Thesis
Rank is a biblical category for the differentiation of offices within an ordered whole (Paper 3), and authority is a stewardship to be exercised in the manner of the Servant-Lord (Paper 4). Rank becomes an abuse when it ceases to be held as office and begins to be held as possession—when the one in office uses his standing to dominate persons rather than to serve them, to enrich himself at their expense, to insulate himself from their voice, or to substitute his own will for the will of God. The Scriptures denounce this abuse in language as severe as any in the Bible. This paper traces five characteristic forms of the abuse—domination, clericalism, abusive patriarchy, bureaucracy, and spiritual rent-seeking—and presents the biblical corrective.
Introduction
Paper 5 examined the abuse of equality, in which the doctrine of equal worth is pressed past its proper limit and used to dismantle the offices that God has appointed. The present paper is its mirror. Where the abuse of equality threatens the offices, the abuse of rank threatens the persons over whom the offices are held. The two abuses are not symmetrical in every respect, but they are equally serious before God, and the doctrine of structured equality refuses both.
The abuse of rank is, in some respects, the more deeply biblical concern. Scripture spends more ink denouncing bad rulers, bad shepherds, bad priests, and bad husbands than it spends denouncing rebellions against legitimate ones. The prophets thundered against the rulers of Israel; Jesus Christ thundered against the Pharisees; Peter warned the elders against domineering; Jude rebuked shepherds who fed themselves. The intensity of these denunciations is not accidental. Those who hold office hold something entrusted to them by God, and the abuse of that entrustment provokes Him in a manner that the abuse of equality does not equal.
The argument proceeds in seven sections. The first establishes the diagnostic principle that distinguishes office held as stewardship from office held as possession. The second through sixth treat the five forms of the abuse named in the title. The seventh draws the biblical corrective into doctrinal form. A pastoral conclusion follows.
I. The Diagnostic Principle: Stewardship Versus Possession
The Lord set out the principle in plain terms. “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you” (Matt. 20:25–26). The contrast is not between authority and the absence of authority; it is between two manners of holding authority. The Gentile rulers hold their authority as their own, and they use it to bear down upon those over whom they are set. The disciples of Jesus Christ hold their authority as His, and they use it to bear up those over whom they are set.
The diagnostic question for any officeholder is therefore not “Do I have real authority?” but “Whose is it?” If the office is held as the steward holds it—knowing that the Owner will return and require an accounting—the office is held rightly, whatever the season of difficulty in which it must be exercised. If the office is held as the possessor holds it—as though the officeholder were himself the owner of what was only ever entrusted to him—every other abuse is already implicit and waiting to come out.
Ezekiel 34 is the locus classicus of the diagnosis. “Thus says the Lord GOD: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them” (Ezek. 34:2–4). The accusation is precise. The shepherds had taken the flock as theirs, extracting fat, wool, and meat. They had not done the work proper to the office. They had treated the sheep as a possession from which to live rather than as the LORD’s flock to be tended on His behalf. The chapter ends with the LORD’s declaration that He Himself will shepherd His flock and will set His servant David over them (Ezek. 34:11–24). The good Shepherd will come, and the false shepherds will give account.
The doctrine that emerges is straightforward. The office is not the officeholder’s; the people are not his property; the income, deference, and honor that come with the office are not his entitlement; the office is his stewardship. The shepherd is under a Shepherd. The undershepherd who forgets this becomes, by stages and sometimes by leaps, every other thing that this paper names.
II. Domination: The Basic Form
Domination is the simplest form of the abuse of rank. It is the use of office to compel rather than to serve, to bear down upon rather than to bear up, to extract rather than to give. It is what the Lord called “lording it over” (Matt. 20:25; Mark 10:42), and what Peter called “domineering” (1 Pet. 5:3).
The Old Testament records it in narrative after narrative. Saul, having been anointed king, used his office to attempt the murder of David (1 Sam. 18–26). Solomon’s son Rehoboam, when asked to lighten the yoke his father had laid on the people, answered with the famous threat: “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke. My father disciplined you with whips, but I will discipline you with scorpions” (1 Kings 12:14). The kingdom split in two as a result. Micah described the leaders of his day in the most graphic terms: “Hear, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel!… you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin from off my people and their flesh from off their bones, who eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces and chop them up like meat in a pot, like flesh in a cauldron” (Mic. 3:1–3). The language is deliberate and unfiltered. The Lord names the abuse of rank as cannibalism by analogy: the officeholder feeds on the very people whose good he was set to serve.
Two features of domination are worth marking carefully.
First, domination often follows offended dignity. Rehoboam’s threat came in response to a request he found offensive. Saul’s persecution of David began when David received praise that Saul considered his due. The officeholder who has come to regard the office as his own will feel any restraint on his use of it as an assault on his person, and his response will be disproportionate. The biblical rebuke is therefore not only against the act of domination but against the inward posture that produces it.
Second, domination is incompatible with the apostolic qualifications for office. The qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 include “not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome” (1 Tim. 3:3), “not arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined” (Titus 1:7–8). The list is a portrait of the opposite of domination. A man who is violent, arrogant, or quick-tempered is, by the apostolic standard, not qualified for office in the church, however otherwise gifted he may be. The biblical fence around the abuse of rank begins at the door of office itself.
III. Clericalism
Clericalism is the abuse of rank in its specifically ecclesiastical form. It is not, in this paper, a polemic against the existence of ordained office. Scripture clearly establishes elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1), commands their honor (1 Tim. 5:17), and requires obedience to them (Heb. 13:17). Paper 4 has already grounded these offices in the pattern of Jesus Christ. The abuse is not the existence of the office but the deformation of the office into something it was never meant to be.
Clericalism, broadly described, has several features.
First, it interposes the officeholder between the people and God in a manner that Scripture does not warrant. The single mediator between God and men is the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). Every believer is a priest in the new covenant (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6). The elder is a steward of the word and of the flock, not a priestly intermediary without whose offices grace cannot flow. Where the office is made to function in the latter way, the office has become something other than what the apostles appointed.
Second, clericalism converts the office into a status from which the officeholder may extract deference, comfort, and honor as a matter of right. The Lord directly addressed this distortion in Matthew 23: “They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others” (Matt. 23:5–7). The first warning in the chapter is against precisely this pattern. The Pharisees and scribes, who held a real office of teaching, had turned the office into a stage for the cultivation of their own honor.
Third, clericalism characteristically resists correction. The clergyman who has come to hold his office as a possession will treat any rebuke as an attack on the office itself and so on the Lord whose office it ostensibly is. The diagnosis is given in 3 John. “I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church” (3 John 9–10). Diotrephes is the type of the clericalist. He likes to be first. He refuses apostolic correction. He talks wicked nonsense against the apostles. He shuts the doors against those who would receive the brothers. He uses the discipline of the church not to protect the flock but to defend his own standing.
The corrective to clericalism is the doctrine of Paper 4. The elder is a fellow elder with Peter, who himself was a witness of the sufferings of Christ and a partaker in the glory to be revealed. The elder is not above being corrected; he is to be examined upon evidence of two or three witnesses (1 Tim. 5:19) and, if persisting in sin, rebuked before all (1 Tim. 5:20). The flock is the flock of God, not of the elder. The crown belongs to the Chief Shepherd to give. Where the office is held in these terms, clericalism cannot easily take root. Where the office is held in any other terms, clericalism is the natural and predictable outcome.
IV. Patriarchy in the Abusive Sense
The word “patriarchy” has been so badly handled in recent decades that it is no longer easy to use it neutrally. This paper distinguishes between the legitimate patriarchal pattern of the Scriptures—an ordered fatherhood and husbandhood in which the head of the household serves and represents those under his care—and the abusive form in which the same biblical vocabulary is bent to legitimate domination.
The abusive form has the same diagnostic signature as the other abuses of rank. The husband who has converted his headship from stewardship to possession will use it to compel obedience by force or by fear, to demand service rather than to render it, to discipline by anger rather than by patience, to silence rather than to listen, and to crush rather than to nourish and cherish. The wife in such a marriage encounters in her husband not a head who loves her as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25) but a Gentile ruler whose lordship is felt as oppression.
Scripture forbids this in the strongest terms. Paul wrote, “Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them” (Col. 3:19). Peter wrote, “Husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered” (1 Pet. 3:7). The threat in Peter’s verse is striking: the husband whose treatment of his wife is wrong will find his prayers hindered. The very access to God that he might suppose his office to entail is impeded by the abuse of the office.
The Old Testament adds the testimony of Malachi. “And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, ‘Why does he not?’ Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth… For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence” (Mal. 2:13–16). The LORD treats the betrayal of the wife of one’s youth as covering the garment with violence. The husband’s office is a covenant under God; its abuse is not a private failure but a covenant breach that the Lord Himself witnesses.
The abusive form of patriarchy is, in fact, one of the things that the doctrine of biblical headship most directly forbids. The husband who reads Ephesians 5:25 as license for unilateral rule has read the verse with his eyes closed. The verse commands him to love his wife “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” The benchmark is the cross, not the throne; the giving up of self, not the imposing of self; the sanctification of the bride, not her diminishment. Any patriarchy that does not look like that is not biblical patriarchy. It is the Gentile pattern wearing biblical clothes.
The pastoral implication is severe. A man may genuinely be a husband and a father and exercise his office in the manner God has forbidden. The office remains real; the office held in this manner is sin. Repentance is the only path forward, and the wife and children are not under obligation to pretend otherwise. The full account of the limits of obedience to such authority belongs to Paper 9; the present paper holds that the abuse of headship is, before God, the sin of the head, not the sin of those over whom he is set.
V. Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy is the abuse of rank in its institutional form, often without a single bad actor at the center. It is the conversion of office into procedure in such a way that the office no longer serves the persons it was set to serve and instead serves the perpetuation, comfort, and authority of the institution itself.
The Lord’s denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23 names the disease. “For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger” (Matt. 23:3–4). And again: “Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers” (Luke 11:46). The bureaucratic disease in religious form lays burdens; the bureaucrat is exempt from the burdens he lays. The procedural complexity, the layered requirements, the proliferating qualifications, the labyrinth of permissions—all of these are the heavy burdens, and the men who design them carry none of them.
The Lord’s most specific charge in Matthew 23 is also relevant: “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in” (Matt. 23:13). The bureaucratic office, at its worst, becomes a gatekeeper that does not itself pass through and does not let others pass through. It substitutes its own forms for the substance the forms were meant to serve, and in time the forms become the only thing the office knows how to defend.
The political form of bureaucracy is described, in advance, in 1 Samuel 8. Samuel warns Israel of what the king they were demanding would do: “He will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen… He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants… He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves” (1 Sam. 8:11–17). The repeated verb is “take.” The political office, when it has been allowed to drift from stewardship to possession, takes. It does not give. It does not serve. It does not protect. It takes.
The corrective is, again, the diagnostic principle. The office is not the officeholder’s, and the procedures are not the office. The procedures are tools by which the office serves the people; when the procedures begin to serve the procedures, the office has slipped its anchor. The recovery is not the abolition of procedure but its subordination to the persons whom the office was set to serve, and the willingness of the officeholders to carry the very burdens they ask the people to bear.
VI. Spiritual Rent-Seeking
The last form of the abuse of rank is the one Peter named when he charged elders to shepherd “not for shameful gain” (1 Pet. 5:2). The phrase translates a Greek word, aischrokerdōs, which describes the seeking of gain in a manner unworthy of the office. The same word and its cognates appear in 1 Timothy 3:8 (deacons must be “not greedy for dishonest gain”) and Titus 1:7 (an overseer must be “not greedy for gain”). The apostles were not naive about the temptation. They named it directly, repeatedly, and as a disqualification for office.
“Spiritual rent-seeking” is a modern phrase for an ancient sin. It describes the use of office to extract from the people over whom one is set. The prophet may extract honor; the priest may extract income; the elder may extract deference; the husband may extract service; the magistrate may extract revenue. In every case the office becomes a property from which the officeholder draws his comfort, and the people under the office are reduced to a source from which the comfort is drawn.
The Old Testament describes the disease with arresting bluntness. Eli’s sons “did not know the LORD”; they treated the offering of the LORD with contempt and took its best parts by force (1 Sam. 2:12–17). Isaiah’s watchmen are “blind”; they are “dumb dogs, they cannot bark, dreaming, lying down, loving to slumber. The dogs have a mighty appetite; they never have enough. But they are shepherds who have no understanding; they have all turned to their own way, each to his own gain, one and all” (Isa. 56:10–11). The leaders of Israel “give judgment for a bribe; its priests teach for a price; its prophets practice divination for money” (Mic. 3:11). The pattern is consistent: the office is used to extract.
The New Testament continues the warning. Paul refused to take from the Corinthians what he had every right to take, lest the gospel be hindered (1 Cor. 9:12–18). He warned the Ephesian elders, “I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me” (Acts 20:33–34). He told Timothy that “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs” (1 Tim. 6:10). Peter denounced the false teachers who “in their greed they will exploit you with false words” (2 Pet. 2:3). Jude described them as “shepherds feeding themselves” (Jude 12).
The corrective is straightforward to state and difficult to live. The officeholder must hold the office as if he were not paid for it, and where he is paid for it, he must hold the office as if the pay were a gift from the Owner of the flock rather than a tribute exacted from the sheep. The recovery of the office is the recovery of the difference between gift and extraction. Where the difference is preserved, the office is honored and the officeholder is sustained. Where the difference is collapsed, the office is corrupted and the sheep are devoured.
VII. The Biblical Corrective
The biblical corrective to the abuse of rank is not the abolition of rank. It is, in every case, the recovery of the four doctrinal foundations of this suite.
The Christological foundation (Paper 1): the Son of God, equal with the Father, was sent by the Father and did only what the Father did. No human officeholder is greater than this Son, and no human office is held on any other basis than the pattern He set. The officeholder who has forgotten the Son’s pattern has cut himself loose from the only true ground of his office.
The doctrine of submission without inferiority (Paper 2): worth is conferred by God and is equal among image-bearers and redeemed saints. The officeholder who treats those under his office as less in worth has confused worth and office. The office is not a verdict on worth; nor is its presence in him a verdict on his.
The doctrine of headship (Paper 3): headship is a representative office that is held under the higher headship of Jesus Christ. The head answers to his Head. The officeholder is not at the top of any order. He is always under a Lord whose accounting he will face.
The doctrine of authority as service (Paper 4): the Lord forbade the Gentile pattern absolutely. “It shall not be so among you” (Matt. 20:26). Every Christian officeholder is bound by this prohibition; the prohibition is not optional; the alternative pattern is the manner of the Son of Man who came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.
These four doctrines together form a single fence around the office. They permit the officeholder to occupy the office fully and to exercise its real authority. They forbid him to convert it into a possession. They subject him at every moment to the Lord whose office it is. They orient him at every moment to the good of those whom God has placed under his care. Where these doctrines are held, the office is a blessing. Where they are released, the office becomes the very weapon Scripture has been forbidding from Korah to Diotrephes.
Pastoral Conclusion
The doctrine of this paper is aimed first at those who hold office. The husband who reads it should ask himself whether his wife encounters in him a head who serves her or a Gentile ruler who lords over her. The elder should ask himself whether the flock meets in him a shepherd or a dog that does not bark. The magistrate should ask himself whether his office bears up the citizens of his commonwealth or bears down upon them. The institutional officeholder should ask himself whether the procedures he administers serve the people the institution exists to serve or merely the institution’s continued existence.
The doctrine is also aimed at those over whom office is held. The doctrine does not authorize them to despise the office because the manner is bad. The next paper will address how respect to persons and honor to offices are properly distinguished, and the ninth paper will address the proper limit of submission when authority commands sin. The present paper insists only that the biblical denunciation of the abuse of rank is severe, that the office cannot be held as the officeholder pleases, and that the Chief Shepherd will return.
When He returns, He will reward the faithful undershepherd with an unfading crown of glory (1 Pet. 5:4). And He will deal also with those who have fed themselves on His flock. “I will rescue my flock; they shall no longer be a prey. And I will judge between sheep and sheep” (Ezek. 34:22). The same Lord who is gentle with the bruised reed is severe with the shepherd who has bruised it. The doctrine of authority as service has not changed; the One who taught it has not changed; and on the last day, the difference between office held as stewardship and office held as possession will be made plain, and what was hidden in the dark will be brought into the light.
Notes
- All Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV).
- The diagnostic principle of Section I (“Whose is the office?”) is drawn from the language of stewardship in such passages as Luke 12:42–48 and 1 Corinthians 4:1–5, and from the prophetic word in Ezekiel 34. It is intended as a first-order question by which every officeholder should examine himself.
- The reading of Matthew 23 in this paper treats the chapter as a paradigmatic denunciation of clericalism in its broadest sense, including its love of titles, its love of public deference, its laying of burdens, and its shutting of doors. The application of the chapter to Christian officeholders is warranted by the consistent New Testament use of the Pharisees as a warning to subsequent leaders in the people of God.
- The use of the term “patriarchy in the abusive sense” in Section IV is deliberate. The paper does not abandon the biblical pattern of ordered fatherhood and husbandhood, which is grounded in the order of creation (Paper 3). It distinguishes that pattern from its abusive deformation and insists that the deformation is, on biblical grounds, forbidden.
- The reading of Malachi 2:13–16 follows the rendering of the ESV, which preserves the LORD’s direct testimony that the man “who does not love his wife but divorces her… covers his garment with violence.” Some recent translations render the passage differently. The point made in this paper—that the husband’s covenantal abuse of his wife is treated by God as a serious breach to which He Himself is witness—is not dependent on a single textual choice, since Malachi 2:13–14 is plain on any major rendering.
- The treatment of bureaucracy in Section V is concerned with the disease that arises in any institution when procedure detaches from the persons the procedure was meant to serve. It is not a polemic against all administrative structure, since Scripture itself records the Lord’s commendation of order (1 Cor. 14:40; Titus 1:5) and the apostles’ establishment of administrative offices (Acts 6:1–6).
- The phrase “spiritual rent-seeking” is borrowed from a category in economic theory and applied here by analogy to the use of spiritual office for the extraction of material or social rents from those over whom the office is held. The substance of the warning is, of course, biblical and ancient (Isa. 56; Mic. 3; 1 Sam. 2; 1 Pet. 5; 2 Pet. 2; Jude).
- The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are referred to throughout by their scriptural names. The Son is named “Jesus Christ” in the form most frequently attested in the New Testament writings.
References
Ashley, T. R. (1993). The book of Numbers (New International Commentary on the Old Testament). Eerdmans.
Bauckham, R. J. (1983). Jude, 2 Peter (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 50). Word Books.
Bavinck, H. (2008). Reformed dogmatics: Vol. 4. Holy Spirit, church, and new creation (J. Bolt, Ed.; J. Vriend, Trans.). Baker Academic.
Block, D. I. (1997). The book of Ezekiel, chapters 25–48 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament). Eerdmans.
Bock, D. L. (1996). Luke 9:51–24:53 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 2). Baker Academic.
Calvin, J. (1960). Institutes of the Christian religion (J. T. McNeill, Ed.; F. L. Battles, Trans.). Westminster John Knox Press. (Original work published 1559)
Carson, D. A. (1984). Matthew (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.). Zondervan.
Clowney, E. P. (1988). The message of 1 Peter: The way of the cross (The Bible Speaks Today). InterVarsity Press.
Clowney, E. P. (1995). The church (Contours of Christian Theology). InterVarsity Press.
Crossway. (2016). The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles.
Davis, J. J. (1993). Evangelical ethics: Issues facing the church today (2nd ed.). Presbyterian and Reformed.
Duguid, I. M. (1999). Ezekiel (NIV Application Commentary). Zondervan.
France, R. T. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament). Eerdmans.
Garland, D. E. (1979). The intention of Matthew 23 (Supplements to Novum Testamentum, Vol. 52). Brill.
Grudem, W. (1988). The first epistle of Peter: An introduction and commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries). Eerdmans.
Hill, A. E. (1998). Malachi: A new translation with introduction and commentary (Anchor Bible, Vol. 25D). Doubleday.
Jobes, K. H. (2005). 1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament). Baker Academic.
Köstenberger, A. J., & Jones, D. W. (2010). God, marriage, and family: Rebuilding the biblical foundation (2nd ed.). Crossway.
Lincoln, A. T. (1990). Ephesians (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 42). Word Books.
Marshall, I. H. (1999). The Pastoral Epistles (International Critical Commentary). T&T Clark.
Mounce, W. D. (2000). Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 46). Thomas Nelson.
Murray, J. (1957). Principles of conduct: Aspects of biblical ethics. Eerdmans.
Schreiner, T. R. (2003). 1, 2 Peter, Jude (New American Commentary, Vol. 37). Broadman & Holman.
Stott, J. R. W. (1990). The message of Acts: To the ends of the earth (The Bible Speaks Today). InterVarsity Press.
Strauch, A. (1995). Biblical eldership: An urgent call to restore biblical church leadership (Rev. ed.). Lewis & Roth.
Tsumura, D. T. (2007). The first book of Samuel (New International Commentary on the Old Testament). Eerdmans.
VanDrunen, D. (2014). Divine covenants and moral order: A biblical theology of natural law. Eerdmans.
Waltke, B. K. (2007). An Old Testament theology: An exegetical, canonical, and thematic approach. Zondervan.
Witherington, B., III. (2007). 1 and 2 Peter. SCM Press.
