You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2007.
-
One of the most Constitutional liberals alive. This is an excellent history lesson…listen carefully.(tags: Constitution)
-
Unfortunately Newt is out…another Pro-War candidate would have been great to level the votes…(tags: politics)
-
Yes, we can be out of Iraq in 3-6 months…(tags: War)
- CAMPONTHIS: Smokin’ In The Boys Room
…is it a sin, a bad habit, or has the church just been plain legalistic?Baptist writer and Songwriter Steve Camp has a helpful analysis about smoking. Is it a sin?
- Daily Kos: Help! I really like Ron Paul!
A democrat considers voting for Ron Paul!
-
Baptist writer and Songwriter Steve Camp has a helpful analysis about smoking. Is it a sin?
-
A democrat considers voting for Ron Paul!
Much has happened in the last few days. My birthday on the 26th was a pleasant time with a fine cigar from a friend and a fabulous dinner from my lovely wife.
One of my great joys this semester has been my preaching lab with the Rev. John Holland. He is a disciple of Richard Pratt, one of the instrumental voices in my theological training. Our class will make some fine pastors and preachers one day. Our group went out for a beer afterwards where we continued our great fellowship.
I was very pleased also with the outstanding performance of the Brazilian girls yesterday as they defeated the US 4×0. Last night I was able to watch a re-run of the match. A fascinating result in light of the fact that these Brazilian girls will go back home (whether or not with the title) to a country that does not encourage a Women’s Soccer League. Some of these girls don’t even have phones in their homes. This is the triumph of perseverance and determination.
Last night’s Republican debate on PBS was short and to the point.1 Fortunately, the top-four candidates decided not to show, which I predict may affect them negatively in the long-run. The debate dealt with economic issues, issues of race, health care, the death penalty and some other topics. The six candidates were given one minute to respond each question.
Former Ambassador Alan Keyes was energetic and filled with theological vigor. He continues to shake his head and extend his arms in his remarks like an old Southern preacher. Though he is generally correct on most issues, his entrance into the race was merely to put him back on national television. Alan Keyes is also a supporter of the war in Iraq; he offers nothing new, except a dynamic personality, which may add some interesting moments in future debates, should he be invited.
Congressman Duncan Hunter is probably the most unnecessary voice in the debate. He adds nothing of any value to the debate. I hope that in the end of this quarter (30th of September) Hunter would quietly step out of the race.
Congressman Tom Tancredo continues to be an insignificant voice in the debate. His central issue has always been Illegal Immigration. He stresses that forcefully and to some extent I find it helpful, in light of the ambiguity of most candidates. Nevertheless, he is a poor communicator and lacks a more comprehensive approach to this campaign. One-issue candidates are only here for the show and more recognition.
Senator Sam Brownback continued to echo his desire to restore the family. He adds little insight into the debates. I also hope he drops out after the end of this quarter. He contradicted Ron Paul’s continued assertion that the US did not declare war. Brownback is disqualified for not understanding Congress’ responsibility in declaring war.
Governor Mike Huckabee is always at his best when he communicates. Unlike most of the candidates, he has experience that most resembles the president’s. On the question of the death penalty he gave a moving testimony about how difficult it is to sign a document that gives the right to execute. I have plenty of disagreements with the governor, but I think he is saner than most of the candidates. On a negative note, Huckabee is more statist than the other candidates. He has supported tax-funding for various unconstitutional programs.
Finally, the honorable Ron Paul, who will shock the media on the 30th with his remarkable fund-raising ability. On the Paul website there is a ticker with the amount of money they have raised this week. It has surpassed their expectations. Over 500 thousand has been raised in less than one week. They are now shooting for 1 million before the 30th.
Paul’s performance was solid and filled with conviction. He is versed in economics, Constitutional law, and various other issues. On an interesting note, Paul objects to the Federal death penalty. According to Paul, the Federal Government is biased towards the rich and the poor always gets the maximum penalty. I concur with Paul, though we are to fight for a righteous society where this form of injustice does not occur.
Footnotes
Last night’s Republican debate on PBS was short and to the point. ((Watch the debate here.)) Fortunately, the top-four candidates decided not to show, which I predict may affect them negatively in the long-run. The debate dealt with economic issues, issues of race, health care, the death penalty and some other topics. The six candidates were given one minute to respond each question.
Former Ambassador Alan Keyes was energetic and filled with theological vigor. He continues to shake his head and extend his arms in his remarks like an old Southern preacher. Though he is generally correct on most issues, his entrance into the race was merely to put him back on national television. Alan Keyes is also a supporter of the war in Iraq; he offers nothing new, except a dynamic personality, which may add some interesting moments in future debates, should he be invited.
Congressman Duncan Hunter is probably the most unnecessary voice in the debate. He adds nothing of any value to the debate. I hope that in the end of this quarter (30th of September) Hunter would quietly step out of the race.
Congressman Tom Tancredo continues to be an insignificant voice in the debate. His central issue has always been Illegal Immigration. He stresses that forcefully and to some extent I find it helpful, in light of the ambiguity of most candidates. Nevertheless, he is a poor communicator and lacks a more comprehensive approach to this campaign. One-issue candidates are only here for the show and more recognition.
Senator Sam Brownback continued to echo his desire to restore the family. He adds little insight into the debates. I also hope he drops out after the end of this quarter. He contradicted Ron Paul’s continued assertion that the US did not declare war. Brownback is disqualified for not understanding Congress’ responsibility in declaring war.
Governor Mike Huckabee is always at his best when he communicates. Unlike most of the candidates, he has experience that most resembles the president’s. On the question of the death penalty he gave a moving testimony about how difficult it is to sign a document that gives the right to execute. I have plenty of disagreements with the governor, but I think he is saner than most of the candidates. On a negative note, Huckabee is more statist than the other candidates. He has supported tax-funding for various unconstitutional programs.
Finally, the honorable Ron Paul, who will shock the media on the 30th with his remarkable fund-raising ability. On the Paul website there is a ticker with the amount of money they have raised this week. It has surpassed their expectations. Over 500 thousand has been raised in less than one week. They are now shooting for 1 million before the 30th.
Paul’s performance was solid and filled with conviction. He is versed in economics, Constitutional law, and various other issues. On an interesting note, Paul objects to the Federal death penalty. According to Paul, the Federal Government is biased towards the rich and the poor always gets the maximum penalty. I concur with Paul, though we are to fight for a righteous society where this form of injustice does not occur.
Friday, 7:29AM
Much has happened in the last few days. My birthday on the 26th was a pleasant time with a fine cigar from a friend and a fabulous dinner from my lovely wife.
One of my great joys this semester has been my preaching lab with the Rev. John Holland. He is a disciple of Richard Pratt, one of the instrumental voices in my theological training. Our class will make some fine pastors and preachers one day. Our group went out for a beer afterwards where we continued our great fellowship.
I was very pleased also with the outstanding performance of the Brazilian girls yesterday as they defeated the US 4×0. Last night, I was able to watch a re-run of the match. A fascinating result in light of the fact that these Brazilian girls will go back home (whether or not with the title) to a country that does not encourage a Women’s Soccer League. Some of these girls don’t even have phones in their homes. This is the triumph of perseverance and determination.
- The Pro-Death Foreign Policy of Pro-Life Activists by Gary NorthIf you have never read Gary North this is a good article to start. North’s forceful and truthful commentary is always thought-provoking.
- The Pro-Death Foreign Policy of Pro-Life Activists by Gary NorthIf you have never read Gary North this is a good article to start. North’s forceful and truthful commentary is always thought-provoking.
- BLOG and MABLOG
The Anti-Christ and Beast
(tags: Preterism)
- Glenn Greenwald – Political Blogs and Opinions – Salon
More Common Sense
After a long time, I have finally received my first copy of Credenda Agenda. To my great surprise, the entire issue is dedicated to an unknown topic called: The Federal Vision.
P.J. O’Rourke once wrote: “The body politic produces noisome and unseemly substances, among which are politicians.”1 Modern politicians lack the firmness that citizens demand, because they have never stood for anything consistently. Changing positions because of political expediency is an example of modern political discourse. Whether it be Romney or Giuliani the message is clear: these men lack conviction. They may fool some with their platform, but for others they will continue to prove the undeniable fact that politicians are a noisome species.
Footnotes
- P. J. O’Rourke, “No Apparent Motive”, The Atlantic, November 2002 [↩ back]
P.J. O’Rourke once wrote: “The body politic produces noisome and unseemly substances, among which are politicians.” (( P. J. O’Rourke, “No Apparent Motive”, The Atlantic, November 2002)) Modern politicians lack the firmness that citizens demand, because they have never stood for anything consistently. Changing positions because of political expediency is an example of modern political discourse. Whether it be Romney or Giuliani the message is clear: these men lack conviction. They may fool some with their platform, but for others they will continue to prove the undeniable fact that politicians are a noisome species.
-
The Anti-Christ and Beast(tags: Preterism)
-
More Common Sense
I had my stitches removed this morning after the frightening experience I had some weeks ago. I have since spent the entire morning working on my Hebrew. I have done some editing on my Saturday posts on the Federal Vision discussion. I will continue to blog through it in the days ahead.
Starting with this post, I will be focusing on the discussion that occurred on September 18th.
Caleb Stegall1 writes a post called: The Accidental Ecumenicist.
His central concern is that perhaps FV ” is an outgrowth of mere Christian monologism” He adds:
One of the principle differences eclipsed by mere Christian monologism is the Catholic critique which agrees with Weber’s claim that Protestantism “disenchanted” the world and enabled the outbreak of a dominant secular materialist culture because Protestantism did not sustain a sacramental theology and an attendant “enchanted” mentality. This is the alternative, Christian and catholic story of capitalist modernity as, according to one Catholic scholar, “the repression, displacement, and perversion of sacramentality—that is, of the capacity inherent in material things to be portals into divinity.
Though much of the Protestant Reformation was a reaction to the sacramental abuse of Rome, it must be reminded that the Reformation’s central argument at the time was against the removal of the cup from the people. It was not primarily an assault on the Roman doctrine of the Eucharist. As the quote mentions, we have long lost the capacity of seeing a mere material piece of bread and a cup of wine be what Jesus said it would be– real nourishment for the soul.
Footnotes
- I am not sure who he is [↩ back]
D.G. Hart begins to add some fuel to the discussion. Here is where I think my previous post begins to shed some of the main differences in FV attempts for catholicity and anti-FV attempts to remain in their miniscule, ever-so small bubbles.
Hart’s reply to Leithart is as follows:
So I would have thought that the proponents of FV in their effort to correct certain features of Reformed Christianity would not end up being as comparably broad as the National Association of Evangelicals.
Hart misunderstands Leithart. It is not that we want to embrace the shallowness of the NAE, but that we want to embrace the vastness of the catholic/orthodox world. We do not adopt evangelical methods, but we accept them as evangelicals. For Hart and others, they have spent so much effort in re-enforcing their distinctions, that they have lost the centrality of the Messianic message of unity.1
Footnotes
Leithart seems to draw the discussion a bit more into the concept of catholicity, which is a central concern of the Federal Vision. It is true as I have mentioned in the first post that the Federal Vision may have particular theological commitments that may alienate other Presbyterian communities. However, their ultimate goal is to bring together diverse communities into a gloriously united community. Here it is important to note that unity does not require agreement in all matters. If this were the case, no families would ever stay together. To borrow the analogy, a family stays together, despite their differences, because they have come to the conclusion that if they are not united on what is central, they will self-destruct. They do not compromise their familial identity; they are still a Smith or a Brown. In like manner, the Reformed faith does not need to compromise their identity to live in unity with one another or even other families. Imagine that!
In light of my analogy, which may be more or less correct, Leithart says the following:
That means, for instance, that we’re willing to draw insights from Catholics like de Lubac, Bouyer, or Congar, or Orthodox theologians like Schmemann. More globally (and more controversially), it means that we’re not trying to formulate theological positions over-against – fill in the blank – Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Methodist, what have you. The resulting theology is Reformed, but it’s Reformed and catholic – or maybe catholic and Reformed.
This, in my perception, is a healthy form of catholicity embraced by Federal Vision proponents.
Peter Leithart enters the dialogue with a helpful piece entitled: Ecclesial Calvinism.
Leithart offers a few more valuable insights from a Federal Vision perspective. Leithart writes about his introduction to Calvin’s Institutes:
I remember the first time I read through the Institutes and discovered to my astonishment that Calvin, like Cyprian, thought we needed an earthly mother as well as a heavenly Father. That was not the ecclesiology that I encountered in the Reformed churches I first knew. Nor was Calvin’s sacramental theology popular among self-professed Calvinists. In this sense, FV is a kind of Reformed ressourcement, an effort to reconstruct a Reformed ecclesiology from the rubble left by Pietism and Revivalism.
Interestingly, the Federal Vision does not claim to have stumbled across a new expression of Reformed Theology, but it is rather a more robust expression of Calvin’s Reformation. Can any reader deny the impressive and most-dangerous influence left by Pietism and Revivalism?1 The enormous corruption of our Reformed tradition comes when we subtly allow the infiltration of these un-Reformed thoughts in our churches. We lose our distinctiveness and our ecclesial heritage.
Hart does not seem to tackle the essence of Leithart’s arguments, though he mentions in passing:
But my sense, which is limited, is that FV has been a tad cliquish and disrespectful of Calvinists who are trying to embody the faith in discipline churches.
That FV’ers are somewhat cliquish is up for debate, but that FV’ers are disrespectful is somewhat dishonest. As Hart himself claims, the Auburn Avenue Conference treated him kindly when he spoke at their conference some years ago. Perhaps if more dialogues like these had taken place, many of these comments could have been avoided. Concerning the cliquish nature of FV’ers, indeed that may well be the case in some instances. However, it is to be remembered that when so many are phobic about a high sacramentology and a high view of the mission of the church, it is easy to see why there is a natural separation.
Footnotes
- See Rich Lusk’s article on The Federal Vision for a more expanded treatment of this subject; also search on my site for Federal Vision where I deal briefly with Lusk’s points [↩ back]
My friend John Muether joins the conversation. He writes:
I am with Doug and Peter on their anti-Gnostic and high church sentiments. I would shamelessly add that the Nicotine Theological Journal (founded 1997) was lobbying for those causes long before the infamous Auburn Ave conference of 2002.
Apart from some humorous comments/attacks concerning one of my favorite economists Gary North, which the NTJ refers to “Scary Gary,” it is a pretty good journal. However, I think John is “purposefully” missing the point in the discussion.1 Of course, Wilson and Leithart are not using the idea of anti-Gnosticism to combat fundamentalists in their “don’t drink, don’t smoke” campaigns. Rather, they are asserting that a two-kingdom view, explicit in Lutheran theology is wrong-headed.2 What Wilson and others argue is for a victorious eschatology; one that is firmed and grounded on the Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord, not merely in His death.
Muether also mentions that he agrees with FV’ers High-Church sentiments and as a defense of this he cites Hart’s book on Presbyterian Liturgy.3 Anyone familiar with the book, (which was used at RTS/Orlando when John Fesko taught for a week) knows that the book is a defense of the Regulative Principle of worship as defined and defended by the Puritans. Professor John Frame also from RTS/Orlando responds to this approach to worship in his two books.4
What Leithart and Wilson argue is for a faithful model of worship that brings together the distinct elements of Old Testament worship into the New Covenant (something that many Presbyterians fear). How this takes place may vary substantially in each FV church. for instance, Leithart, following Jim Jordan, argues for a joyous communion service. They argue that when the sacraments are served it should be a moment of celebration as in a feast and not a funeral. Hence, much of the common hymnody of the Eucharist would have to be changed to accommodate to the Scriptural emphasis on the joy of feasting with Christ. These concerns are not just merely preferential, but essential in defining FV’ers interest and concern.
Footnotes
- I say purposefully because he does not want to embrace gnosticism. Who in their right mind would? [↩ back]
- See my discussion with Professor Muether in my post entitled: In defense of Reggie Kidd [↩ back]
- The book is entitled: Recovering Mother Kirk [↩ back]
- I agree with some of Frame’s critiques, though I do not agree with how he would implement worship in the church [↩ back]
Starting with this post, I will be focusing on the discussion that occurred on September 18th.
Caleb Stegall ((I am not sure who he is)) writes a post called: The Accidental Ecumenicist.
His central concern is that perhaps FV ” is an outgrowth of mere Christian monologism” He adds:
One of the principle differences eclipsed by mere Christian monologism is the Catholic critique which agrees with Webers claim that Protestantism disenchanted the world and enabled the outbreak of a dominant secular materialist culture because Protestantism did not sustain a sacramental theology and an attendant enchanted mentality. This is the alternative, Christian and catholic story of capitalist modernity as, according to one Catholic scholar, the repression, displacement, and perversion of sacramentalitythat is, of the capacity inherent in material things to be portals into divinity.
Though much of the Protestant Reformation was a reaction to the sacramental abuse of Rome, it must be reminded that the Reformation’s central argument at the time was against the removal of the cup from the people. It was not primarily an assault on the Roman doctrine of the Eucharist. As the quote mentions, we have long lost the capacity of seeing a mere material piece of bread and a cup of wine be what Jesus said it would be– real nourishment for the soul.
In a previous post John Muether asks Doug Wilson: “Are you suggesting that amillennialism is an insufficiently embodied belief?”Wilson replies:
Every orthodox Christian position affirms the bodily resurrection of Christ, and our bodily resurrection in Him at the Last Day. So on what matters, that is more than “sufficient.” But I would say that postmillennialism represents more of a desire to see the embodiment of the kingdom in time and in history than does amillennialism.
Wilson makes a valid observation. In the end, our commitment and our embodied belief and orthodoxy centers on Creedal faith, not on eschatological commitment.
Professor Joel Garver adds some interesting insights as well. Garver seems to imply that eschatology is the wrong way of approaching such questions. For instance, Amils may be fulfilling their respective roles by fulfilling their calling around the table of our Lord and preaching the message of Christ to parishioners, whereas Postmils may be over-reaching in their attempt to bring about a new Christendom.
Garver makes a helpful observation. Indeed, the desire of Christian ministers is to fulfill their roles in their respected ministries. However, it is “over-reaching” to assume eschatology does not play a crucial role in that ministry. For instance, Steve Wilkins has argued that marriage is not for the couple, but ultimately for the world.1 In the same manner that postmillenial force is applied to worship and cultural engagement. All things are for the nations; for the restoration of the cosmos under one ruler-Christ Jesus. This appears to be a crucial impetus for ministerial work, further, it is a significant word of encouragement that God will fulfill His promises through His church.
Footnotes
1. From a recent sermon preached at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian entitled: Marriage is not for you [↩ back]
Chellis finally joins the conversation. He is a bit frustrated with Wilson’s emphasis on eschatology. In his own experience he left Postmillenialism due to its gnostic tendencies. (HUH?!) At any rate from his perspective he does not think that the FV debate should center around eschatological sectarianism. I agree and so does Wilson, but let us not fool ourselves, how you view eschatology is how you view the world.I think at this point we will be turning our attention to more specific FV concerns like justification, imputation, and covenantalism.
D.G. Hart begins to add some fuel to the discussion. Here is where I think my previous post begins to shed some of the main differences in FV attempts for catholicity and anti-FV attempts to remain in their miniscule, ever-so small bubbles.
Hart’s reply to Leithart is as follows:
So I would have thought that the proponents of FV in their effort to correct certain features of Reformed Christianity would not end up being as comparably broad as the National Association of Evangelicals.
Hart misunderstands Leithart. It is not that we want to embrace the shallowness of the NAE, but that we want to embrace the vastness of the catholic/orthodox world. We do not adopt evangelical methods, but we accept them as evangelicals. For Hart and others, they have spent so much effort in re-enforcing their distinctions, that they have lost the centrality of the Messianic message of unity. ((John 17))
Leithart seems to draw the discussion a bit more into the concept of catholicity, which is a central concern of the Federal Vision. It is true as I have mentioned in the first post that the Federal Vision may have particular theological commitments that may alienate other Presbyterian communities. However, their ultimate goal is to bring together diverse communities into a gloriously united community. Here it is important to note that unity does not require agreement in all matters. If this were the case, no families would ever stay together. To borrow the analogy, a family stays together, despite their differences, because they have come to the conclusion that if they are not united on what is central, they will self-destruct. They do not compromise their familial identity; they are still a Smith or a Brown. In like manner, the Reformed faith does not need to compromise their identity to live in unity with one another or even other families. Imagine that!
In light of my analogy, which may be more or less correct, Leithart says the following:
That means, for instance, that were willing to draw insights from Catholics like de Lubac, Bouyer, or Congar, or Orthodox theologians like Schmemann. More globally (and more controversially), it means that were not trying to formulate theological positions over-against – fill in the blank – Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Methodist, what have you. The resulting theology is Reformed, but its Reformed and catholic – or maybe catholic and Reformed.
This, in my perception, is a healthy form of catholicity embraced by Federal Vision proponents.
Chellis finally joins the conversation. He is a bit frustrated with Wilson’s emphasis on eschatology. In his own experience he left Postmillenialism due to its gnostic tendencies. (HUH?!) At any rate from his perspective he does not think that the FV debate should center around eschatological sectarianism. I agree and so does Wilson, but let us not fool ourselves, how you view eschatology is how you view the world.
I think at this point we will be turning our attention to more specific FV concerns like justification, imputation, and covenantalism.
In a previous post John Muether asks Doug Wilson: “Are you suggesting that amillennialism is an insufficiently embodied belief?”
Every orthodox Christian position affirms the bodily resurrection of Christ, and our bodily resurrection in Him at the Last Day. So on what matters, that is more than sufficient. But I would say that postmillennialism represents more of a desire to see the embodiment of the kingdom in time and in history than does amillennialism.
Wilson makes a valid observation. In the end, our commitment and our embodied belief and orthodoxy centers on Creedal faith, not on eschatological commitment.
Professor Joel Garver adds some interesting insights as well. Garver seems to imply that eschatology is the wrong way of approaching such questions. For instance, Amils may be fulfilling their respective roles by fulfilling their calling around the table of our Lord and preaching the message of Christ to parishioners, whereas Postmils may be over-reaching in their attempt to bring about a new Christendom.
Garver makes a helpful observation. Indeed, the desire of Christian ministers is to fulfill their roles in their respected ministries. However, it is “over-reaching” to assume eschatology does not play a crucial role in that ministry. For instance, Steve Wilkins has argued that marriage is not for the couple, but ultimately for the world. ((From a recent sermon preached at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian entitled: Marriage is not for you)) In the same manner that postmillenial force is applied to worship and cultural engagement. All things are for the nations; for the restoration of the cosmos under one ruler-Christ Jesus. This appears to be a crucial impetus for ministerial work, further, it is a significant word of encouragement that God will fulfill His promises through His church.
My friend John Muether joins the conversation. He writes:
I am with Doug and Peter on their anti-Gnostic and high church sentiments. I would shamelessly add that the Nicotine Theological Journal (founded 1997) was lobbying for those causes long before the infamous Auburn Ave conference of 2002.
Apart from some humorous comments/attacks concerning one of my favorite economists Gary North, which the NTJ refers to “Scary Gary,” it is a pretty good journal. However, I think John is “purposefully” missing the point in the discussion. (( I say purposefully because he does not want to embrace gnosticism. Who in their right mind would?)) Of course, Wilson and Leithart are not using the idea of anti-Gnosticism to combat fundamentalists in their “don’t drink, don’t smoke” campaigns. Rather, they are asserting that a two-kingdom view, explicit in Lutheran theology is wrong-headed. ((See my discussion with Professor Muether in my post entitled: In defense of Reggie Kidd)) What Wilson and others argue is for a victorious eschatology; one that is firmed and grounded on the Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord, not merely in His death.
Muether also mentions that he agrees with FV’ers High-Church sentiments and as a defense of this he cites Hart’s book on Presbyterian Liturgy. ((The book is entitled: Recovering Mother Kirk)) Anyone familiar with the book, (which was used at RTS/Orlando when John Fesko taught for a week) knows that the book is a defense of the Regulative Principle of worship as defined and defended by the Puritans. Professor John Frame also from RTS/Orlando responds to this approach to worship in his two books. ((I agree with some of Frame’s critiques, though I do not agree with how he would implement worship in the church))
What Leithart and Wilson argue is for a faithful model of worship that brings together the distinct elements of Old Testament worship into the New Covenant (something that many Presbyterians fear). How this takes place may vary substantially in each FV church. for instance, Leithart, following Jim Jordan, argues for a joyous communion service. They argue that when the sacraments are served it should be a moment of celebration as in a feast and not a funeral. Hence, much of the common hymnody of the Eucharist would have to be changed to accommodate to the Scriptural emphasis on the joy of feasting with Christ. These concerns are not just merely preferential, but essential in defining FV’ers interest and concern.
Recent Comments