Introduction
I
prayed long and hard before I started this lesson. I’m pretty sure everyone
will be able to find at least one thing they won’t like about what I have to
say this week but I am, nevertheless, compelled to say it. If I offend you
early in the lesson, make sure you read to the end of the lesson. If you’re
applauding at the beginning of the lesson, brace yourself for the end. Anyway,
I believe that America is on an economic path that is unsustainable. I’m going
to try really hard to keep this lesson at the street level as opposed to
presenting ivory-tower political philosophies—I’m a pastor not a politician. I’m
not an anarchist; I believe that government is given to us by God to maintain
proper order in society (Rom 13:1-7). However, there is something going on in
our country that some of you have experienced in your country and others my yet
experience in theirs. Tens of millions of Americans receive some form of
government assistance while a significant percentage receive everything from
the government: Food, housing, education, day-care, cell phones, medical
services, and many other services for which they do not pay because many do not
work. Instead, the government, through taxation, takes from those who do work
and gives to those who, in some cases, can’t work, but more often, to those who
won’t work. The latest statistics reveal that 80% of Americans claim to be
Christians. If that’s true then there are a significant number of Christians
among those who are accepting goods and services for which others are paying.
If that describes you, then perhaps this lesson will give you something to
think about.
My
parents immigrated to the United States from Germany after World War II. My dad
was trained as a metal ornamentalist when he was still in Germany and my mom
was a seamstress. Neither of them knew English when they came here but both
found jobs in a plastics factory through the local German community. However,
they had to learn the language before they could go much farther. My dad had a
number of jobs until he eventually settled at a metal factory where he put his
original training into practice. My mom stayed at the plastics factory for a
long time until my dad was able to support the family on just what he was earning.
I tell you this because in all the years before my dad retired, he was never
unemployed for more than a couple of days, if that. Working hard was something
we were taught at an early age. Working was something you did to care for
yourself and for your family. My dad would never, ever have taken something he
didn’t earn. His work ethic is something me and my sisters continue in our
lives and have passed on to our own kids. This dynamic works the other way
around as well. Many Americans currently taking full advantage of the
government welfare system are second and third generation welfare recipients. Someone
at some point in time taught them that living off of someone else’s hard work is
an acceptable way of life. What’s sad is the Church has been a partner in
perpetuating the problem. The Church allowed the government to take over its
responsibility to care for those in need. It was perfect really. The government
takes care of the poor and needy and leaves the Church with more money to do,
you know, church-stuff. Except the arrangement came with one little catch, it
wasn’t really in small print or anything and the Church went right along
without any real objection—the Church must remain silent about the activities
of the government. At first the arrangement didn’t appear to be a problem but
then the government began manipulating those who they said they would care for
and allowed unspeakable atrocities against the most innocent among us and all
the while the Church must remain silent. But it’s ok because now the Church has
extra money to do, you know, church-stuff. The only problem is that the Church
has the solution to the problem that the government perpetuates. Tens of
millions of people are now dependant on the government to take care of every
aspect of their lives and the government is perfectly happy to keep them there
because those who are dependant will be loyal to the end; still poor and in
need but loyal to anyone who will take care of them. You see, tens of millions
of people are nothing more than children who have never been taught how to be
independent adults. Millions of people who claim to be Christians yet refuse to
be independent adults who can care for themselves. The problem is that the
Church has forfeited its leverage to do something about this problem because it
has allowed the government to do what the Church was called to do. Therefore,
since I have made no such deal with the government, I am free to do precisely
what the Church was called to do and that is to ask difficult questions in the
hope you will think about not only your beliefs but also your behaviors. For
those of you who claim to be Christians yet are dependent on government
handouts: Are you Pulling Your Weight?
Lest you think the idea of someone living off the hard work of others is a new
idea, the Bible addresses this matter directly and that’s what we will look at
in this week’s lesson.
Subject
Text
2 Thessalonians 3:6-15
6In the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from
every brother who is idle and does not live according to the
teaching you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you
ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with
you, 8nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On
the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so
that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do
not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves
a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he
shall not eat.” 11We hear that some among you are idle. They are not
busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge
in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they
eat. 13And as for you, brothers, never
tire of doing what is right. 14If anyone does not obey our
instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with
him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard him as an
enemy, but warn him as a brother.
Context
This
is actually Paul’s second letter to the Church in Thessalonica. In his first
letter, Paul wanted to encourage the Thessalonians and strengthen their faith
about Christ’s eventual return and the events that would signal that return. Paul’s
mission is clearly defined in 1 Thes 3:13 when he writes, “May he [the Lord]
strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence
of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with his holy ones.” Later in
Paul’s first letter he tells them that there was no need to go into detail
about the date and time of Jesus’ return warning them that the day Jesus
returns will come like a “thief in the night.” Paul was therefore encouraging
them to always be prepared for Christ’s return; to live as though he would
return at any moment. However, somewhere along the way Paul’s instruction was either
misunderstood or purposely misrepresented and some decided they would just sit
around and wait. And while they waited, they depended on the hard work of
others to take care of them. Some scholars believe some of the Thessalonians
interpreted from Paul’s letter that Christ would be returning quickly and there
was no longer any need to participate in the normal functions of daily life. I
don’t know about you but I’ve read Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians
many times and I can’t, for the life of me, figure out how anyone could
conclude that from what Paul wrote. Perhaps they believed the persecution they
were experiencing was one of the signals for Christ’s return or perhaps some
saw this as an opportunity to kick back and relax while others took care of
them. Nevertheless, the confusion about what Paul meant must have been causing
some problems in the Thessalonian community because word got back to Paul that
there were some in the community that were becoming a burden for the rest of
the Christian community. Some quit working and contributing to the productivity
of the Christian community or the community at large. Consequently, Paul sends
his second letter to the Thessalonian Church to clear up any confusion from his
first letter. I can’t say for sure whether there was a sincere misunderstanding
or not but Paul’s clarification in his second letter sounds much more like a
reproach than clarification. Let’s see what you think.
Text
Analysis
If the purpose of this second letter
is to clarify a misunderstanding about Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians
then v. 6 seems strange to me. If there were some in the community who disengaged
from the community because they were anticipating Christ’s return, wouldn’t
Paul simply make a general statement that all people should remain engaged in
their everyday lives? Wouldn’t he simply say something like: ‘Just to clarify,
since no one knows the time or day of Christ’s return, you should all
diligently live your lives as productive members of your community so that you
will not become a burden to one another. At the same time, you should live
faithfully and obediently in anticipation that Christ may return at any moment.’
That seems much more like clarification language, don’t you think? Instead,
Paul makes an abrupt command not to have anything to do with someone who is
idle and disobedient to Paul’s teachings. That’s not clarification language.
That’s disciplinary language. I think Paul is addressing something more
sinister than a simple misunderstanding. I think there were some in the
community that were using Paul’s teaching from his first letter to take
advantage of the others in the community. I don’t believe there was a
misunderstanding at all. I think there were some in the community who used the
opportunity to kick their feet up at the expense of the hard work and diligence
of others in the community. Paul calls these people “idlers.” The Greek word
means to live an unruly or undisciplined life. It is a military metaphor for
soldiers that aren’t aligned as they should be or not following orders from
their superiors. Therefore, Paul tells the faithful and diligent community to
shun those who are idle and have become a burden and troublemakers for the
Christian community. “We do not really know why these believers were not
engaged in fruitful labor…The group is now strong enough to exercise internally
the same sort of social control that the society had been attempting, however
unsuccessfully, in its effort to call believers back to conformity with the
dominant culture’s norms. The strategy of shaming becomes a tool for promoting
adherence to the values of the group and to Paul’s directions in particular.
The goal of such pressure is, of course, to reincorporate the deviants back
into the group—the very goal that the unbelievers no doubt had for their
shaming of their Christian neighbors.”[1]
As usual, Paul never commanded
anyone to do something he hadn’t done or wasn’t willing to do himself. In vv.
7-8, Paul reminded them that he didn’t allow the Thessalonian Church to support
him and provide for him. Instead, he worked diligently to support himself for a
couple of reasons: 1) To avoid being a burden on an already poor community, and
2) To give the community an example for how they should behave themselves. “The
apostles had not been idle or hare-brained enthusiasts, and their example of an
orderly, self-supporting life is held up as a pattern. Insubordination of this
kind is a breach of the apostolic standard of the Christian life, and Paul
deals sharply with the first symptoms of it.”[2]
We might need a little refresher
course as background for Paul’s comments in v.9. When Paul wrote his first
letter to another church he planted, the Church in Corinth, he gave a careful
explanation of the rights of the apostles. It was nothing extraordinary but
primarily an explanation that Paul and Barnabas, his travel partner at the
time, had the right to be supported financially for their work in planting
churches and spreading the Gospel (1 Cor 9:4-14). Paul very clearly states
that, “the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive
their living from the gospel” (1 Cor 9:14). However, Paul did not insist on
this right from the Corinthian Church because he didn’t want his message to be
compromised in any way because of monetary considerations or lack thereof.
Paul’s motivation in v. 9 of his letter to the Church in Thessalonica was different.
Paul worked and supported himself while he was with them not because he was
concerned that receiving money to preach the Gospel might dilute the message or
be received with skepticism because money was involved, Paul worked diligently
outside of ministry to support himself to set an example for the way the
Thessalonians were supposed to conduct themselves in their daily lives. “It
would have been more difficult for the church to discipline its members who
lived ataktōs [Gk “disorderly”], at
the expense of their fellows, if they could have pleaded that this was what
their missionaries did. But if those who were entitled to be supported by
others chose rather to support themselves, how much more should those who had
no such entitlement earn their own living!”[3]
This matter is very near and dear to me. Some believe that
I think pastors of the Gospel should earn a living outside of their ministry
efforts because that’s the way I do it. I want to officially go on the record that
pastors of the Gospel deserve to be supported financially and otherwise for
their ministry efforts. Having said that, I want to challenge all pastors to
consider if accepting compensation for their ministry efforts advances the
Gospel message or compromises that message. In some undeveloped or developing
countries, unemployment is so rampant that being compensated for ministry work
actually makes it possible for ministry to exist and the Gospel message to
advance. However, this is usually not the case in fully developed countries
like the United States. Therefore, I want to challenge all pastors in fully
developed countries and especially here in the United States to consider the
message they are advancing and what example they are setting when they accept
compensation for their ministry efforts. I know this is a radical concept
especially in light of the fact that a seminary education, which I insist is
essential for anyone pursuing a ministry vocation, costs tens of thousands of
dollars. Some insist that forfeiting the right to be compensated is completely
unreasonable and that we would immediately suffer a shortfall of ministry
workers if they could not be compensated for their ministry work while at the
same time spending tens of thousands of dollars for a theological education. I
don’t deny that this model is terribly difficult but imagine the character of pastors
who enter ministry knowing in advance that it will be a costly endeavor and
willingly forfeit any opportunity for financial gain resulting from their
ministry. What would their example say to you about them? What would it say to
you about the value of the Gospel message? What would it say to you about the
depth of their love affair with Jesus Christ? How would this model shape the
attitude of people toward the Church and its mission? Something to
consider—maybe a shortfall of “compensated” ministry workers wouldn’t be so
bad.
To think that Paul is dealing with a
new issue resulting from a misunderstanding of his first letter is called into
question when we get to v. 10. If the problem of people being idle and placing
a burden on the rest of the community were a new issue then why did Paul have
to address it when he was previously with them? Instead, I contend that Paul was
reiterating something he taught them previously because it was already a
problem within the community. Paul gets right to the point: If a person isn’t
working then they shouldn’t be rewarded with support at the expense of those
who are working. Note here that Paul isn’t talking about those who are not able
to work. Instead, Paul is talking about those who are unwilling to work and
care for themselves. The implications of Paul’s instruction are far reaching
when you think about it. Consider how Paul often took up offerings from various
churches around the Asia provinces in order to care for persecuted Christians
in Jerusalem and elsewhere who were cut off from any opportunities to earn a
living because of their Christian faith (2 Cor 8:1-5). Now consider how those
offerings and opportunities to care for those who are unable to care for themselves
are limited when the Church is burdened with caring for those who are perfectly
capable of caring for themselves—resources are diverted away from those who
truly need help and go toward those who are perfectly capable of helping
themselves. “Paul directed his disdain toward those who sponge off others,
whatever their stated reasons—misguided asceticism, work beneath their ability
or desire, or too busy. Paul’s point was that no one within the Christian
community should presume upon the charity of others, nor should they shrink
from work. Every person was responsible to provide for himself and his family.
For those capable of work, any other course was wrong.”[4]
How bad was the problem for word to
get back to Paul? Although we don’t know how Paul found out, we learn in v. 11
that Paul has received disturbing news that there were some within the
Christian community who were “idle.” Instead of being productive contributors
to the community, Paul calls them “busybodies.” As if creating a financial
burden on the rest of the community wasn’t enough, these “busybodies” were
causing trouble as well. When I was a kid, one of the things I often heard when
one of my friends got in trouble was that they didn’t have enough to do; they
had too much time on their hands. Of course that probably wasn’t the case every
time my parents said it (which was often), but the principle was that when humanity
is not engaged in society as productive contributors, they tend to be
controlled more easily by their sinful nature and become a burden and
troublemakers to the rest of the community; meddling in other people’s
business, gossips, cynics, critics, complainers, etc. “Paul’s opinion of such
behavior is blunt: rather than ‘working hard,’ they were ‘hardly working.’ It
is not that these people were inactive, but that they were active in an
unproductive, irresponsible, or disruptive manner.”[5]
We don’t fully appreciate the
seriousness of this matter especially here in America where living off the hard
work and productivity of others has become a way of life for tens of millions.
However, the matter is so important that Paul makes his command in v. 12 for
the second time by invoking the authority inherent in the name of Jesus Christ.
Paul is not flippant in his command for those who are idle when he commands
them to get to work! Invoking the name of Jesus Christ, while a form of
profanity in our degraded culture, was serious business for Paul and nothing to
be trifled with. Paul demands that those who are idle are to get to work and
take care of themselves. “Paul’s interest in this section is not primarily in
the economic policy of the church. It is, rather, in mutual responsibility
within the church, which some Thessalonians were threatening by being
disorderly and meddlesome. His own behavior was exemplary for its orderliness
and self-giving concern for others, and constituted the tradition by which they
were to conduct themselves.”[6]
Paul does something very important
in v. 13 when he commands the “brothers” to continue doing what was right.
Based on the grammatical structure of the verse, Paul is certainly talking to
those not included among those he previously identified as being idle
troublemakers. Paul wanted to head off any confusion about whether or not the
congregation should continue helping those in need. It is human nature to
resist helping people at all after being taken advantage of over and over
again. However, Paul wants to make sure they understand that even though some
people have taken advantage of their hard work and generosity, there are still
those who are truly in need of help and Paul is encouraging them to continue to
help those who are truly in need. “These hard-working believers should not let
the idlers cause them to become dispirited in their work. Paul knew that the
believers could become discouraged when they tried to do right and received no
word of thanks or saw no tangible results.”[7] This is
really not that unusual if you think about it. It can be very frustrating to
work diligently to care for yourself and your family and to give to those who
are less fortunate just to find out that some of those “less fortunate” are
actually able to care for themselves but refuse to do so for whatever reason.
It can turn even the most generous person into a cynic and a cynical person can
be just as destructive to a Church community or overall society as a lazy
person. Paul is making a universal ethical command that all those who are able
to work and contribute to the productivity of the community should do so and
all those who work should continue to care not only for themselves but also for
those who are truly unable to work and care for themselves.
Paul does not shy away from taking
or insisting that the churches under his care take corrective measures to deal
with problems within the community of believers. Specifically, Paul is very
fond of disassociating with offenders (cf. 1 Cor 5:9, 11; Tit 3:10; Rom 16:17).
Paul’s objective in this method of discipline is twofold in many cases: 1) It
isolates the offender so that he or she can consider their actions and/or
attitudes and decide if they will repent and be readmitted to the believing
community or continue their inappropriate attitude and/or behavior and remain
outside the community; and/or 2) Protect the innocent within the community from
becoming contaminated by sinful actions and attitudes. The goal is correcting
sinful behavior and creating a barrier to protect, encourage and elevate proper
behavior. “The church should take note of
him, recognizing who the person was and taking special note of him. Having
identified and marked who the disorderly are, the next step that the church
should take is: Do not associate with him.
The command means that they should not mingle with such people. At times this
verb appears in contexts where a group is exhorted not to associate with others
so they will not be defiled morally or cultically. But here the church is
called to disassociate from the unrepentant brothers with a redemptive goal in
mind.”[8]
Paul doesn’t want the community to
discard the offenders altogether. Paul seems to soften his position somewhat;
understanding that the situation could quickly become volatile. Those who are
offended might turn their backs on those who have offended them and what is
intended to be corrective discipline turns into hurt feelings and
irreconcilable division. Instead, Paul says that the offenders should be
treated as family. “The point Paul wishes to make does not include precise
details about how to deal with a recalcitrant individual or where admonition
should take place. Instead Paul attempts to moderate the attitudes of the
community toward the person and give the community a positive action to carry
out in an effort to restore the individual to fellowship. By this Paul implies
that exclusion from the community should not be understood as irrevocable.”[9]
A Balanced Perspective
Some will see in this teaching the
freedom to build and retain wealth for selfish gain since everyone has a duty
to care for themselves. But if living off the hard work of others is one
extreme, building and retaining wealth for selfish gain is the other extreme. Instead,
in Paul’s first letter to Timothy, he provides a perspective that balances against
the instruction contained in our subject text. In Paul’s letter to Timothy he
writes:
1 Timothy 6:17-19
17Command those who are rich in this present world not to be
arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain,
but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything
for our enjoyment. 18Command them to do good, to be
rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take
hold of the life that is truly life.
Application
Addressing this problem can be very
difficult particularly in societies where the Church has relinquished its
responsibility to care for those in need to the State as is the case here in
America. Adding to the problem is the fact that reliance on the State has been
going on for such a long time that it’s hard to imagine how effective it would
be to remove someone from the Church community especially since they could just
go down the street and be accepted into the next community without question. Of
course, this reveals another more complicated matter with respect to constantly
changing church communities. However, that is not the focus of this particular
lesson. Nevertheless, the Church can’t simply throw up its hands and relinquish
even more of its authority and responsibility. Instead, perhaps the Church
needs to engage in some hard teachings and lessons about the importance and
value of hard work and diligence. Additionally, I think it is time that pastors
confront the people in their congregations they know are purposely milking
resources from the State or any other charitable organization that will give
them free handouts. People who are capable of working yet refuse to work cannot
simply come and go freely among the Church community without question. There
are some people who are fully accepted in our Church communities who are living
better on free handouts from the State and other charitable organizations than
those who diligently work hard to care for themselves and their families. This
is not a healthy Church community; they are pretending that nothing is wrong.
There is an underlying resentment that is unspoken yet is always festering like
a slow growing cancer that kills sincere communal love. People who are
supported by the State are at ease at Church because they don’t associate the
aid and support they receive as creating a burden on the Church. However, the
only difference between what was occurring in the Thessalonian Church and in
our churches, at least here in America, is that the money earned by those in
the Church who are diligent and hardworking today is taxed by the State who
then redistributes that money to those who are not diligent nor hardworking as
they see fit. In exchange, the State buys the allegiance of those to whom they
distribute those resources. Of course the Church is happily codependent because
the same State does not require the Church to pay anything to the State for the
money the Church receives. In return, the State buys the Church’s silence about
any illegal or immoral activity engaged in by the State. It is a happy and evil
cycle where supreme allegiance is paid to the State (or to money and other
considerations received from the State) instead of to God.
Something must change if the Church
is going to have a hand in solving this problem in our churches specifically
and perhaps influence the behavior of our society generally. In order to do
that, perhaps some dramatic measures are in order. Perhaps we need to take a
closer look at Paul’s model and see if following it more closely might ignite
the renewal of a stronger work ethic within our Christian communities and a
greater allegiance and dependence on God as opposed to the State. It won’t be
easy but like eradicating cancer it will take more than simply applying a band-aid
and calling it good. Paul said that while he was with the Thessalonians he
didn’t burden them with any of his personal needs even though he had the right
to do so. Instead, he said he worked and toiled day and night while he was with
them in order to care for himself. Instead of focusing our attention primarily
on those sitting in our pews, perhaps it is time our pastors followed Paul’s
example to the Thessalonians more literally. Oh I can hear pastors everywhere
howling already. I suspect most pastors will argue that my suggestion is simply
unreasonable; unrealistic; they work hard for what they earn! They’ve spent
thousands of dollars on and invested thousands of hours in a theological
education and not receiving compensation for their ministry efforts is
untenable. Mind you, I’m not saying pastors don’t work hard for what they earn
nor am I say that they are not entitled
to be paid for that hard work. I also want to reiterate what I said earlier:
Payment for ministry efforts is essential for some pastors in countries where
employment is otherwise scarce. What I am saying is if we want to inaugurate radical
change to deeply entrenched destructive behavior in our churches specifically
and in our society more generally, then pastors must be prepared to take
drastic measures to reverse that destructive behavior by their own example
first. And that’s not the only radical change I’m suggesting. I suggest that
churches everywhere sever any and all financial ties, arrangements, agreements
or affiliations it has to receive benefits from the State. The Church must not
be silenced or encumbered in any way because of any financial benefit or other
consideration it receives from the State or from anyone else for that matter (see
previous lesson, The Church is Silence
for 30 Pieces of Silver at: http://seredinski.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-church-is-silenced-for-30-pieces-of.html).
There is another reason why this dramatic shift is so important: Our churches
should be an example of behavior for the rest of society. However, if those in
our churches behave just like those outside our churches, what does that say
about our churches? In fact, if our church organizations themselves receive
financial considerations from the State, what kind of example is that for our
society and culture? If we want to influence the behavior of our society and
culture then shouldn’t we as pastors make sure our institutions aren’t guilty
of accepting financial handouts and other considerations that we condemn in the
people who attend our churches? I fully realize that what I’m suggesting is
radical. In fact, it may be too radical to be considered reasonable or
acceptable for many of our churches today—especially our churches here in
America. However, I contend that until pastors begin supporting themselves in
some way other than being compensated by their churches and until we sever all
financial ties between our churches and the State then we will never earn the
right to look into the eyes of those who attend our churches and confront them
with the question, are you Pulling Your Weight?
[1]
David A. deSilva, An Introduction to the
New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation, (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), pp. 548-549.
[2] W.
Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor’s
Greek Testament, Vol. 4, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1983), p. 52.
[3] F.
F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians—Word
Biblical Commentary, (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), p. 206.
[4]
Knute Larson, I & II Thessalonians, I
& II Timolthy, Titus, Philemon—Holman New Testament Commentary,
(Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2000), p. 128.
[5]
Michael W. Holmes, 1 & 2
Thessalonians—The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1998), p. 273.
[6] Abraham
J. Malherbe, The Letters to the
Thessalonians—The Anchor Bible, (New Haven, CT & London, England: Yale
University Press, 2000), p. 457.
[7]
Bruce Barton, Philip Comfort, Grant Osborne, Linda K. Taylor, Dave Veerman, Life Application New Testament Commentary,
(Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), pp. 923-924.
[8] Gene
L. Green, The Letters to the
Thessalonians—The Pillar New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002), p. 354.
[9] Charles
A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the
Thessalonians—The New International Greek Testament Commentary, (Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), p. 290.
No comments:
Post a Comment