, but to mandate it.<ref>Somewhat similar reflections are given by Hywel R. Jones, "Is God Love?" ''Banner of Truth Magazine'', January 1998, 10-16.</ref>

====The Love of God for the World====

One of the striking formal dissonances in the Johannine corpus
is the clash between the Gospel's assertion of the love of God for the
world (John 3:16) and the first epistle's prohibition of love for the
world (1 John 2:15-17). In brief, God loves the world, and Christians had better not. The impression is rather strong that if people
love the world, they remain under God's wrath: the love of the
Father is not in them. The dissonance, of course, is merely formal. There is a ready explanation. But this formal dissonance
reminds us yet again that the ways the Bible speaks of something
are diverse and contextually controlled.

God's love for the world is commendable because it manifests
itself in awesome self-sacrifice; our love for the world is repulsive
when it lusts for evil participation. God's love for the world is
praiseworthy because it brings the transforming gospel to it; our
love for the world is ugly because we seek to be conformed to the
world. God's love for the world issues in certain individuals being
called out from the world and into the fellowship of Christ's
followers; our love for the world is sickening where we wish to be
absorbed into the world.

So "do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone
loves the world, the love of the Father [whether this love is understood
in the subjective or the objective sense] is not in him" (1 John
2:15). But clearly believers are to love the world in the sense that
we are to go into every part of it and bring the glorious gospel to
every creature. In this sense we imitate in small ways the wholly
praiseworthy love of God for the world.

====The Love of God and the People of God====

I conclude with three reflections.

First, the love of God for His people is sometimes likened to
the love of a parent for the child (e.g., Heb. 12:4-11; cf. Prov.
14:26). The Lord disciplines those He loves (the fifth category of
God's love). These lectures have addressed that category less than
the other four. But believers must never forget to keep themselves
in the love of God (Jude 21), remembering that He is loving and
merciful to those who love Him and who keep His commandments (Exod. 20:6). In this way we imitate Jesus. As Jesus
obeys His heavenly Father and remains in His love, so we are to
obey Jesus and to remain in His love (John 15:9-11).

Second, the love of God is not merely to be analyzed, understood,
and adopted into wholistic categories of integrated theological
thought. It is to be received, absorbed, felt. Paul's prayer in
Ephesians 3:14-21 connects such Christian experience of the love
of God with Christian maturity, with being "filled to the measure
of all the fullness of God" (v. 19). Clearly no one can be a mature
Christian who does not walk in this path.<ref>I have dealt with this subject at much greater length in ''A Call to Spiritual Reformation: Priorities from Paul and His Prayers'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992)</ref>

Third, Christians should never underestimate the power of
the love of God to break down and transform the most amazingly
hard individuals. One of the most powerful recent affirmations
of this truth in a context far removed from our church buildings is
the worldwide showings of the musical version of Victor Hugo's
magnificent novel ''Les Misérables''. Sentenced to a nineteen-year
term of hard labor for stealing bread, Jean Valjean becomes hard
and bitter. No one can break him; everyone fears him. Released
from prison, Valjean finds it difficult to survive, as innkeepers
will not welcome him and work is scarce. Then a kind bishop
welcomes him into his home. But Valjean betrays the trust.
During the night he creeps off into the darkness, stealing some of
the family silver.

Valjean is brought back next morning to the bishop's door by
three policemen. They had arrested him and found the stolen
silver on him. A word from the bishop and the wretch would be incarcerated
for life. But the bishop instantly exclaims, "So here
you are! I'm delighted to see you. Had you forgotten that I gave you
the candlesticks as well? They're silver like the rest, and worth a
good two hundred francs. Did you forget to take them?"

Jean Valjean is released, and he is transformed. When the
gendarmes withdraw, the bishop insists on giving the candlesticks
to his speechless, mortified, thankful guest. "Do not forget,
do not ever forget, that you have promised me to use the money to
make yourself an honest man, " admonishes the bishop. And
meanwhile Javert, the detective who is constantly pursuing
Valjean and who is consumed by justice but who knows nothing
of forgiveness or compassion, crumbles when his black-and-white categories of mere justice fail to cope with grace that goes
against every instinct for revenge. Valjean is transformed;
Javert jumps off a bridge and drowns in the Seine.

Of course this is Christian love, that is, the love of God, mediated
in this case through a bishop. This is how it should be, for
God's love so transforms us, that we mediate it to others, who are
thereby transformed. We love because He first loved us; we forgive
because we stand forgiven.

One of the faces of love I have virtually ignored in this series
is our love. My focus has been on the love of God and the various
ways the Bible speaks of that love. Yet sooner or later one cannot
adequately grasp the love of God in Scripture without reflecting on
the ways in which God's love elicits our love. The five categories
developed in the first lecture also relate to believers' love.

(1) God's intra-Trinitarian love ensures the plan of
redemption. The Father so loves the Son that He has decreed that
all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father, and to that
end He "shows" the Son things, gives Him tasks, including the
supreme task of the Cross. And the Son so loves the Father that out
of obedience He went to the cross on our behalf, the Just for the
unjust. The entire plan of redemption that has turned our hearts
toward God is a function, in the first place, of this intra-Trinitarian love of God.

(2) God's providential love protects us, feeds us, clothes us,
and forbears to destroy us when mere justice could rightly write
us off. The Lord Jesus insists that the evidences of God's providential love call us to faith and God-centered kingdom priorities
(Matt. 6:25-34).

(3) God's yearning, inviting, commanding love, supremely
displayed in the Cross, "compels us, because we are convinced
that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all,
that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for
him who died for them and was raised again" (2 Cor. 5:14-15).
With Paul, we are debtors; we owe others the gospel.

(4) God's effective, electing love toward us enables us to see
the sheer glory and power of Christ's vicarious death on our behalf,
by which we are reconciled to God. We grasp that God has
not drawn us with the savage lust of a rapist, but with the compelling
wooing of a lover. Out of sheer love, God has effectively
secured the salvation of His people. We love, because He first
loved us.

(5) God continues to love us, not only with the immutable love
that ensures we are more than conquerors through Christ who
loved us (Rom. 8:37), but also with love like that of a father for his
children, telling them to remain in His love (Jude 21). Thus we
are disciplined in love that we might be loving and obedient children
of the living God.

All this has transformed us, so that we in turn perceive the
sheer Tightness of the first commandment: to love God with all of
one's heart, soul, mind, and strength (Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:37;
Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). As that is the first and greatest
commandment, so the first and greatest sin is not to love God with
one's heart, soul, mind, and strength. For this, there is no remedy
except what God Himself has provided—in love.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 9 June 2010
Line 515:		Line 515:
	one's heart, soul, mind, and strength. For this, there is no remedy		one's heart, soul, mind, and strength. For this, there is no remedy
	except what God Himself has provided—in love.		except what God Himself has provided—in love.
		+
		+
		+	====References====
		+	<references />

God's Love and God's Wrath - Revision history

JoyaTeemer: Protected "God's Love and God's Wrath" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

JoyaTeemer at 21:22, 9 June 2010

JoyaTeemer: Created page with '{{info}} Many think it is easy for God to forgive. I recall meeting a young and articulate French West African when I was studying in Germany more than twenty years ago. We were...'