It’s Good Friday, the day that we Christians “celebrate” — actually, commemorate — Jesus’ crucifixion. For the last several years, in my little corner of Christianity, there’s been lots of talk about the atonement — that is, about what exactly happened, cosmically speaking, when Jesus died. In fact, the nature of the atonement has become the bête noire of emergent Christians and the cause célèbre of the resurgent Reformers.
I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real, historic human being who lived from approximately 6-4 BC to approximately AD 26-29.
I firmly believe, in unity with the Council of Chalcedon, that Jesus of Nazareth was both fully human and fully divine. This belief is key to one’s understanding of the crucifixion. If Jesus was a little less than fully either, then his death means something different than what I think it means.
One key to my understanding of the crucifixion is the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. At about the age of 30, Jesus arrives at the Jordan River and is baptized by his cousin, John. He then retreats into the wilderness where, after a 40-day fast, he’s tempted. Really tempted. That is, the result of Jesus’ interaction with “the tempter” was not foreordained. Nor did Jesus know that he was divine in such a way that he wouldn’t cave in to the temptations before him. Had Jesus been cognizant of his divinity, he would not have been truly tempted.
Another key to my understanding of the end of Jesus’ life is what he did with the three previous years of his life. It seems to me that he did just a few things: 1) He taught about the Kingdom of God; 2) He performed miracles; 3) He developed a following that included 12 close followers and, by the end, hundreds of others.
The importance of 1) and 3) are pretty obvious to Jesus’ mission. The significance of the miracles, however, is sometimes misunderstood. They were not significations of Jesus’ divinity (as evidenced by the other magicians and sorcerers on the scene in Jesus’ day). Instead, they were little in-breakings of the new age that Jesus, as the Messiah, was inaugurating.
Especially in the healing miracles, Jesus touched the people who had been condemned as “unclean,” and thus unworthy of Temple worship — woman with an issue of blood, blind men, lepers, paraplegics, a crazed demoniac — and cleansed them. He upset the order of things by bringing the people who had been marginalized — now you can include tax collectors and whores — by the dominant religion of his time and place and making them “right” with God again.
So when Jesus’ three years of traveling, teaching, and miracles ends in Jerusalem, on a Roman cross, his death culminates the life that he lived. His execution amidst common thieves is his ultimate act of solidarity with every human being who has experienced godlessness and godforsakenness. In other words, every human being.
On that very day, a few of the human witnesses understood this at an intuitive level, most
notably the Roman soldier who, from the foot of the cross, said (probably under his breath), “Surely this man is the son of God.” And since that time, billions of human beings have found solace and victory in the fact that God rather,
…made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.And being found in appearance as a human being,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death– even death on a cross!
Some people today may find it compelling that some Great Cosmic Transaction took place on that day 1,980 years ago, that God’s wrath burned against his son instead of against me. I find that version of atonement theory neither intellectually compelling, spiritually compelling, nor in keeping with the biblical narrative.
Instead, Jesus death offers life because in Christianity, and in Christianity alone, the God and Creator of the universe deigned to become human, to be tempted, to reach out to those who had been de-humanized and restore their humanity, and ultimately to die in solidarity with every one of us. Yes, he was a sacrifice. Yes, he was “sinless.” But thank God, Jesus was also human.
The hope he offers is that, by dying on that cross, the eternal Trinity became forever bound to my humanity. The God of the universe identified with me, and I have the opportunity to identify with him.
Today, and every day, I hang with him on that cross.
Related posts:
{ 134 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Luke:
I don’t think Tony is too much of a martyr. Sure he has to deal with criticism that is sometimes civil and sometimes uncivil, but that’s part of the gig when someone becomes a blogger. He put his thoughts on the internet for all to read and comment upon. What should he expect?
I think the real tragedy is when a blog turns into a “hate-love blog.” In a “hate-love blog,” there are only two types of comments: glowing praise (i.e. love) and malicious attacks (i.e. hate). In both cases there is a loss of thoughtful, nuanced dialogue. It would be totally groovy to stop all that drama and actually engage in a deeper conversation. Hopefully a more generative result would emerge.
That’s what I grew up believing. Jesus died to show us God’s love and encourage us to be peaceful loving people. The idea of substitute is difficult to comprehend, and I prefer to think of Jesus as the Way-Shower,teacher, and guide, not as someone who needed to die in my place. I think we’ll all have to answer for our sins, and it would be unjust for someone else to take blame that we deserved. In the end, we do our best, and Jesus is right there to help us.
Tony-
I gotta say, you use such flowerly language (you’re a great writer) that I don’t know what you are talking about.
Boil it down for us so we’ll know if we should argue with you or not.
Peace and Happy Easter.
Thanks, Jason M. Blumer
What you articulated is clearly part of what’s going on at the cross. But certainly that’s not all of it. There is room for penal substitution. It has a rich and varied history throughout the history of the church you appeal to. What there is not room for is this petty little emergent/neo-Reformed bickering. Please just get over yourselves and move on.
I don’t find your glib dismissal intellectually compelling, but thank you for clearly articulating other aspects of the atonement (even if “your” understanding really belongs to Moltmann).
Tyler is right about Tony using Jürgen Moltmann – especially Moltmann’s books “The Crucified God” (the God died stuff) and “Theology of Hope” (the eschatology stuff). I’d add Miroslav Volf too – especially Volf’s image of the Trinity as three inward facing mirrors, where a shattering happens at the crucifixion. It’s clear Tony has been influenced by his time at Fuller. And that’s fine. We all have our influences and foundations.
Tony’s theology in his last two posts sounds decidedly rooted in Bartian Neo-Orthodoxy. It’s what Mainline seminaries taught in the 1960s and 1970s. But theology has come a long way since then. Theologians such as Parker Palmer, Rita Nakashima Brock, Delores Williams, and Kwok Pui-lan have all offered fair critiques and reconstructions for us to consider.
I’d be especially curious to hear what Tony would say about the various kinds of Process Theologies. For example, in Process Theology generally, God doesn’t need to experience the crucifixion in order to be bound to humanity or be share our experiences. In Process Theology’s panentheistic understanding of the Divine, God is already present, relational, experiential, active, etc. Also, Process Theology gets rid of the “God of the gaps” problem by suggesting that God is always at work in our world, not capriciously active with a few miracles here and there.
While Process Theology began rather academically, it has now become quite practical in it’s application. It’s a way that pastors can affirm the Biblical ideas of God being present and active in human life, while also building ethical theological framework that is relevant to modern science such as chaos theory. In this model, God is always at work, beckoning the world to salvific ends. God and the world work together. God calls. We answer. Humanity has the responsibility to follow the call of God in our lives.
Easter never happened – it always happens. Easter is what God does all the time. God is constantly offering us second chances and resurrections each day.
I think it is a difficult argument to make — that the death of Jesus on the cross did not have an element of atonement. Certainly the author of Tony’s scriptural quote believed there was. But I would not argue against those aspects of Jeus life and ministry added to his message of love from God to us, but Jesus was much more than a teacher. I cannot agree with those who say that they reject the notion that Jesus died in their place. Jeus himself said that there is no way that we can show greater love for others than by giving up our lives for them. Jesus died so we can live. How it worked we can debate, but will not know until we know completely as we have been completely known.
I wonder why we as Christians find it necessary to make the Romans into the scapegoat regarding the Crucifixion. Even using Pilate’s name in the Nicene Creed annoys me. Pilate kept stating he found nothing to condemn the man over. He washed his hands of it — literally and figuratively. It was Jesus’ own peers who made the choice. When offered the choice, it was the Jews, not the Roman governor, who chose Jesus over Barabbas. But then again, it is ew, his followers, who keep on hammering more nails into his cross even today.
Interesting discussion. I agree with most everything you said, but I am not sure why the penal atonement cannot be just one aspect of the work of the cross… I certainly agree with the other aspects of what you said about divinity and humanity … but can’t the cross be a lot bigger than either the resurgent reformed or you are claiming? Can it not be “both/and”?
I always think it’s funny that Christians will support the idea of vicarious redemption for sins and not understand how blatantly IMMORAL that concept is. If I really care about you, I can pay your fine if you do something wrong, I could even ask to serve the time in jail in your place, but one thing I could never do is take away your responsibility for your actions. Personal responsibility for actions is the only concrete base we have for human morality and Christians are so happy to give that away to Jesus on the cross. It’s weak. It’s immoral. It’s just plain wrong. Jesus didn’t die for your sins. He died because of other people’s. Serving a “god” who requires a blood sacrifice in order to forgive you is not only stupid, it’s dangerous. All hail the petty jealous genocidal god of bronze age Palestine!
After reading several of Mr. Jones posts on this, I’m tempted to wonder if it’s because he finds a particular theory of atonement neither spiritually or intellectually compelling, that he also finds it not in keeping with the biblical narrative.
I also wonder if he finds any theory of the atonement compelling and in keeping with the biblical narrative.
Our subjective feelings toward any biblical precept have exactly zero to do with its truth or falsity.
I do agree with Dallas Willard that a certain theory of atonement – seemingly the same theory Mr. Jones finds problematic – has been promoted at the (perhaps unintended) cost of relegating discipleship to the “non-essential” category.
I also agree with those who observe that Mr. Jones at times appears more concerned with appearing provocative than with a clear exposition of his position.
What one would perhaps like to see from Mr. Jones is an unambiguous statement as to whether he finds room for any sense of atonement in the biblical narrative, whether or not he finds it intellectually or spiritually compelling.
Ok…it’s been a while.
All I’ll say is that I’ve seen that site that Mr. Rosebrough has pointed people to on other blogs as well.
If we want to have a “thick discussion” about the teaching of the Church Fathers with respect to the atonement, I’d be happy to oblige. We’d probably have to do it via email.
Aaron S, Ryan, Larry, et. al having the discussion about the Church Fathers…
Mr. Rosebrough has cited that website on other blogs elsewhere. And has been roundly answered. He never returned to give a response to the historical rebuttle that was given to him.
He can come here and start linking all he wants, but it’s just not the case.
It’s sloppy, dishonest and lazy to “bold” a couple sentences from the dense and nuanced writing of the Fathers taken out of their context.
If you want to assert the Fathers believed in PSA you’ll have to go toe to toe with some amazing scholarship and the facts of their historical context and the issues that shaped their writing.
It probably would all have to happen on email, as it is.
As a courtesy here’s the link where Mr. Rosebrough posted that site and was answered:
http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2009/03/23/atonement-repost/#comments
Also, here’s the rebuttle about the Athanasius and Cyril passages at that site:
the highlighted passages in Athanasius do not speak of PSA, but are speaking of “death” in relation to our corruptible nature and how “salvation” for the early church fathers was a matter of restored stability in the material body, not merely the ascent to the sweet by and by.
It is his articulation of the Logos’ creative salvation.
This has a lot to do with the hellenistic ideals about the nature of God and the new creative act of God by the power of the Logos.
Athanasius is making a case for the eternal deity of the Logos that is still in keeping with hellenistic articulations of God’s impassibility and self-contained perfection.
So…Fail.
Re: Cyril…
Cyril was the key voice to speak of the Logos not just merely taking on human form, but taking up all of humanity in himself.
His highlighted phrase is not PSA.
The early church never denied that God said in the garden that people would die if they turned from God.
Our physical deaths do hang over us since the garden.
The Fathers operated under the understanding that if our first parents had not sinned, humans would not experience physical death.
Again, we’re talking about physical corruption and instability as judgement.
that’s just for starters:
“I firmly believe, in unity with the Council of Chalcedon, that Jesus of Nazareth was both fully human and fully divine… If Jesus was a little less than fully either, then his death means something different than what I think it means… Nor did Jesus know that he was divine in such a way that he wouldn’t cave in to the temptations before him. Had Jesus been cognizant of his divinity, he would not have been truly tempted.”
Please explain how Jesus can both be (a) fully divine and (b) completely unaware of this, if Jesus is divine in any remotely meaningful sense.
Early on in this discussion I brought up The River of Fire by Alexander Kalomiros. I have since discovered a couple of interesting rebuttals that I feel must be considered. They are:
“THE RIVER OF FIRE” REVISITED by Vladimir Moss
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/207/%E2%80%9C-river-fire%E2%80%9D-revisited/
THE NEW SOTERIOLOGY: (1) ORIGINAL SIN by Vladimir Moss
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/258/-new-soteriology-(1)-original-sin/
The following article also deals with this issue:
http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/Justification.htm
While the issue of original sin is not the subject of this discussion, it is interrelated and The New Soteriology article is well worth reading on this. I would greatly appreciate other articles or comments on this from an Orthodox perspective, including directing me to a different blog where this might be the main topic.
God Bless you all during this Holy Season and bring you ever closer to Him and His Truth in your lifetimes.
Palestinian Arab Orthodox Christian
And there was silence.
One of the most problematic aspects of traditional atonement theologies, from the standpoint of those concerned about the relationship between theological violence and “real” violence, is the notion that Jesus endured his suffering and death willingly. Many battered woman will persist in returning to increasingly dangerous relationships because of the idea of the “turn the other cheek” or “following Jesus’ example” theologies.
Nothing short of heresy, Tony; nothing short of heresy. And Sara, with all due respect, I find your words astonishing, I really do. Battered women who seek counsel from any responsible pastor or counselor would be told that the substitutionary atonement of Christ in no way, shape, or form can be twisted into “go back and turn the other cheek to your abusive husband, in order to follow Jesus’ example”.
Byron,
Would PSA even figure in that discussion in the first place?
Given the counselor is “responsible”?
Byron,
Why is seeing PSA as one part of a constellation of ways of speaking about the atonement wrong?
why is it wrong to say that we benefit from these different ways of articulating it, but not wanting to privilege one over others?
How is that heresy?
No, Nathan, I don’t know how PSA would figure into such a discussion. As to the second comment, it doesn’t seem to me that that’s what Tony is saying at all, that’s it’s “one part of a constellation”; Tony wrote,
“Some people today may find it compelling that some Great Cosmic Transaction took place on that day 1,980 years ago, that God’s wrath burned against his son instead of against me. I find that version of atonement theory neither intellectually compelling, spiritually compelling, nor in keeping with the biblical narrative.”
Am I reading it wrong, or is that an out-and-out denial of the entire Biblical concept of propitiation? I don’t know how else to read that; perhaps Tony can clarify if I’m misreading him, but it would be heresy to deny propitiation.
Darren, you said: “… [Stego is] claiming sole possession of truth and probably condemning three-quarters of the Christians, let alone people, on the face of the earth, to his conception of a fiery Hell hole.”
Actually Christ condemns those who do not hear his voice to the firey hole of Hell. If one denies the substitutionary death of Christ, that person proves what he is, a goat, and not a sheep. Christ’s sheep know his voice, and follow him, and will not follow another. Only “another” will tell us that Christ’s death was not for penal substitution, and those who listen to “another” are not Christ’s sheep. Where do those who are not Christ’s sheep end up? Could it be the firey hole of Hell?
Perhaps I wouldn’t have been considered so cultish if I’d added “Repent of your wicked heresy and embrace Jesus AS HE IS OFFERED IN THE GOSPEL, and stop erecting your postmodern idol, or you will indeed burn in Hell.”
Truly, I don’t worry too much if an “emergent” considers my thoughts on the cross of Christ as being ignorant, shallow, cult-ish or whatever. It’s sort of like having a kid who thinks babies come from the stork telling another person who KNOWS where babies come from that they’re delusional. Yeah.
Byron,
I would say that Tony’s subsequent posts clarify that he just denies PSA “pride of place”.
Stego,
I don’t think Tony denies the death of Christ and it’s central significance for the whole universe.
We aren’t saved by mental assent to a particular articulation of the economics of atonement.
We’re saved by Jesus.
Then it would seem, Nathan, that at the very least, Tony is communicating his beliefs VERY poorly, because when the wording is as strong and as unqualified as he made it, such that it requires parsing various “other posts” to discern how he really feels, then it seems to me he needs to rethink his communication strategy. The cynic in me wonders if this falls into the Brian McLaren School of Communication, whereby something provocative/outlandish is stated, others call him on it, and then his response is, “why would they think I meant that? How did they get that interpretation from what I said?” McLaren has done this on enough occasions that I’m no longer interested in hearing him communicate much of anything, frankly.
I am typing my first comment to this post with a broken heart.
I will choose peace and happiness, regardless of the attacks I have witnessed here (again) today. You must really have tough skin. I couldn’t provide the forum you do for such reactionary people.
Tony, you astound me, and ever amaze me. I read your post and was filled with peace and joy. I thought to myself, I will share this link on facebook and add the comment, “This is my favorite place to blog,” or maybe even, “To all of you critics-of-emergent, read this and be blessed by a fellow believer in and lover of Christ.” I thought, how can you argue with this? I actually felt much of the stress of my day ebb away as the Lord ministered to me through your words.
Then I saw the link that said “124 Comments” and my heart sank a little. As I read said comments my heart sank a lot. My eyes are wet and my heart is aching, as I seek to live a life steeped in God’s goodness, in his desires for unity and peace and love among his people. Yet here, in what really is my favorite place to blog, my favorite blogger is repeatedly bludgeoned by other followers of Christ who … who what? I don’t know what to say here. Who refuse to see the Father in Tony because they were warned that emergent is evil? Who don’t understand what it means to have a theological conversation about our understandings of the Scriptures? Who want to fight with anybody who disagrees with their ideas? I don’t know what. I guess we all have our own motivations for doing what we do. But I am grieving. And I believe God grieves with me.
Tony, I am ever beside you, praying for you, blogging with you, and thinking you are completely the bomb!
Had half of you heard this as a sermon ten years ago in your church services, before ever hearing the term emergent, would you have torn your pastor apart the way you do Tony? Take him at his word alone, not at your fears or the lies you have been told about him. Please. Have a heart. We are Christians! We are supposed to be known by our love for one another.
Byron,
I can certainly understand your last point.
In general, when we know that any given issue is or can be a real flash point it is wise to make careful precise statements.
I know some people think “nuance” is a dirty word (not saying this applies to you), but I can say that it would be more helpful to have condensed the position into less posts. Thus avoiding some charges/problems and allowing people to see the shades that are being painted in Tony’s perspective.
I don’t understand the beef that some of you have with Tony’s expression of the meaning of Christ’s temptation, ministry, and death on the cross. I grew up in a very conservative evangelical Christian tradition, and I find his expression totally consistent with my understanding of scriptural teaching. I agree with Nathan and Theresa. I believe Tony expressed the gospel very well in his post, and I don’t understand why people are so ready to attack him –sort of like the scribes and Pharisees attacked Jesus!
Tony, God bless you and keep giving you courage to teach the world the gospel. I don’t care about what label anybody uses, and I don’t think God cares either. The important thing is the substance of the biblical message. And I notice that your detractors, while insisting on their own position, have not cited a single scripture in support of that position.
Keep preaching, brother Tony! Maybe eventually the modern-day scribes and Pharisees will see the light of God’s love and worship God instead of a particular ideology.
Barb, I don’t know you, but you rock.
Theresa, I’m sorry for your sorrow. But you are making a grave error. you are basing truth on whether you feel Tony is a filled with God’s goodness. That is a self-centered approach to truth. We must forsake even self to follow Jesus.
And, yes, had I heard this as a sermon 10 years ago from any pastor I would have challenged it. What Tony is doing is attacking historic understanding of the atonement. He is wrong. His accounting does nothing to remove his sin. To say Jesus died simply to identify with my humanity is to ignore the reality that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.”
Theresa, bewared the subtle ad hominen defense you are using towards critics on this post. You are assuming that all who criticize do so because they are pre-disposed to oppose the label “emergent.” To hold that position is unfair. Give them the benefit of the doubt that they are honest in their thoughts and not just “haters.”
Keep crying, but cry for Tony that he could not only be so wrong about a doctrine so central, but that he is leading many others away from the very blood that saves –including you.
Peace.
Barb, I’m sorry that you were able to grow up in an evangelical church and not properly learn about the atonement. Tony’s error is plain to see by all who know the basic doctrines of the cross. I am sad that your pastors and teachers did not so equip you.
I hope you will look to the scripture again and study the subject, for Tony’s new and strange opinion will give you no place for forgiveness of sins. Remember, it is “by His stripes” that you are healed. He “bore your sins on His body.” He did not die simply to show you that He shared your humanity. He was without sin, and He became sin on your behalf.
Wait, Mike, there is another post of Tony’s you need to see before you throw out what he is presenting. It is a sort of missing puzzle piece. He isn’t throwing out atonement. There is more than one theory of the atonement. I just ran a search of Tony’s posts and am not finding the one I want. It isn’t the Ash Wednesday one, but it is one that has the major theories all laid out.
Tony, help me out here?
Anyway, I was not grieved (this time) because people are being mean to someone I care about. It is the whole disunity of the people of God. But I admit that to assume all of the critics here are bent against emergent is wrong. I give you that, and apologize to all. I just know Tony’s greater teachings because I read his books and listen to his podcasts and read his blogs (not nearly as much as I want to – you are a busy guy, Tony!) and I know he is not saying what he is being accused of saying. But he (frustratingly) isn’t one to come out and say where he has been misunderstood. I think if you have the chance to capture the greater picture, you will get it, and maybe Tony just knows that there will always be something else to argue about if he clarifies (after all, in the end I find people believe whatever they wish to believe, no matter what they are told). So maybe although he is very inclusive (more than I think I could be) to anyone who wants to join the conversation, maybe he just doesn’t have time to constantly clarify what is clear if you take him at his words without adding to them. That sounds confrontational as I go back and read it, but I don’t know how else to word it. My desire is not to confront. Hope you don’t misunderstand me. I desire the same peace and unity Jesus does among us, his people. Peace.
Tony, you wrote:
“Some people today may find it compelling that some Great Cosmic Transaction took place on that day 1,980 years ago, that God’s wrath burned against his son instead of against me. I find that version of atonement theory neither intellectually compelling, spiritually compelling, nor in keeping with the biblical narrative.”
Perhaps you need to become a bit more familiar with ‘the biblical narrative’ …
“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.” (1 Peter 2:24)
“For our sake, he made him to be be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
“In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace …” (Ephesians 1:7)
“God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.” (Romans 3:25a)
“… just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:28)
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’” (Galatians 3:13 referencing Deuteronomy 21:23).
The entirety of the biblical narrative points not only to the person of Christ, but to the redemptive work of his sacrifice on the cross. I’m not sure how you could deny something so entirely central to every aspect of the Bible and still claim to believe and follow its teachings.
JB is right. This blog post is yet another in a long, long, long line of attempts to reduce the atonement to an appendage of the incarnation, rather than acknowledge its true biblical meaning.
Hey Tony,
Love the Gauguin painting of the crucifixion – the yellow Christ. The fields are yellow, Christ is yellow, the trees are red orange. The Breton women in their traditional garments from the Brittany region of France may appear to some to be Catholic Nuns wearing habits, but they are simply Breton women wearing their regional/cultural clothes. Notice the women are real, painted normal human colors with shadow, yet everything else is “not real”, painted to evoke emotion and thought. You and Gauguin are doing the same thing, trying to understand God and humans and Christ, and with a needed focus on real humanity. The art in Gauguin’s day was a “not fully real” image of humanity, he was trying to be real, be human. Later he depicted Mary with baby Jesus as a Tahitian woman and child, with an angel looking on – this was scandalous to white europeans. But he was making less than human people of color, fully human.
Knowing you, I think you believe many of the different views of the atonement which Christians have more recently focused on which all contain an aspect of the too large to fully grasp mystery of God becoming a human and doing the things he did, but because some aspects of the atonement have become big bullies demanding all the attention, and given the tragedies of social injustice these theological focuses’ have allowed the church to stand by and not scream out in protest against, it would appear that to become as fully human and as fully committed to the well being of our fellow humans that God wants us to be, that we need new and more full views of the atonement, and that’s what I think your focus in this article is trying to do – to emphasize a missing aspect.
I think attention to the aspect of the atonement that has to do with power – the all powerful God placing himself beneath the power of his own creation, allowing the less powerful to kill the more powerful – and thus showing us that love and power cannot coexist, that love requires the abandonment of power – will be another area needing special emphasis in coming days.
Jeff
← Previous Comments