Christoph writes . . .

Dear Editor:

I would like to thank you for your lengthy review on my publication, A Plea for Purity: Sex, Marriage and God. I am especially happy that you did not only praise this publication. I like it when people really stick to the truth and do not try to flatter people in order to win human praise.

Thank you especially for your last sentence: “The primary authority for all we say and do must come from, and be rooted in, Scripture.” There could be no sentence truer than that.

Do the readers of Cornerstone realize that Peter Kreeft from Boston College said: “Pretty close, I think, to what Jesus would say if he were to write a book about sex. And probably as socially acceptable as He was.” The question we need to ask: “Is the statement of Mr. Kreeft true or not?” If Peter’s statement is true, then I can understand your statement in your review which says: “But when he makes statements which are at variance with most of the evangelical Christian body’s interpretation of Scripture, he can only damage the reader, and his prophetic stance seems an empty posture.”

Dear readers, with whom should we be at variance? Is it with Jesus and His Scriptures, which any child can understand? Or is it with most of the evangelical Christian body’s interpretation? Personally, I would rather stand with Jesus and do my utmost not to oppose Him.

If anyone can teach me that Jesus does allow remarriage after divorce, I will change my views immediately. I have been a marriage counselor for over thirty years. I have counseled people in and out of the [Bruderhof] communities. I have counseled many people in prison, there mostly because of a broken home in which they grew up. Prisoners are a fruit of our permissive attitude towards marriage and sex.

The readers should also know that I do not have to defend my book, A Plea for Purity. It has been endorsed by the Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal John O’Connor, Bob Fryling, Jay Kesler just to mention a few. Within the first three months it entered a third printing of over eighteen thousand copies. We are now negotiating with publishers to translate this book and publish it in German, Spanish and Russian in India, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Even the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former ruler of Communist Russia, Gorbachev, wants to review this book and have it published in Russia.

Why then is there such an interest in this book if it is at variance with most of the evangelical Christian body’s interpretation? If any reader of Cornerstone could help me answer this question I would be most delighted.

Cornerstone replies . . .

Dear Christoph,

Thank you for your courteous reply to our review of A Plea for Purity. We are glad to dialogue with you on the few issues that troubled us, and we want to begin by affirming that we are in agreement with a great portion of what you have written in Purity. The divine creation of mankind, the sanctity of marriage, the shame and chaos caused by sexual sin, the importance of raising our children with godly examples of purity and moderation, the dangers of contemporary “dating” relationships, the sinfulness of homosexuality, and so much more, are things we wholeheartedly support.

Though we disagree on a few points (such as the sinfulness of remarriage, birth control, and marital cunnilingus), we support your efforts to stem the rising tide of impurity and godlessness. Permit us to answer your questions and to address the propriety of remarriage according to Scripture. We hope you will bear with us, as we do not mean to take advantage or overwhelm your question by a long reply. Yet we have seen many people struggling with the consequences of a “hard stance” on divorce and remarriage, even to the point of breaking up living Christian marriages to make the husband chase after an unsaved, long-divorced former wife. We pray that not only you but others will be receptive to the biblical evidence we will present herein.

Your book espouses two Roman Catholic distinctives on marital relationships: i.e., remarriage after divorce is sinful and birth control is almost always sinful. (It also promotes moral views on which Catholics and Protestants both agree.) Thus it is not surprising that Catholic leaders like Cardinal Ratzinger, Peter Kreeft, or the Pope would be happy to give it an endorsement. While it is impressive that your book is being widely circulated, this is not a good way to measure the soundness of one’s teachings. (For instance, if we wrote a book promoting Purgatory, we could probably get an endorsement from Catholic leaders, too.)

The point is simply this: while it’s nice to have public opinion on one’s side, ultimately this is not a test for truth. And you are right to say that it would be better to be on Jesus’ side in a matter than to stand with “most of the evangelical Christian body” and be found opposing Christ.

You said you would change your views “if anyone can teach me that Jesus does allow remarriage after divorce.” We believe the Bible does indeed teach this, so permit us to expand on the biblical evidence that leads to this conclusion.

We both know that since “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16), it is not necessary to restrict ourselves strictly to the words of Jesus as recorded by the Gospel writers. Since God the Son inspired all of Holy Scripture, this means that the words of Moses, James, Jeremiah, or Paul also represent the teachings of Jesus--assuming that we are interpreting them in their context.

Our overall approach to Scripture is that the New Testament supersedes, interprets, and explains the Old; that narrative incidents are not imperative commands; that grammatical and historic context must be used to interpret Scripture passages; and that difficult or brief passages must never be used to overthrow long passages or biblical principles of great clarity. We will look at the evidence which permits remarriage first from Old Testament passages and then from the New Testament.

The first hurdle we have to cross concerns how to approach the Old Testament generally. Should Old Testament law be viewed as giving a “lower” requirement and the New Testament a “higher” requirement of believers, à la the Sermon on the Mount? Or should the Old Testament be viewed as giving God’s law while the New Testament gives God’s grace, à la Acts 15, thus allowing believers to ignore certain items of the Torah (e.g., eating shellfish, omitting circumcision, allowing witches and adulterers to live, etc.) as no longer incumbent upon us?

Probably the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Namely, the New Testament expands or enlarges our understanding of the moral laws present in the Old Testament, magnifying and exalting our apprehension of God’s standards of righteousness, but the New Covenant also nullifies all ceremonial and civil codes, leaving the moral code in a higher place than previously understood. These are major hermeneutical questions, and how we approach these matters to begin with will affect our conclusions about a raft of topics, divorce being only one of them.

In the book of Deuteronomy, God permitted (but did not require) both divorce and remarriage, under the following terms:

When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving to you as an inheritance. (Deut. 24:1-4) [1]

This passage will be later amplified by Jesus, but for the sake of context, please note these aspects: The woman is divorced because “she finds no favor in his eyes” due to an unspecified “uncleanness” (Heb. erwah dabar, “something indecent”), which is clearly not an act of adultery, which would have resulted in her death (Deut. 22:22). The husband is permitted to divorce her for a nonspecific reason (the Jews took advantage of this vagueness for the next fourteen hundred years). If remarriage truly constituted adultery, then God would have commanded her and her second husband to be executed upon her remarriage. God issued no such command.

After the divorce or death of the second husband, the woman is commanded only to not return to her first husband. Following the loss of the second husband, the text does not say that no man may take her to wife; it says only that the “former husband” may not remarry her. Presumably, she is free to marry a third husband. This passage prohibits remarriage only to a first husband (who divorced his wife for a cause other than adultery), and does not prohibit all remarriages after a divorce. Ironically, it would forbid the practice of some churches which hold that a husband who divorced his wife inappropriately must return to her even after she has married another man.

Before leaving the Deuteronomy 24 passage, we should observe the purpose of a “certificate of divorce.” It indicated the severance of the marriage obligation, and it specifically contained the right to remarry. Having an actual copy of this document, obtained via archaeology, casts much light on this discussion. An early copy of the certificate of divorce reads (in part):

But now I have dismissed thee [name] daughter of [father] by whatever name thou art called, of the town of [name] so as to be free at thy own disposal, to marry whomsoever thou pleasest, without hindrance from anyone, from this day for ever. Thou art therefore free for anyone [who would marry thee]. Let this be thy bill of divorce from me, a writing of separation and expulsion, according to the law of Moses and Israel.[2]

This writ gave the divorced woman the option to remarry. Without it, a man might marry her without the assurance that he was not committing adultery against a separated husband. The potential problem of not having such a bill can be seen in Judges 14:19-15:2, where Samson, angry with his wife, left her with her father in Timnah. When Samson returned for her about a year later, he discovered that her father had given her to another man. Clearly, the purpose of this bill was to protect a woman and her family against the charge of adultery in the event of a future remarriage.

An indirect argument that remarriage after divorce was permissible appears in the book of Leviticus, which forbade Israel’s priesthood (Lev. 21:7) and the high priest (Lev. 21:14) from marrying divorced women. Note that the Torah does not contain similar prohibitions for the other twelve tribes against marrying a divorced woman.

How can a limited prohibition serve to argue for remarriage? Consider the case of marriage to a widow. There is no biblical injunction against marrying widows generally. Indeed, “if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes” (1 Cor. 7:39), and the widow Ruth was commended for marrying Boaz. Yet in Leviticus 21:14, the high priest was forbidden from marrying a widow. In Ezekiel’s vision in prophecy, God’s priests would be permitted to marry widows only if they were the widows of other priests, but not the widows of commoners (Ezek. 44:22). This exception in Ezekiel against priests marrying a divorced woman or widow appears to contain the opposite conclusion as well: those who were not priests were permitted to marry either a divorced woman or a widow. Note that there is also no passage of Old Testament scripture which forbids marriages to or by a divorced man.

We acknowledge that God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16), yet we also find it undeniable that remarriage after divorce was sanctioned in Scripture for the people of God under the Old Covenant. Divorce and remarriage were sanctioned as, at least, a concession for people who would not live in harmony; at best, it can be seen as a provision for fallen humanity in the Old Testament.

All Christians believe the New Testament should take priority over Old Testament statutes. They may disagree on some particulars (such as whether Old Testament laws for Jews are binding upon Gentiles if these laws are not repeated in the New Testament), but still all Christians agree that the New Testament receives precedence in interpretation.

There are only four major passages teaching on divorce and remarriage in the Gospel accounts. One is a two-verse statement in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:31-32). There is a one-verse passage at Luke 16:18. And the other two passages are parallel accounts of the same discourse, both about ten verses in length (Matt. 19:3-12 and Mark 10:2-12).

Notably, there is an “exception clause” in the two passages in Matthew, but no exception clause was recorded by Mark or Luke. Compare these verses from the two parallel accounts in Matthew 19 and Mark 10:

“Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality [Gk. porneia], and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” (Matt. 19:9)

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:11-12)

Matthew 19 has the exception clause, Mark does not.[3] Likewise, Matthew 5 carries an exception clause using the same Greek word, porneia (which covers a spectrum of sexual sin, including incest, homosexuality, and fornication), only it’s worded a bit differently:

“Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce’ [Deut. 24:1]. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” (Matt. 5:31-32)

Combining these passages, we find that unless there is a case of immorality, the husband who divorces his wife “causes her to commit adultery” (Matt. 5), and if either party divorces and remarries, that one and their new spouse “commit adultery” (Matt. 19, Mark 10, Luke 16).

Here it’s important to have some knowledge of the customs of Jesus’ times. Divorce could be obtained for light causes. The school of Hillel interpreted the “something indecent” of Deuteronomy 24:1 in very liberal terms. Even burning a dinner could be construed as grounds for divorce.[4] In Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus’ message has special application to those men who divorced their wives on insufficient grounds, knowing their wives would remarry. Jesus says that the bill of divorce sanctioned by the rabbis was no protection for their former wives; if such women were not divorced for major sexual sin, their remarriages would force adultery on them. And that unawares! To his male listeners, Jesus is saying that their definition of “something indecent” (interpreted as “for any and every reason”; see Matt. 19:3 NIV) was inadequate to justify the breaking of the marriage covenant.

Why does Jesus say that the wife commits adultery if the husband initiates the divorce? Because Jesus’ assumption is that she will remarry! Jesus has just mentioned the “certificate of divorce,” both in the Sermon on the Mount and in the discourse to the Pharisees. He was surely familiar with its permission to remarry.

What was Jesus’ purpose in the Matthew 5 portion of the Sermon on the Mount? Just as Jesus enlarges the scope of “thou shalt not kill” to include hateful thoughts (Matt. 5:21-22 KJV), and enlarges the scope of adultery to include looking on someone with lust (Matt. 5:27-28), so He enlarges the scope of marital infidelity. Six times Christ says, “You have heard. . . . But I say to you,” to show the people how far they fall short of the standards of biblical law. In reality the law of God has dimensions and expectations that cut to the core of one’s being.

Jesus comes not “to destroy, but to fulfill” the law (Matt. 5:18), and demands that to enter the kingdom of God our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and the Pharisees (Matt. 5:20). Let us look at the verses on divorce in this light: they are a clarification and magnification of the original intent of the Old Testament law.

More particularly, verses 31-32 are not about remarriage or about prohibiting remarriage--it’s a “given” that remarriage will occur. Rather, they are a rebuke of a careless misinterpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (which is why Jesus says “it has been said” rather than “it is written”). The school of Hillel had changed a circumscribed, divine restriction into an everyday procedure in which covenantal fidelity was not even considered.

“Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8). Is Jesus really saying that Old Testament believers used to be permitted divorce, but this concession has been annulled under the New Covenant? Though some have drawn this conclusion, the text of Matthew 19:8 doesn’t say that.

What actually occurs in the Matthew 19 debate is more subtle. The Pharisees asked Christ, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce?” (verse 7). His response was that the divorce regulation was not a command but a permission. It was a concession to accommodate hardness of heart, although God’s ideal design “from the beginning” was one of lifelong fidelity to one’s spouse.

In the Bible, God has an ideal design or plan for mankind, but He makes allowances for flaws in our knowledge and failures in our devotion.[5] Christ did state that the ultimate plan of God was for man to “cleave to his wife” and that mankind should not put asunder what “God hath joined together” (KJV). To affirm God’s goal in marriage is not to abrogate God’s concession given previously.

One might argue (as does A Plea for Purity) that under the Old Covenant God made provision for divorce and remarriage because the people were hard-hearted, but under the New Covenant the disciples of Jesus should not/must not possess any hard-heartedness. Thus, since the hardness of heart is removed from the life of the Christian disciple, the last-resort option to divorce is “is no longer a valid excuse” (Plea, 133).

One could make an argument like this only if one didn’t run into very many Christians very often. Yes, the New Testament promises the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for believers, but any fair reading also shows that believers can and do succumb to the works of the flesh and experience hard-heartedness. The tension between the ideal for Christian living and the reality of Christian accomplishment is aptly illustrated in 1 John 2:1, “My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” The ideal is the command in the first sentence. The reality is the provision in the second.

Moving on through Scripture we come to the “Pauline exception” found in 1 Corinthians 7:10-17. In this passage, Paul deals with a special difficulty apart from sexual sin: What happens when the believing partner is abandoned by an unbelieving partner? We include a larger portion of the passage:

But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. (1 Cor. 7:12-15, emphasis added).

Why does he say, “I, not the Lord”? Is this just a suggestion from Paul and thus not really authoritative? Just prior to that (in vv. 10-11), Paul gave instructions on divorce, attributing their source to “not I but the Lord.” Paul then paraphrased or summarized Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:3-9. In brief, Paul’s teaching came from the lips of Jesus during the days of His earthly ministry, teachings in circulation within the early church. Now in verse 12, the phrase “I, not the Lord” is not written to deny the inspiration of Paul’s admonition, but merely to inform the readers that the instructions to follow do not come from the sayings of Jesus. Now Paul will give additional instruction, writing under inspiration from the Holy Spirit.

What was a Christian supposed to do when her or his unbelieving spouse left the marriage? We believe a right to remarriage exists in the statement, “A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases” (1 Cor. 7:15).

The terms in this verse may require clarification: “But if the unbeliever departs [Gk. chorizo], let him depart [chorizo]; a brother or sister is not under bondage [Gk. douloo] in such cases.” The word chorizo can also be translated “leaves” (NIV) or “separates” (RSV), and is translated “put asunder” in the well-known command against divorce, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6 KJV). Though an unbeliever should not break up (put asunder) a marriage, the apostolic advice is (in effect): If the unbeliever divorces, let him divorce.

By this terminology, we have established New Testament sanction for divorce; and if the terms of a divorce are biblically valid, then a right to remarriage exists.

Furthermore, the Greek word translated “is not under bondage” is stronger than the word used for the marriage vows (“bound to a wife” in 7:27). According to William F. Luck, “douloo [in 7:15, ”under bondage“] is a harsher term than deo [in 7:27, ”bound“], the former stressing forced bondage . . . and the latter stressing chosen servanthood.”[6] In other words, the partner of a departing unbeliever “is not enslaved” to remain with their divorcing spouse. This again indicates that they are free to leave, and thus to remarry. And on this note, observe that the circumstance of abandonment is recognized by the apostle as an acceptable condition for divorce, in addition to porneia.

Our final evidence that Jesus allows remarriage after divorce appears in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28a. At the time the letter was composed, Paul discouraged remarriage, divorce, and even marriage because of the persecution Christians were then suffering under Nero.

Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you should marry, you have not sinned. (NASB)

Of this passage, Jay Adams notes that the word translated “released” (NASB) or “loosed” (NKJV) appears twice, and in both cases is the Greek word luo. “To be released from a wife in the second instance [i.e., ”Are you released from a wife?“] must mean what it does in the first [i.e., ”Do not seek to be released“] or the intended contrast that is set up would be lost.”[7] In other words, a married man ought not to seek divorce, and a divorced man ought not to remarry. But he ends by saying that those who do marry or biblically remarry do not sin.

How does this work out in real life or in a Christian community?

For someone enduring or surviving a divorce, there are no easy answers, no simple “Ten Steps to Rebuilding Your Life.” Some things irrevocably damage one’s life: being raped or physically assaulted; being unfaithful to your spouse (or finding out they were unfaithful to you); losing a close friend through cruel words you can never take back; and seeing your home, your family, and your future crumble around you because of divorce.

Now that the reader has plowed through forty-seven hundred words of Bible study and theologizing, we ask you to bear in mind that our pillows have also muffled sobs and absorbed tears, tears from the tragedy of divorce. “Mommy don’t love Daddy anymore” isn’t just the childhood memory of a Cornerstone songwriter. We’ve seen its casualties again and again: a cousin, a sister, an elder, and . . . and yes, even some of us who write these very words.

In “real life,” what do you do? In real life, you first do all you can to sustain, uphold, enrich, and develop your marriage in Christ: Focus on the Family, Marriage Encounter, all that stuff. In real life as a Christian, divorce is not an option. The possibility of divorce is no more viable than the possibility of suicide. You’d be stupid or insane to even think about it. (Yes, we know this sounds contradictory to what we’ve said already. But we want to tell you how it works in real life.) And besides that, if you are walking with the Lord, what need is there to even contemplate something like divorce?

Then, maybe a couple starts to drift apart. Slowly. She thinks her husband is too unspiritual (and maybe she’s right). He’s got an important ministry that consumes all his time. She refuses him. He indulges in pornography, then repents, then does it again, then repents, then . . . he cuts her down in front of friends. She swears at him in frustration. (Should we go on?)

By God’s grace, they find a Christian community, a church, Christian believers who will minister the truth to them. The couple will go for counseling. Maybe they’ll argue about paying seventy-five dollars an hour to get a professional marriage counselor or about seeing a busy church pastor for free.

In the Christian church, there should be people who will pray for them, admonish them, counsel them from the Bible, and seek to hold them accountable. First the elders of the church come as witnesses to one or both parties. One spouse will probably be more guilty of “obvious sin” than the other. The other may be less to blame, but may harbor greater resentment at the abuse and insensitivity they’ve had to endure. For the church, all along the way the goal is to bring both “partners” in the marriage to appropriate degrees of repentance, confession, forgiveness, and accountability.

Maybe adultery is involved. Maybe not. You might even pray with the more “guilty” husband, and witness weeping and confession of sin. You rejoice that they’re on the road to recovery. A week later, he’s moved out of the house. He’s left her behind with three kids. At some point, the wife may wonder--

“Why follow the biblical model?”

She answers: Because though I’ve been rejected by the person who said he loved me, I all the more discovered I have not been rejected by God.

Assuming now that the wife is still in the church, the pastor or leading counselors should affirm that the departed husband is to be treated as an unbeliever. The elders are not trying to play God or judge his soul, and the end of the script isn’t written yet. But they are responsible to judge his conduct. He has refused their biblical admonition and reproof--to be reconciled to his wife. And after such a declaration, the church has grounds to expel him from membership and treat him as an unbeliever. He’s already shown evidence of an obdurate heart.

Some might call this shutting the barn door after the horse is gone, but there’s really a purpose to this action. According to Paul’s definition of desertion in 1 Corinthians 7:11-13, the wife is now free to legally formalize a divorce and to remarry if she chooses. It has not been an easy, “no fault” process. There is no celebration party, no sense that God is happy. But there is a quiet resignation, and some proper means of saying that His ways and procedures were followed.

The steps of admonition, confrontation, repentance, and mutual forgiveness are not easy. At times, they will not “work,” and one of the partners will leave despite all prayers to the contrary. At other times, the Holy Spirit will intervene in restoring the marriage. But even if He does not, it does not mean that God is pleased with this tragedy or that He does not care for the adults and children who will be victimized by it. The power of our own free will can have horrifying consequences on ourselves and others.

By these steps and in this fashion, we affirm the sacredness of marriage, the sometimes ugly necessity of divorce, and the validity of remarriage. In so doing, we seek to be true to the counsel of God in Scripture. We welcome your continuing dialogue with us!

1. Unless otherwise indicated, all biblical quotations in this reply come from The Holy Bible: The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985). [return]

2. W. W. Davies, “Divorce in the OT,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915), James E. Orr, ed. [return]

3. In Matt. 19: 9, the second independent clause following the semicolon is missing from some ancient manuscripts, and relegated to a footnote in several translations (NASB, NRSV, etc.). Its omission affects nothing since this clause is repeated and undisputed in Matt. 5:32b. [return]

4. John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1993), 312. [return]

5. God’s allowance for our failures is seen vividly in Romans chapter 14, where God might have given a single “true” answer for everyone to follow. The text indicates that, ultimately, all foods are clean; yet if our conscience falls short and lets us eat only vegetables, God accepts this without condemning us. A similar situation exists regarding worship on the Sabbath. “One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5).

The Sabbath option is startling. God may well have an intention or ultimate ideal as to whether observing a weekly Sabbath is mandatory for Christians today. Note especially that under the Old Covenant breaking the Sabbath was a death-penalty sin! Yet under the New Covenant, God stoops so far as to allow for either one, so long as the observance or nonobservance of the Sabbath is done with mindfulness and reverence for God. [return]

6. William F. Luck, Divorce and Remarriage: Recovering the Biblical View (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 173. [return]

7. Jay E. Adams, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 84. Bracketed statements are ours. [return]



First published in Cornerstone (ISSN 0275-2743), Vol. 25, Issue 110 (1997), pp. 6,8,10,15,25
© © 1997 by Cornerstone Communications, Inc.
Electronic version may contain minor changes and corrections from printed version.