• About
  • Bio

Happy God

~ The Bible calls God happy. I wonder why?

Happy God

Category Archives: Emergent Conversation

"Gospel of rational hope"?

25 Wednesday Apr 2007

Posted by Owen in christianity, Emergent Conversation, eschatology, Theodicy, Virginia Tech

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

214, 23161, 2501739, 292, 447778, 89029

Pastor Glenn Parkinson of Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church writes in his blog that he is starting to wonder whether the media is doing more than reporting on a culture in crisis. He suggests they are promoting a “culture OF crisis”. It’s a clever turn of phrase, and reflects, I think, a view that is quite popular among my Christian brothers.

He says,

“day after day, one horror after another works to emotionally tear us down and condition our response. An increasing number of these crises are forced upon us by the larger media and shepherded by a new priesthood of secular institutions…”

I emphatically disagree with Glenn. First, because he severely trivializes the importance and value of the lives of those who are not Christians, and who are not destined for heaven, according to Glenn’s concept of salvation.

In my view Glenn demeaned those lives, by saying that to them grief is merely the process of “getting over” tragedies, “coping” with them so that folks can get back to their personal dreams, which Glenn seems to think is the only real meaning in their lives. It would appear that in Glenn’s view, only those who are predestined toward heaven have a rational basis of hope in their lives. The rest are living on borrowed time, and pursuing a meaningless existence that the media attempts to bestow significance upon.

Glenn suggests that the media should be blamed for “taking on a ‘priestly role'” and “determin[ing] what emotionally stresses us”. He states that

“modern media…assures that selected crises can and will draw the attention of the entire nation. In other words, our own personal trials are no longer enough. Now, we must enter into the personal torment of others — others we do not know, and whose agonies are chosen for us by the whims of the larger media.“

(italics mine)

It’s true that the troubles of people everywhere, people we once could ignore, keep invading our personal space. But is that the media’s fault, or a change in the world around us?

I’m sure that Glenn profoundly feels the pain of the victims and their families. I’m sure he disagrees with Cain, and acknowledges that we are indeed our brothers’ keepers. I’m sure his tears after Virginia Tech were no less heart-felt than mine were. But I think there’s a much better explanation than simply that the media is selecting crises, or choosing these agonies for us to pay attention to. It seems to me that the reason why the world has been drawn together to share each others pain is that God now wants it that way. I think the Biblical phraseology which refers to this is that God has “gathered the nations.”

Appropriate, is it not? Since, like Pastor Parkinson, I believe the Bible is relevant and reliable, and God is sovereign — ruling in the kingdom of men as Nebuchadnezzar came to see it — then could it be that the same God who chose to scatter the nations in Genesis 11 might now be choosing, as he promised he would in Zephaniah 3:8-9, to “gather” them? The scattering involved the introduction of multiple languages. The gathering that seems in evidence now involves mitigating the language differences, is accompanied by a lot of trouble, and finally results in a single-minded recognition of God by all people. Travel, communication, and knowledge are doing that. Computers are doing that, music is doing that, and visual images are doing that. Gathering the nations. From Caesar to George Washington there was one mode of travel, one means of communication. Then, in the blink of an eye, the skills and powers that created the modern age leaped into the human experience.

If God is behind the “global village”, the “time of trouble“, the “distress of nations with perplexity“, the “increase of knowledge“, the “trouble like a woman in labor“, then “the Media” is not what Glenn should be blaming for the gattling-gun of events that grab world attention. These things, in my view, “demonstrated the planet’s relentless march toward equilibrium”, as Greg Mortenson and David Relin write about the interplay of cultures in Three Cups of Tea. We’re seeing something global here, something organic, something bigger than Christianity, bigger than America, bigger than the world Media or all the negative forces on the earth. And though there are paroxysms of pain, the relentless march is making life better for the poor, rougher for the rich, and more egalitarian all around. In spite of the efforts of Christianity to retard it.

As Thomas Friedman and Isaiah put it, the world is flat. As Zephaniah put it, the nations are gathered. At Virginia Tech, a Korean raised in America buys a German gun to randomly-yet-willfully kill an Israeli Holocaust survivor, a French instructor, an Indonesian graduate student, etc. etc. Did the media decide we needed this tragedy, and thus play it up? To suggest this idea is to miss the point of the trouble.

Instead of nostalgically looking backward to a time when Churchianity supposedly had more power, and more people listening to its claims, I suggest that Christians like Glenn, or David Wayne, or other good and devout men and women who trust God, re-examine the hopes and explanations they draw from the Bible.

To Glenn, people need and deserve to hear what he calls the Gospel of rational hope. He doesn’t want folks just weeping over the waste of human potential that occurred a few days ago. He wants hope to emerge in the minds of those who somehow conclude that, despite all evidence to the contrary, God really is powerful, and really does love the human race. Glenn seemingly doesn’t want anyone consoling themselves with what he considers to be the false hope that every life has value aside from religious conversion, and that somehow things will work out for everyone. To Pastor Parkinson, things won’t work out for anyone except the authentic true believer… everyone else is in for sadness, separation, torment… for eternity.

[but wait? Don’t the U and L in TULIP say that God is the one who chooses folks for salvation anyway? If so, then why mourn for Cho’s unsaved victims? Oh well, that’s another discussion for another day. After tragedies like this one, most Calvinists find themselves sounding like Arminians in spite of themselves.]

The irrational hope, the liberal or secular-humanist assumption Glenn speaks of is the notion of personal autonomy: self-motivated dreams, earth-bound involvements as the be-all and end-all of life. The concept of self-will is, after all, repugnant to every well-schooled Calvinist. In his view (and I only partially agree) tragedies like this one give the lie to self-will, forcing folks to at least consider the words of Solomon: “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity, says the Preacher”. I would argue that this view of life is only valid for those who, like the Christians Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 15, are called by God to choose a life that walks away from many of this life’s opportunities in order to participate in a higher resurrection.

Glenn has a different idea. He covets the opportunity to tell people his concept of the Gospel, what he calls a rational hope. Though he admits it would sound “foolish” to the masses if, suddenly, some Christian spokesman were allowed to explain the Gospel (the traditional Gospel that is), to the public…

What would that “good news” be? Let’s suppose that, miraculously, Glenn got his way and the masses didn’t change the channel, Again and again I hear Christians admit that most people turn away in disgust from “The gospel” — the one most of my friends, and Glenn hold to be taught in the Bible. Generally my Christian friends blame these skeptical folks for rejecting what to them is “amazing grace.” While it is indeed amazing that a Creator God would accept, adopt, and pursue a relationship with the likes of Glenn, or David Wayne, or me … but is that all the Good News the Bible has? Is there an additional gospel of grace that covers those who were not chosen from among men by a Sovereign God during the Christian age that is now clearly waning?

Or put another way, might there not be another explanation for the paltry size of this saved family than simply the Arminian “the others have hardened their own hearts?” or the Calvinist, “God in his sovereignty has made atonement limited”?

Here’s the mainstream Good News, put in plain speech as most Christians perceive the Bible to teach: A dark and tortured man just killed 32 people against their will. Of these, a few appear to be authentic Christians, confident that because they placed their faith in Christ as savior, they will next live with God in heaven. But for most of the dead — the Jews, Moslems, and non-believers among the victims — Glenn’s gospel says these folks all lack the thing that they would have needed to gain eternal life in heaven — “saving faith in Christ”.

In this view, they not only lost the rest of a life that Glenn feels is vanity (but which these poor unsaved souls were enjoying up to that moment); they now get to experience a hell created by God himself for those whose names were not written in a book of life before they died.

For Glenn, it would appear that these tragedies were meant as examples, goads, to be a lesson to the rest of the unsaved…. a warning to accept salvation through Christ. I’ll come back to that in a minute… because I think Glenn and the millions of authentic Christians who agree with his perspective are sincere, and are correct in believing that God is indeed loving and gracious toward all people.

If God is using troubles to remind the masses of their own impending loss, then the unsaved among the victims are a sad case indeed. They will be in some God-forsaken place, kept separate from those who “did the good deeds”… forever. Hmmm. I wonder what sorts of torments will they have to endure? Will they have to get shot again and again by multiple Chos? Maybe they’ll have to listen to that hideous Cho laugh.

Now, all of this awful pain — not only the Cho-inflicted pain but the God-inflicted pain that dwarfs it — a Christian commentator apparently would be able to tell us … would have been unnecessary if every one of the victims had first entrusted their life to Christ. If somehow the Jewish Holocaust survivor could have disregarded the religion of his upbringing, disregarded the religion of those who wiped out his family and almost killed him… and embraced Protestantism… well, if he could have done that he wouldn’t have had to go to hell for his unbelief. Yes, he was a hero, and saved the lives of his students by taking bullets for them while they escaped… but as one Christian radio commentator I heard recently said, “There are lots of nice guys in Hell.”

For my Christian friends who believe in a burning Hell because the Bible seems to teach it, please stay with me a little longer. I’ll stop insulting you now.

Let me suggest that you have missed something. That there is great value even in the un-Christian life of this age, strange as it may seem to you. Let me suggest that the Bible itself offers a better outcome than this, a truly good Good News, a truly rational Gospel of hope.

Here it is: the Judgment day is not for sentencing, but for teaching and correction. It is a time of learning righteousness. It is a second age of hope, with much broader results and a complete absence of the confusion and deception that has marked the Christian age. It is a time when all people learn who the true God is. It is a time when all people discover that God really is kind and loving and just. It is a time when the hereditary curses will melt away, and folks’ll be able to sort through what they did wrong to themselves and others, and learn from those mistakes. The Chos of the world will not be question-marks any more, and will discover what it’s like to feel love and to give love. Love from God, which most people NEVER knowingly experience now. And love from other people, which most people crave more of.

Think of all the victims of the Chos and the Hitlers and the Saddams. Yes, and the victims of the Christian nations and the Christian crusaders and the Christian popes and emperors. Think of the recent past and near future — the victims who suffer from man-made environmental disasters caused by the misuse of world resources… they’ll come back and join in a process of restoring the earth into a global paradise.

Think of the victims of “acts of God” — those who died in tornadoes and earthquakes and tsunamis and blizzards and lightning strikes. All of the dead, the Bible says again and again, will come back. If they were in the earth, or the sea, it doesn’t matter. They are coming back from their graves. And in every case, they will find a new government, made up of merciful, fairminded peers who know what they feel, understand their struggles, and can enforce the high standards of love and justice with mercy, patience, and kindness.

In this view, Christians and Jews alike have been learning precise principles of right and wrong throughout the past two ages. Many of these have actually been prepared for servant-leadership and teacher-priesthood among their fellowmen. The folks God has been working with — the relatively small handfull who experienced and responded to God’s grace up till now … will have the heart of a mediator, and the skills of a wonderful counselor.

And the rest of the world, whom God has barely touched at all in a personal way, nevertheless have many, many lessons of life engraved in their characters. Think Ghandi, Einstein, Gorbachev, Sagan; God will not throw away these souls, or the billions of anonymous people who have lived and died in the shadow of God’s hereditary “wrath” on the human race. (Notice, Christian believer, that “wrath” is something revealed to all people already — not something for the future. We’re children of wrath — born into it. But the wrath will one day be past, and then God’s mercy will endure forever.)

When brought back from the grave, everyone — everyone — will be able to pick up right where they left off, learning more about God and unlearning the negative things that habit and custom have led them into. No more deceptions will be allowed. Each will become productive, and spontaneous expressions of joy will sweep across the planet.

Glenn, I think that Christianity… following in Jesus’ footsteps — is indeed a rational hope for those of us whom God has called — revealed His grace to. It starts in our hearts and guides us toward heaven. It bends upward what inclines to grow downward.

But there is a rational hope for all the rest of the human race, too. It is a hope that is broad enough to allow for the random vicissitudes we see the groaning creation struggling under. If they were aborted before they were born, they have a hope of resurrection and life upon this earth. If they died in a Blacksburg classroom without Christ, they have a hope of resurrection and life upon this earth. If they will die next week from a car wreck in Boston, or a car bomb in Baghdad, they have a hope of resurrection that is as sure as the grace of God toward believers now.

Glenn, I urge you to consider the many texts of scripture which are so much broader, so much deeper, so much more hopeful, than the traditional Gospel which leaves the masses of mankind outside the family of God for all time.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print
  • More
  • Reddit
  • Pocket
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Pinterest

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Murky Marriage of Love and Truth

23 Saturday Dec 2006

Posted by Owen in Brian McLaren, Emergent Conversation, Generous Orthodoxy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

157218, 214, 2568, 8325

In an interview by Next Wave, Brian McLaren defines the purpose of his book, A Generous Orthodoxy (which I am enjoying and have been responding to over the last few days):

In a sentence, A Generous Orthodoxy is an attempt to remarry two things that never should have been divorced — truth and love….

This reminds me of an old “Father Knows Best” episode in which the teenage daughter is trying to change her boyfriend’s character, and Robert Young says,”why don’t you try something easy, like moving the Rocky Mountains.”

Truth and beauty, even, would be a lot easier, as they do not require us to bend our minds to embrace what repulses us.

For all my adult life I have pursued Truth with a capital T. Sometime in my late 20s I started adding Love to that quest. This dual pursuit became for me the impossible dream, because Truth took me beyond the boundaries of my Christian upbringing, and began to make my concept of Love grow broader than was normal in my denomination. Truth and Love were at war, and the more I was able to reconcile them in my own mind and philosophy of Christian fellowship, the less my longtime brothers and sisters could handle it.

Initially, love seems to take the lead, arguing in defense of those who seem nice but don’t fit our “truth” definitions. For example, as a young man I learned this Joaquin Miller verse and kept it with me as a tolerance builder:

“In men whom men condemn as ill
I find so much of goodness still.
In men whom men pronounce divine
I find so much of sin and blot.
I do not dare to draw a line
Between the two, where God has not.”

It has only been in recent years that I have begun to discover how the Bible resolves its own seeming flip-flops in preference between Truth and Love..

It is indeed a murky area, where the ability to embrace paradoxes and to have a healthy degree of self-doubt seem to be pre-requisites for making progress.

Tomorrow I will explore the story of the Prophet from Judah who was killed by a lion for not obeying every detail of God’s word to him. Within that story, I believe, are some important clues as to why love and truth must learn to coexist within the emergent, unfinished, presently-divided Christian community.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print
  • More
  • Reddit
  • Pocket
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Pinterest

Like this:

Like Loading...

My McLaren Colloquy: 4. The Faithful Remnant

23 Saturday Dec 2006

Posted by Owen in Brian McLaren, Emergent Conversation, eschatology, orthodoxy, remnant

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

157218, 157220, 214, 302516

Conversing with his friend Samir Vesna on pp 129-130 of A Generous Orthodoxy, Brian McLaren writes,

Restorationists… often refer to themselves, Samir says, as a remnant…. “We’re not small because we’re ineffective, or lazy, or ingrown, or otherwise unattractive; we’re small because we’re a faithful remnant! Everone else has compromised…. We’re the few, the committed, the faithful, the proud. (Oops.)…Samir has seen a lot of this remnant thinking in restorationist territory; he sees how destructive it is.”

McLaren goes on to mention how Samir preached about Moses, who was essentially offered the status of remnant by God when the nation of Israel lapsed into idolatry. Moses didn’t take the bait, but pleaded with God to preserve and continue investing in Israel, rather than starting over with Moses as a new patriarch. Moses, who really was a faithful remnant kind of guy, set an example for all who wish to be similarly faithful by showing a willingness to be sacrificial in his love, and eager to bless even the errant members of God’s heritage. McLaren concludes:

Samir asked his friends with a remnant mentality: what is a truly faithful remnant like? Its members do not turn inward in elite self-congratulation…. No, the faithful remnant “after God’s own heart” turns its heart others-wise, outward, toward the unfaithful, in loyalty and love. True faithfulness bonds the hearts of the faithful to their unfaithful neighbors.

If Christ’s faithful church is a “remnant”, it has been learning not to subscribe to the destructive, oppressive orthodoxy of earlier times. It has been “a generous orthodoxy” which is patient under injustice, hopeful that in due time God would bring justice; like Jesus, encouraging the bruised reeds and smoking flaxes of the world; — and pre-occupied with trying to get its own actions brought into harmony with God’s word and spirit.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print
  • More
  • Reddit
  • Pocket
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Pinterest

Like this:

Like Loading...

Brian McLaren – Domesticated the true revolutionary power of Christ

04 Saturday Nov 2006

Posted by Owen in Brian McLaren, Emergent Conversation, eschatology, revolutionconference

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

8325

Brian McLaren spoke after lunch today….
My unedited notes:

Throughout human history , the paradigm has been: people without power are hurt by people with power. So they use the selfish assumptions and violent methods of the powerful to claw themselves into power… so that by the time they have arrived, they themselves are just as violent and oppressive as the ones they have replaced.

It would be easy for this revolution to be the same — for it to be another outbreak of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless — but ultimately if it still uses violent methods it will fail.

Mark 1: The good news of kingdom — has come near — repent and hear good newss.
John Baptist came and began to immerse…

Brian asks (ironically) Why is there so much filler — why is John the Baptist relevant?…
Then again, maybe it’s not filler after all.

On a plane recently, Brian sat next to a guy — asked him what he did, he said, “I’m one of the top 3 experts on the genetics of the fruit fly in the world.” 🙂

So Brian asked him to talk about his field and he was delighted to tell him what about it that was exciting.

Among other things he said: “they say there’s junk DNA — but that’s wrong. There IS no junk DNA. First, there is a lot of DNA that we simply don’t know what it does.
Then, there are parts that seem to fill an important role in the timing and alignment of strands. They peel and break and when you analyze it, you find that the DNA needs these strands to unpeel and connect. Their function is to help the DNA strand stay together and keep in time.

The details that seem like filler are like that. For example: — John the baptistt.
John didn’t invent baptism — it was common to Israel — ritual washing.
If your child came to you with a cut and you got blood on your skin — you were unclean. If you were a woman and had your monthly cycle; if you encountered a dead body — you were in need of ritual purification.
Who did this? the Priests. Where? at the temple
What was unusual about John the Baptist was not that he did immersing, but where — not in temple precincts but in Jordan river..
He was saying, this brown water is pure compared to the religious establishment — I look like a wierdo — it’s the priests who are the ones who are defective.
And then Jesus came and was baptized by John. He was validating John, and more than that, he was adding that John, who had condemned Herod for his immorality, was right in his condemnation of not only the religious establishment but thee civil as well.

When Jesus was baptized at Jordan is was thus an affirmation of the Kingdom of God — both a political and religious establishment…. not a new religion but a new kingdom.

Jesus was establishing an entirely new way of life — something radical. We’ve domesticated it but it’s truly a revolutionary message.

Luke 1:46-53 — the words of Mary. Mary praises God for being “mindful of the humble state of his serveant…his mercy shas
he has scattered those who are proud …
he has brought down rulers from their thrones
buth he has lifted up the humble”
but has sent the rich away empty”

What is Mary saying?

That the economic system is turned upside down by God.
and that He has toppled the rulers from their seats, while exalting the poor..

Luke chapter 4 – Jesus reads in the temple:
“spirit of Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor; freedom from prison, recovery of sight to the blind”

Jesus warms the hearts of his Jewish audience at first by – proclaiming favor to the poor… the Jews could identify with that since the Romans were oppressing them.

But then, Jesus made his public relations team shake their head because he offended his audience with his next statement: Elijah and Elisha didn’t do their miracles for their Jewish citizens but for two Gentiles in their midst . At this they were ready to stone Jesus.

It was revolution Jesus was talking about.

We domesticate the revolution and turn it into something tame and harmless to the status quo.

We should not gather in little rooms to do things harmless to the world;
our real ongoing work is to proclaim liberty to the captives, good news to the poor

Yes, it is a message both to the powrful & powerless– each enslaved to their ownwn selves. But through most of our history, the Christian church has been the religion of the powerful.

Jesus doesn’t proclaim a revolution in the political sense.,
His is a revolution in the type of revolution we join.
A change, not through domination of others, but through personal transformation, outflowing into social transformation.

Lies are always told by religious, social, and economic leaders — Jesus’ truth shows all those things to be a lie..

Luke 18:18-23 — Think about the subtext. How could someone become a ruler – by collaboration with the Romans.
So this rich young ruler asks Jesus, “Good teacher — what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Jesus replies by asking if he knows the commands. He replies that he keeps the commands. So Jesus says, you still lack something — sell what you have and give to the poor. –

To this ruler, in that historic context, Jesus is saying: “You’re working for the powerful people. Stop working for the powerful and join me in my mission to the poor — in other words, “switch sides.”

The Kingdom of God message is for both the powerful and the powerless. Don’t follow in the paths of the world system, where the goal is power. In this model, powerless people claw their way to the top with the goal of benefiting the powerless — but in the process of seeking power, they become like the powerful. So that by the time you arrive in a position of power, you are just like the person you displaced.

Jesus proclaimed the message of a different kind of Kingdom — in which a small band believes and follows the example of the King. [KINDIG note: I think the gist of his idea was that “The transformation happens inside us. It is not a transformation we accomplish toward others, but that God accomplishes in us.”

If we don’t get the message of the revolution as Jesus taught us, we are exchanging old wineskins for new wineskins while we keep and cherish old wine. — [KINDIG: Here is my recollection and rewording of what Brian was saying: in other words, the old wine is the failed paradigm of trying to change other people through organizations we establish — trying to gain power “for the accomplishing of good”. Adopting a new structure for doing that will not help us. We need to abandon that paradigm, that old wine, and allow God to change not only the wineskin, the structure of our community, but also the wine, the goal and method of our transformation — from using power to change others to allowing God’s power to change us while we accept the other brothers and sisters in our community.]

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print
  • More
  • Reddit
  • Pocket
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Pinterest

Like this:

Like Loading...

Phariseesim defined nicely

22 Monday May 2006

Posted by Owen in Emergent Conversation

≈ Leave a comment

David Wayne did a great job of defining the differeence bbetween Phariseeism and faith in the gospel. My comments are here.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print
  • More
  • Reddit
  • Pocket
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Pinterest

Like this:

Like Loading...

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • November 2016
  • February 2016
  • November 2015
  • July 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • January 2010
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • November 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • May 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • April 2005
  • February 2005
  • October 2003
  • November 2002

Categories

  • a happy God
  • barna
  • Bible Questions
  • books
  • Brian McLaren
  • Calvinism
  • christian colonialism
  • Christian liberty
  • Christian trends
  • christianity
  • Christmas
  • Emergent Conversation
  • enjoying the universe
  • eschatology
  • evangelicalism
  • fatherhood
  • forgiveness
  • Generous Orthodoxy
  • George Barna
  • gnosticism
  • Hell
  • Jim Henderson
  • John MacArthur
  • John Piper
  • judgments of God
  • love of God
  • Mark Driscoll
  • media
  • movies
  • off-the-map
  • orthodoxy
  • Personal Observations
  • poverty and its causes
  • Promises of God
  • prophecy
  • race
  • reconciliation
  • religion
  • religion and politics
  • remnant
  • restorationism
  • revolution
  • revolutionconference
  • Rob Bell
  • salvation
  • Theodicy
  • Uncategorized
  • universalism
  • Virginia Tech
  • Zionism

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Happy God
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Happy God
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this: