Piper has answered Adrian's question: Wright is not preaching another gospel

A few weeks ago I wrote about what is wrong with John Piper’s theology. But in fact it turns out that in at least one respect his beliefs have been misinterpreted by Adrian Warnock.

I mentioned in my post a post of Adrian’s entitled John Piper: Is N. T. Wright Preaching Another Gospel? (See also the 31 comments on this post, now deleted from Adrian’s blog but saved here.) This was part of Adrian’s series on Piper’s book The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright, available online free of charge (PDF format).

Adrian’s title suggests that Piper is claiming that Wright is “preaching another gospel”, and the content of the post seems to confirm this suggestion. But in fact, as I will show here, this suggestion is incorrect: Piper does not consider Wright’s teaching to be “another gospel”.

Now I have not read Piper’s book. I have read several reviews and extracts from it, none of which have convinced me that this is a book I should read. Instead I would like, when time permits, to read critically more of Wright’s own work.

Among the extracts which I have read is this one, part of what has just been posted by Claude Mariottini, which is taken from the Introduction to the book, p.15 (in the PDF).

My conviction concerning N. T. Wright is not that he is under the curse of Galatians 1:8–9, but that his portrayal of the gospel—and of the doctrine of justification in particular—is so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognize as biblically faithful.

Now Galatians 1:9 specifically applies the curse in question to anybody who preaches another gospel:

If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let that person be under God’s curse!

Galatians 1:9 (TNIV)

So, since Piper says that Wright is not under this curse, and since he accepts these words as authoritative, that implies that he believes that Wright is not preaching a gospel different from what Paul preached.

If Adrian had read and understood this passage from the introduction to the book he was writing, he would have been able to answer his own question, and with a clear negative. But in fact, although in his post Adrian does not give a specific answer to the question, his own words (not Piper’s) clearly invite his readers to infer a positive answer:

That difference in wording, which led to the Reformation itself, almost sounds like a minor nuance when Wright comes along and sweeps the whole concept of an alien righteousness away!

In other words, Adrian implies that Wright’s teaching is more different from the true gospel than was the allegedly distorted version of it which led to the Reformation. Would any of Adrian’s readers imagine that he was answering “No” to his own question?

But the post did leave open one issue, which I raised in one of the comments I saved (10 November, 2007 14:11):

Can we clarify one thing, has Piper used the words “another gospel” in relation to Wright’s views, or are these words only Adrian’s?

In reply Adrian wrote (10 November, 2007 14:39):

The words were mine and intended as a question. Piper does refer to the galatians passage in his foreward but does not directly apply it to Wright

Well, Piper does quote Galatians 1:8 on page 14, the second page of the Introduction, without direct application to Wright. But on the very next page of the same Introduction, in the words quoted above, he refers again to the same passage, this time with direct application to Wright. So Adrian is not correct in saying that Piper “does not directly apply it to Wright”. Did Adrian make this error because he stopped reading the Introduction at this point? Did he sound off about this matter without having read beyond the first two pages of text (not counting the acknowledgements) in the book? Possibly. It seems highly unlikely that he would stop at the section heading “N. T. Wright”. But that is the only explanation I can give for his actions other than deliberate falsification of the evidence.

As Adrian had reported elsewhere, “at all times [Piper] interacts with Wright with amazing graciousness” – unlike his attitude to Steve Chalke, about whose writing he said (reported by Adrian):

With one cynical stroke of the pen, the triumph of God’s love over God’s wrath in the death of his beloved Son is blasphemed

By contrast, when writing about Wright Piper is very careful not even to allow room for the suggestion that he is “preaching another gospel”. It is Adrian who made this suggestion, and in doing so he misrepresented Piper and distorted his carefully nuanced message.

It seems to me that Adrian has tried to make Piper’s book into something which Piper had never intended it to be, a judgment of NT Wright as a false teacher – a verdict which Adrian probably considers justified because Wright defended Chalke as well as because he dared to question traditional understandings of the atonement, in the process appealing to true Sola Scriptura rather than to Sola Traditio. For it seems that in Adrian’s simplistic worldview every Christian teacher must be firmly in one or other of two camps: that of good Reformed teachers whose teaching must be accepted without question as more or less infallible; or that of false teachers who must be refuted and opposed in every possible way, with even falsification and deception justified by the greater good of overthrowing their heresies.

Well, I am pleased to say that Piper is a better man than this. While he clearly disagrees with Wright, and explains why (at least I presume he does, in the main part of the book which I have not read), he does not write off Wright as an irredeemable heretic. Instead, still in the Introduction (pp.15-16), he writes with great generosity of spirit:

As critical as this book is of Wright’s understanding of the gospel and justification, the seriousness and scope of the book is a testimony to the stature of his scholarship and the extent of his influence. I am thankful for his strong commitment to Scripture as his final authority, his defense and celebration of the resurrection of the Son of God, his vindication of the deity of Christ, his belief in the virgin birth of Jesus, his biblical disapproval of homosexual conduct, and the consistent way he presses us to see the big picture of God’s universal purpose for all peoples through the covenant with Abraham—and more.

Would that every Christian teacher treated his or her opponents in this way.

0 thoughts on “Piper has answered Adrian's question: Wright is not preaching another gospel

  1. Peter,

    This is a very interesting discussion. Both Piper and Wright are well known, but I have to confess that I am not very familiar with their writings. I hope to read Piper’s book during the Christmas break and maybe write a post on this issue.

    Thank you for the link.

    Claude Mariottini

  2. Hello, Peter.

    If I understand your post correctly, you are disagreeing with some author “Adrian” who accused Piper of accusing Wright of preaching “another gospel” and you found solace in the quote I produced on Marittini’s site that seemed to invalidate that accusation, yes? You further found reason to rejoice in the idea that Piper was placing higher priority dogmas such as the “deity of Christ” before what he saw as a misunderstanding of the gospel, yes?

    If so, where do I begin?

    First of all, placing a dogma like the “deity of Christ” above the correct interpretation of the means of human justification may sound noble to many “Christians” but to me, it smacks of croneyism. It says that Piper is not a seeker of truth but rather Wright’s partner in crime!

    Simply put…

    * Piper’s ideas are unbiblical
    * his devotion to Trinity dogma, while essential to gaining any favor at all in the Catholic-Protestant debacle, is NEVER mentioned in scripture (except in horrific was, as representing the antichrist) – to make it of PARAMOUNT importance is to openly confess that you are a slut for the dogma, and no truth seeker yourself (which I have discovered in other contexts)
    * Piper’s whole argument rests in a bogus concept of an alleged “imputation of the righteousness of Christ” – which is false. The whole of the NT speaks only of “the righteousness of God” – not “of Christ.” There is no such “imputation.”

    Anyway, I thought I would check in… give you a deserved dope-slap… and then point anyone interested in the discussion on Mariottini’s blog:

    http://www.claudemariottini.com/blog/2007/12/john-piper-on-n-t-wright.html?ext-ref=comm-sub-email

    I should also point you to my book, “Bible Shockers!” which you can read online (with free registration) at http://bibleshockers.com

    Look for the chapter “Sins are forgiven, not paid for”

    Bill Ross
    http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
    http://debunkingislam.blogspot.com
    http://bibleshockers.com

  3. Hello, Peter.

    If I understand your post correctly, you are disagreeing with some author “Adrian” who accused Piper of accusing Wright of preaching “another gospel” and you found solace in the quote I produced on Marittini’s site that seemed to invalidate that accusation, yes? You further found reason to rejoice in the idea that Piper was placing higher priority dogmas such as the “deity of Christ” before what he saw as a misunderstanding of the gospel, yes?

    If so, where do I begin?

    First of all, placing a dogma like the “deity of Christ” above the correct interpretation of the means of human justification may sound noble to many “Christians” but to me, it smacks of croneyism. It says that Piper is not a seeker of truth but rather Wright’s partner in crime!

    Simply put…

    * Piper’s ideas are unbiblical
    * his devotion to Trinity dogma, while essential to gaining any favor at all in the Catholic-Protestant debacle, is NEVER mentioned in scripture (except in horrific was, as representing the antichrist) – to make it of PARAMOUNT importance is to openly confess that you are a slut for the dogma, and no truth seeker yourself (which I have discovered in other contexts)
    * Piper’s whole argument rests in a bogus concept of an alleged “imputation of the righteousness of Christ” – which is false. The whole of the NT speaks only of “the righteousness of God” – not “of Christ.” There is no such “imputation.”

    Anyway, I thought I would check in… give you a deserved dope-slap… and then point anyone interested in the discussion on Mariottini’s blog:

    http://www.claudemariottini.com/blog/2007/12/john-piper-on-n-t-wright.html?ext-ref=comm-sub-email

    I should also point you to my book, “Bible Shockers!” which you can read online (with free registration) at http://bibleshockers.com

    Look for the chapter “Sins are forgiven, not paid for”

    Bill Ross
    http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
    http://debunkingislam.blogspot.com
    http://bibleshockers.com

  4. Hello, Peter.

    If I understand your post correctly, you are disagreeing with some author “Adrian” who accused Piper of accusing Wright of preaching “another gospel” and you found solace in the quote I produced on Marittini’s site that seemed to invalidate that accusation, yes? You further found reason to rejoice in the idea that Piper was placing higher priority dogmas such as the “deity of Christ” before what he saw as a misunderstanding of the gospel, yes?

    If so, where do I begin?

    First of all, placing a dogma like the “deity of Christ” above the correct interpretation of the means of human justification may sound noble to many “Christians” but to me, it smacks of croneyism. It says that Piper is not a seeker of truth but rather Wright’s partner in crime!

    Simply put…

    * Piper’s ideas are unbiblical
    * his devotion to Trinity dogma, while essential to gaining any favor at all in the Catholic-Protestant debacle, is NEVER mentioned in scripture (except in horrific was, as representing the antichrist) – to make it of PARAMOUNT importance is to openly confess that you are a slut for the dogma, and no truth seeker yourself (which I have discovered in other contexts)
    * Piper’s whole argument rests in a bogus concept of an alleged “imputation of the righteousness of Christ” – which is false. The whole of the NT speaks only of “the righteousness of God” – not “of Christ.” There is no such “imputation.”

    Anyway, I thought I would check in… give you a deserved dope-slap… and then point anyone interested in the discussion on Mariottini’s blog:

    http://www.claudemariottini.com/blog/2007/12/john-piper-on-n-t-wright.html?ext-ref=comm-sub-email

    I should also point you to my book, “Bible Shockers!” which you can read online (with free registration) at http://bibleshockers.com

    Look for the chapter “Sins are forgiven, not paid for”

    Bill Ross
    http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
    http://debunkingislam.blogspot.com
    http://bibleshockers.com

  5. Hello, Peter.

    If I understand your post correctly, you are disagreeing with some author “Adrian” who accused Piper of accusing Wright of preaching “another gospel” and you found solace in the quote I produced on Marittini’s site that seemed to invalidate that accusation, yes? You further found reason to rejoice in the idea that Piper was placing higher priority dogmas such as the “deity of Christ” before what he saw as a misunderstanding of the gospel, yes?

    If so, where do I begin?

    First of all, placing a dogma like the “deity of Christ” above the correct interpretation of the means of human justification may sound noble to many “Christians” but to me, it smacks of croneyism. It says that Piper is not a seeker of truth but rather Wright’s partner in crime!

    Simply put…

    * Piper’s ideas are unbiblical
    * his devotion to Trinity dogma, while essential to gaining any favor at all in the Catholic-Protestant debacle, is NEVER mentioned in scripture (except in horrific was, as representing the antichrist) – to make it of PARAMOUNT importance is to openly confess that you are a slut for the dogma, and no truth seeker yourself (which I have discovered in other contexts)
    * Piper’s whole argument rests in a bogus concept of an alleged “imputation of the righteousness of Christ” – which is false. The whole of the NT speaks only of “the righteousness of God” – not “of Christ.” There is no such “imputation.”

    Anyway, I thought I would check in… give you a deserved dope-slap… and then point anyone interested in the discussion on Mariottini’s blog:

    http://www.claudemariottini.com/blog/2007/12/john-piper-on-n-t-wright.html?ext-ref=comm-sub-email

    I should also point you to my book, “Bible Shockers!” which you can read online (with free registration) at http://bibleshockers.com

    Look for the chapter “Sins are forgiven, not paid for”

    Bill Ross
    http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
    http://debunkingislam.blogspot.com
    http://bibleshockers.com

  6. Hello, Peter.

    If I understand your post correctly, you are disagreeing with some author “Adrian” who accused Piper of accusing Wright of preaching “another gospel” and you found solace in the quote I produced on Marittini’s site that seemed to invalidate that accusation, yes? You further found reason to rejoice in the idea that Piper was placing higher priority dogmas such as the “deity of Christ” before what he saw as a misunderstanding of the gospel, yes?

    If so, where do I begin?

    First of all, placing a dogma like the “deity of Christ” above the correct interpretation of the means of human justification may sound noble to many “Christians” but to me, it smacks of croneyism. It says that Piper is not a seeker of truth but rather Wright’s partner in crime!

    Simply put…

    * Piper’s ideas are unbiblical
    * his devotion to Trinity dogma, while essential to gaining any favor at all in the Catholic-Protestant debacle, is NEVER mentioned in scripture (except in horrific was, as representing the antichrist) – to make it of PARAMOUNT importance is to openly confess that you are a slut for the dogma, and no truth seeker yourself (which I have discovered in other contexts)
    * Piper’s whole argument rests in a bogus concept of an alleged “imputation of the righteousness of Christ” – which is false. The whole of the NT speaks only of “the righteousness of God” – not “of Christ.” There is no such “imputation.”

    Anyway, I thought I would check in… give you a deserved dope-slap… and then point anyone interested in the discussion on Mariottini’s blog:

    http://www.claudemariottini.com/blog/2007/12/john-piper-on-n-t-wright.html?ext-ref=comm-sub-email

    I should also point you to my book, “Bible Shockers!” which you can read online (with free registration) at http://bibleshockers.com

    Look for the chapter “Sins are forgiven, not paid for”

    Bill Ross
    http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
    http://debunkingislam.blogspot.com
    http://bibleshockers.com

  7. Claude and Bill, thank you for your comments.

    Bill, I was not referring to your quote in a comment on Claude’s post, but to Claude’s quote from which I took an extract. Also you are wrong in suggesting that I give paramount importance to the doctrine of the Trinity – it is a doctrine I hold to, but on an equal level with others. Now I will allow your comment to remain because it does make a good point about the weakness of Piper’s argument about imputation. But please can I ask you to refrain in future from using offensive words like “slut” about me or anyone else.

  8. Peter, have you listened to the interview with N.T. Wright from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary?

    There is a great discussion about Chalk.

    Also in the interview, Wright says that Piper sent him an advance copy of the book a year ago, asking for comments because Piper wanted to be as fair as possible to Wright, a very commendable act on Piper’s part. He gained a good chunk of respect for that in my book.

    http://saidatsouthern.com/nt-wright-interview-mp3/

  9. Peter,

    I’ve been stumbling upon your blog for a while, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that you’ve touched upon this topic. I’ve been been doing something of a series on the issue of Piper’s critique of Wright on my blog, and I’d be honored if you can let me know what you think. There is also another interesting discussion going on in Trevin Wax’s blog, Kingdom People. Trevin also had a recent interview with Wright on the subject of Piper’s book, the transcript of which can also be found on his site, along with a link to the audio version.

    Like I said, thanks for engaging in this topic.

    Grace and Peace,
    Raffi Shahinian

  10. Thanks Peter for publicizing this. I’ve never been a huge fan of Piper but the way he has communicated his disagreement with Piper seems quite graceful.

    I have very enjoyed reading Wright and I would recommend his books to you, Peter. I started on the popular level “What St. Paul Really Said” which was a very good taster of his deeper academic-style works, which I have subsequently read some of.

    Bill Ross, you need to calm down and have a nice cup of tea before you post 🙂 I checked out your blog and you seem quite confused about what the biblical writers actually believed about God versus their understanding of cosmology. I would suggest you yourself read some N T Wright!

  11. Mike, I did listen to the NT Wright interview. I also respect Piper for letting Wright interact with his book, but I suspect that he still did not understand his writings properly.

    Raffi, I think you are referring to the same interview. Thank you for letting me know about your blog, this is the correct URL. I will have a look at it now.

    Alastair, indeed I need to read more Wright. I know Bill Ross from another forum, and his indignant confusion will probably take more than a cup of tea to solve. He has not so far tried to comment here again.

  12. Raffi, again thanks for the link to your blog. I really appreciate what you have written, at least in the four posts on this subject. It is indeed vital to see the big picture, and the right one, which in this case seems to be the Wright one. If Piper’s big picture is in fact limited to individual salvation, ignoring the cosmic redemption of Romans 8 etc, then it is the wrong picture. And if Piper (despite presumably reading Wright’s response to his draft) has failed to grasp this basic difference, then he shows how far he is from being in the same class as Wright.

  13. it seems that in Adrian’s simplistic worldview every Christian teacher must be firmly in one or other of two camps: that of good Reformed teachers whose teaching must be accepted without question as more or less infallible; or that of false teachers who must be refuted and opposed in every possible way, with even falsification and deception justified by the greater good of overthrowing their heresies.

    It’s funny to see language like this in a post that’s purportedly about being charitable to other people Rather than the much more obvious conclusion that Adrian simply missed this and took Piper to be unsure on this issue (which is all Adrian said), you want to insist on making him say something he didn’t say, all the while complaining that Adrian is making Piper say something he didn’t say.

  14. Jeremy, I would expect you to know enough about the philosophy of communication to realise the probably intended effect of what Adrian was saying. If (hypothetically) I wrote a blog post entitled “Is Bush evil?” and filled the post with all kinds of misleading quotes etc painting Bush in a very bad light, I might then be able to say that I didn’t actually call Bush evil, but in fact I communicated very clearly my (hypothetical) belief that he is. That is what Adrian has done. I cannot be sure that he has done it deliberately, but he did not deny it when challenged on the matter. If he claims that he does things like this by accident, he is still as morally guilty as the person who fires bullets at random in a public place and when he hits someone claims it was only an accident.

    As for the words you quoted, I have plenty of evidence for them from the attitudes and actions of Adrian over the more than a year I have been reading his blog. I have not seen any sign of any teacher being considered “grey”, they are all either perfectly black or perfectly white, and there is plenty of falsification, or at the very least, plenty of selective quotation and refusal to note contradictory evidence, in his portrayals of the black teachers.

  15. Peter, I read Adrian’s post, and it seems very tame to me. He asks a question and then presents some considerations without drawing a conclusion. The considerations are:

    1. N.T. Wright denies a view that both Protestants and Catholics affirm.
    2. The resulting seems (at face value, anyway) to take him, in that respect, more away from what most Protestants consider orthodoxy.
    3. Protestants have traditionally condemned Catholicism for committing the Galatian heresy.

    Now there are plenty of places one can go with this. The evidence Adrian presents shows that in some respects Wright’s view is closer to historical Protestantism than Catholic views could hope to be, but it also shows that Wright’s view is further in one respect from historic Protestantism than even Catholic views are. That makes the question in the post’s title a very interesting one. What counts as committing the Galatian heresy? Do you have to say all the things the Galatian heretics said? If not, then the answer is no. But if you say one of the things they happened to say, and you take it further than Roman Catholics do, it certainly raises questions.

    The pragmatics of Adrian’s question seem to me to leave us facing those issues but without indicating what stance he wants to take on how to sort them out. He’s simply wondering what counts as committing the Galatian heresy. He’s worried, but he’s not taking a stance, and he’s raising the question so others can chime in. It turns out he missed the place where Piper himself does chime in, taking a negative answer. When D.A. Carson presented this issue in his talks on the New Perspective, he hesitantly said that he doesn’t think so either.

    I tend to agree with them. I don’t think even Roman Catholics commit the Galatian heresy. My view is that you need to hold all the components of the Galatian heresy to be worthy of its condemnation, and Catholicism explicitly holds something that stops short of that. I think their view is false and very dangerous in terms of how it leads believers to think about their relationship with God, and it might lead people to accept the full Galatian heresy. I worry about that with Wright as well, although I worry about it less than I do with Roman Catholics.

    But I can understand fully why Adrian would raise the question he does, and I don’t see it as making any claim. He raises the question and presents some evidence to take into account, but he doesn’t answer it, and I don’t see anything in his post that assumes people will draw one particular conclusion given that the evidence he presents includes factors that support going one way among factors that support going the other way.

    By the way. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Adrian thinks Reformed theologians like Piper and Grudem are infallible. I’ve seen him criticize Piper consistently for being merely open to charismatic gifts, for example. He happens to agree with what they say a lot, and he happens to find their arguments convincing, but that’s not the same as being infallible. I find that description of him to be very unfair and deeply offensive, at least on par with the kind of behavior you see in him that you don’t like with respect to how he treats people like Wright and Chalke. Adrian may well give the benefit of the doubt in an unfair way to people he agrees with and not to those he doesn’t, but I see the same thing from you with the various parties switched. You extend the benefit of the doubt to Wright and Chalke, but I don’t see the same kind of charity with Piper, Grudem, or Adrian.

  16. Jeremy, I don’t want to argue every detail of this. And I thank you for making the good point that I am not being entirely charitable to Adrian, in similar ways to how he is uncharitable to his opponents. I need to withdraw some of my criticism of Piper because it turned out to be based on misrepresentation of the facts, and that is the main point of this post.

    But I do want to deal with a few points.

    Firstly, I don’t think anyone is speaking about a specific “Galatian heresy”. Paul condemns those who preach any other gospel, not just the specific other gospel which was being preached in Galatia. Wright’s position and the Roman Catholic one is thankfully not the same as that specific false gospel. But that does not make either free from the curse. Rather, the gospel which is free from the curse is the one which accords with Paul’s teaching. Wright’s certainly does, as Piper confirms; as for the Roman Catholics, I take no position here.

    The other flaw in your presentation is that you ignore the fact that Adrian claims to present Piper’s position, not his own. Piper may teach that Wright’s position is further from orthodoxy than is the RC one (although I suspect that is based on a misunderstanding of terminology, and Wright’s refusal to endorse either the Catholic or the Protestant preferred form of words). But Piper explicitly rejects the conclusion from that, even if that may be a logical one, that Wright is preaching another gospel. Nevertheless, Adrian’s post leaves the reader thinking that Piper does come to that conclusion. That makes it a misleading post.

    Now Adrian would not be the first book reviewer to miss something major in a book they are reading and so make an error in their summary of it. I have to accept the possibility that this might have happened in this case, although it seems unlikely considering that the text he is supposed to have missed is on the third page of the Introduction and immediately under the heading “N.T. Wright”.

    But such a reviewer, when the error is pointed out, would normally correct their review with apologies. Instead, Adrian’s reaction when I pointed out deficiencies in his review was to close his blog to comments, indicating his refusal to be accountable to the truth, and the truth of my suggestion that when it comes to false teachers he considers “even falsification and deception justified by the greater good of overthrowing their heresies”.

  17. I don’t see Adrian claiming to present Piper’s position. He presents some information Piper gives, including Piper’s characterization of where the historic Reformation position differs from Wright’s view, and he goes on to comment in his own words (not saying that it’s Piper’s view) about how these two views stand in relation to the Catholic view. Everything Adrian says after the Piper quote falls under his “what is striking about this” heading, which suggests to me that he’s offering his own observations now and not just presenting Piper. This is what I often do on my blog. I’ll present something someone else says, often giving an exact quote, and then I’ll go on to say what seems interesting to me about it in a way that isn’t just repeating the other person’s view. I took Adrian to be doing exactly that.

    I confess that I don’t understand Adrian’s reaction to comments. I’d prefer myself to respond or issue a correction. But I can understand why he doesn’t appreciate the tone and the misrepresentations in those comments. I haven’t had the time to look at all the posts and comments yet, but this particular one stands out to me as not being problematic to the degree you have treated it.

  18. Jeremy, can I remind you of the full title of Adrian’s post, “John Piper: Is N. T. Wright Preaching Another Gospel?”, and the way it starts:

    We are continuing to look at John Piper’s elegant exposure of the heart of the differences between his position and that of N. T. Wright’s.

    Yes, the last part is Adrian’s thoughts, but obviously intended to be based on what he has read from Piper. There is not the slightest suggestion (of the kind that you often make on your blog) that in implying that Wright is preaching another gospel Adrian is taking a different position from Piper. If that was Adrian’s intention, he should have clarified it in response to comments. Instead, there is no suggestion, anywhere in the series I think, that Adrian is taking a different position from Piper on this.

  19. Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Justification: metaphor or the real thing?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image