http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid7852.html
CHECK IT OUT!
GLAD I AM NOT ON THE LIST.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Postmodernism, What a Trip!: The Reflective Journey of a Graduate Student in the Postmodern Age
I want to preface this entry by saying that when I speak of postmodernism I really have no idea what I am talking about (the common intellectual plague of anyone who tries to discuss postmodernism). I only hope to work from my limited understanding to tease out some of my own intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual joys and qualms of postmodernism as I am exposed to it in my field of study as well as in my everyday life. After a semester of diving deeper and deeper into cultural and literary theory (and by deeper and deeper I mean finally scratching the surface), I have concluded one thing: Postmodernism and new cultural history arethe most promising things ever because you can produce any kind of work no matter how "out there" and still be engaged in the scholarly discourse.
This past weekend (April 7-8), the history department here at Southern Illinois University Carbondale (SIUC) hosted a conference for graduate students. Of all the papers I heard presented, I would say that postmodern scholarship is perhaps in its heyday. When asked by a colleague in the department--the esteemed Art "Shameless/Capote" Fitz-Gerald--what I thought of the conference, I responded that I have a new found hope in postmodern scholarship because the work I am currently doing will not be quite as crazy as I originally thought it was. Recently I consulted my advisor. We discussed this very idea. She said that while there cannot be any absolute, the possibilities are endless in how to interpret events, physical objects, people, literature, etc. in order to assess something about the culture or to psychoanalyze the people of a time and place.
I do not think I can go so far as to say I reject absolutes, for I think that we Christians do have some certain absolutes upon which we must stand (that "Solid Rock" upon our hope is built, to take from that sweet, old hymn). Of course, to make postmodernism an absolute would be hypocritical, unless it is the absolute of the individual in which case it is alright. However, neither did my advisor think that postmodernism is the "true" way to go. As she told me, it is an interesting intellectual challenge that we can perform (to steal postmod jargon) in order to join in on the academic discourse (also jargon).
These comments being said, I embrace postmodernism and postmodern scholarship (what I know of it or what I think I know of it) as a means of (1) finishing grad school, (2) getting into the career, and (3) eventually teasing out my understandings of culture theory and apply those to my own profession/practice of faith and any opportunities for ministry/discipleship that I hope and pray to come out of my career, family, church, and civic and social involvement.
Perform criticism, let us engage in discourse and deconstruct my understandings and identity. My mind is a text open to interpretation.
This past weekend (April 7-8), the history department here at Southern Illinois University Carbondale (SIUC) hosted a conference for graduate students. Of all the papers I heard presented, I would say that postmodern scholarship is perhaps in its heyday. When asked by a colleague in the department--the esteemed Art "Shameless/Capote" Fitz-Gerald--what I thought of the conference, I responded that I have a new found hope in postmodern scholarship because the work I am currently doing will not be quite as crazy as I originally thought it was. Recently I consulted my advisor. We discussed this very idea. She said that while there cannot be any absolute, the possibilities are endless in how to interpret events, physical objects, people, literature, etc. in order to assess something about the culture or to psychoanalyze the people of a time and place.
I do not think I can go so far as to say I reject absolutes, for I think that we Christians do have some certain absolutes upon which we must stand (that "Solid Rock" upon our hope is built, to take from that sweet, old hymn). Of course, to make postmodernism an absolute would be hypocritical, unless it is the absolute of the individual in which case it is alright. However, neither did my advisor think that postmodernism is the "true" way to go. As she told me, it is an interesting intellectual challenge that we can perform (to steal postmod jargon) in order to join in on the academic discourse (also jargon).
These comments being said, I embrace postmodernism and postmodern scholarship (what I know of it or what I think I know of it) as a means of (1) finishing grad school, (2) getting into the career, and (3) eventually teasing out my understandings of culture theory and apply those to my own profession/practice of faith and any opportunities for ministry/discipleship that I hope and pray to come out of my career, family, church, and civic and social involvement.
Perform criticism, let us engage in discourse and deconstruct my understandings and identity. My mind is a text open to interpretation.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
New Pages
I have added new pages to my blog. One is news about Kasey and I. The other is a running list of books I am reading (for class or for other). The links are available to the right.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Einstein's Dreams
Einstein's Dreams; a novel. By Alan Lightman (1993). Published by Vintage Contemporaries (New York, 2004). 140 pgs. $12 U.S.
I just read this book over the past few days. Lightman compiles the dreams of Einstein into diary-style entries. The text provides a window into the metaphysical as well as ethical issues expressed by Einstein in his wrestling with his theory of relativity. I am not too familiar with the theory. I would like to research it more to enrich this text, or vice versa. It is a bit heady, but an easy read and enjoyable. The narrative aids in handling the text. If you get a chance, pick up a copy and read over it.
For a list of books that I am reading, please refer to libribartonii.blogspot.com (link to the right).
I just read this book over the past few days. Lightman compiles the dreams of Einstein into diary-style entries. The text provides a window into the metaphysical as well as ethical issues expressed by Einstein in his wrestling with his theory of relativity. I am not too familiar with the theory. I would like to research it more to enrich this text, or vice versa. It is a bit heady, but an easy read and enjoyable. The narrative aids in handling the text. If you get a chance, pick up a copy and read over it.
For a list of books that I am reading, please refer to libribartonii.blogspot.com (link to the right).
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Happy Holidays
Another poorly-informed individual providing his two cents on the trite holiday season debate.
Most of you are probably aware of the complaint made by some (not all) religious conservatives who are disappointed in President Bush's seasonal greeting cards stating "Happy Holidays" and not "Merry Christmas." The reaction of the few (again, not all) religious conservatives has again sparked the debate between "liberals" and "fundamentalists" on whether this season should be a Christo-centric holiday season or an eclectic observation of cultural heritages that celebrate a holiday during this end-of-year season.
As a self-fashioning conservative evangelical, I am going to weigh in my poorly-informed comments to express my thoughts on the matter. I say poorly-informed not to suggest that this is the error of religious conservatives, but that I do not have the time to research this issue to any exhaustive measure, just basing my thoughts on the few articles and "no-spin" shows I have seen regarding the matter. First, we conservatives should not become defensive and suggest that our religious freedom is being infringed upon. Neither should we expect the president or any other public official to represent us solely (pardon me for opening this can of worms). As a representative of the American public, that means also representing those who do not comprise the Christian concensus of middle America. Please read further to understand what I am trying to say.
Secondly, I believe it is imperative that we acknowledge and appreciate the cultural differences within our society. Though we may disagree with some of these differences, that does not mean we should cast them out. I think the best means of expressing our sensitivity to these cultural differences during this season is to say "Happy Holidays." Therefore, if a presidential holiday greeting states "Happy Holidays," the President and Mrs. Bush are simply wishing anyone from any culture to enjoy one's seasonal celebration.
Another complaint is that commercial advertising is using such phrases as the holiday shopping season and holiday sales. Let me begin by saying that retailers have a number of holiday sales (Labor Day, 4th of July, etc.). Granted, these promotions usually state the specific holiday. However, those holidays hold a calendar monopoly. Christmas shares the same season as Hanukkah. Technically, those are two holidays. Hanukkah involves gift exchanging as well. Retailers simply decided to promote sales for the "holidays" in the plural to incorporate both gift-giving celebrations.
Now, if we corrected the dating of Christmas, we could avoid this problem. I do not know all the particulars on this, but I believe that biblical scholarship suggests that errors were made in calendar making and that arguably the birth of Jesus occured more likely in March. Of course, then Christmas would potentially conflict St. Patrick's Day and then we could have debate over the religious-holiday-turned-national-heritage-celebration in a culture war with the date-swapping religious holiday. Much in the same with the Kwanzaa-Christmas debate, it would become a issue of the Christo-centric holiday squashing the holiday celebrating ancestral pride and appreciation. Though, there is no chance that Christmas would move to March.
Lastly, I want to encourage the religious conservatives to still say "Merry Christmas" if you want to. Just say it to those who likewise celebrate the holiday. Say "Happy Holidays" to people who do not celebrate Christmas. Would you tell someone happy birthday who did not have a birthday on that day? If I knew anyone who was Jewish (sadly, I do not think I do), I would tell that person to have a happy Hanukkah. Likewise, I will tell my family and friends from church "Merry Christmas" because that is the holiday we celebrate. It just makes sense to me. On that note, Happy Holidays:
To fellow Christians: Merry Christmas
To Jewish people: Happy Hanukkah (12/25-1/2) and Happy belated New Year (10/3-10/5)
To African-Americans/Afro-Americans/black people: Happy Kwanzaa (12/26-1/1)
Happy New Year
To Chinese people: Happy New Year (1/29)
And for the rest of us: Happy Festivus (12/23)
Feel free to comment on what I have to say.
Most of you are probably aware of the complaint made by some (not all) religious conservatives who are disappointed in President Bush's seasonal greeting cards stating "Happy Holidays" and not "Merry Christmas." The reaction of the few (again, not all) religious conservatives has again sparked the debate between "liberals" and "fundamentalists" on whether this season should be a Christo-centric holiday season or an eclectic observation of cultural heritages that celebrate a holiday during this end-of-year season.
As a self-fashioning conservative evangelical, I am going to weigh in my poorly-informed comments to express my thoughts on the matter. I say poorly-informed not to suggest that this is the error of religious conservatives, but that I do not have the time to research this issue to any exhaustive measure, just basing my thoughts on the few articles and "no-spin" shows I have seen regarding the matter. First, we conservatives should not become defensive and suggest that our religious freedom is being infringed upon. Neither should we expect the president or any other public official to represent us solely (pardon me for opening this can of worms). As a representative of the American public, that means also representing those who do not comprise the Christian concensus of middle America. Please read further to understand what I am trying to say.
Secondly, I believe it is imperative that we acknowledge and appreciate the cultural differences within our society. Though we may disagree with some of these differences, that does not mean we should cast them out. I think the best means of expressing our sensitivity to these cultural differences during this season is to say "Happy Holidays." Therefore, if a presidential holiday greeting states "Happy Holidays," the President and Mrs. Bush are simply wishing anyone from any culture to enjoy one's seasonal celebration.
Another complaint is that commercial advertising is using such phrases as the holiday shopping season and holiday sales. Let me begin by saying that retailers have a number of holiday sales (Labor Day, 4th of July, etc.). Granted, these promotions usually state the specific holiday. However, those holidays hold a calendar monopoly. Christmas shares the same season as Hanukkah. Technically, those are two holidays. Hanukkah involves gift exchanging as well. Retailers simply decided to promote sales for the "holidays" in the plural to incorporate both gift-giving celebrations.
Now, if we corrected the dating of Christmas, we could avoid this problem. I do not know all the particulars on this, but I believe that biblical scholarship suggests that errors were made in calendar making and that arguably the birth of Jesus occured more likely in March. Of course, then Christmas would potentially conflict St. Patrick's Day and then we could have debate over the religious-holiday-turned-national-heritage-celebration in a culture war with the date-swapping religious holiday. Much in the same with the Kwanzaa-Christmas debate, it would become a issue of the Christo-centric holiday squashing the holiday celebrating ancestral pride and appreciation. Though, there is no chance that Christmas would move to March.
Lastly, I want to encourage the religious conservatives to still say "Merry Christmas" if you want to. Just say it to those who likewise celebrate the holiday. Say "Happy Holidays" to people who do not celebrate Christmas. Would you tell someone happy birthday who did not have a birthday on that day? If I knew anyone who was Jewish (sadly, I do not think I do), I would tell that person to have a happy Hanukkah. Likewise, I will tell my family and friends from church "Merry Christmas" because that is the holiday we celebrate. It just makes sense to me. On that note, Happy Holidays:
To fellow Christians: Merry Christmas
To Jewish people: Happy Hanukkah (12/25-1/2) and Happy belated New Year (10/3-10/5)
To African-Americans/Afro-Americans/black people: Happy Kwanzaa (12/26-1/1)
Happy New Year
To Chinese people: Happy New Year (1/29)
And for the rest of us: Happy Festivus (12/23)
Feel free to comment on what I have to say.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
An End-of-Semester Meditation
"The devout student is the best of all students. There are too many who are devout, but not students. They will not accept the discipline of study and of learning, and they even look with suspicion upon the further knowledge which study brings to men. There are equally too many who are students, but not devout. They are interested too much in intellectual knowledge, and too little in the life of prayer and in the life of service of their fellow men. A man would do well to aim at being not only a student, and not only devout, but at being a devout student. "
--William Barclay, 20th century Scottish Theologian
I appreciate Mr. James Petticrew for inserting this quote in his comments to Dr. Ken Schenck's blog "Thanks to God: A quick entry before grading..." (November 25, 2005 www.kenschenck.blogspot.com)
I'll be meditating on this quote for the next few days. Hopefully my thoughts will generate something. More to come.
--William Barclay, 20th century Scottish Theologian
I appreciate Mr. James Petticrew for inserting this quote in his comments to Dr. Ken Schenck's blog "Thanks to God: A quick entry before grading..." (November 25, 2005 www.kenschenck.blogspot.com)
I'll be meditating on this quote for the next few days. Hopefully my thoughts will generate something. More to come.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Thoughts from "Gnostic Gospels"
Should personal conviction and church authority have a checks and balances system?
This weekend I read The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels, a church historian from Princeton (though she received her degree from Harvard, ironic). I had to write a review on the book, and overall I really enjoyed it.
Pagels received a lot of flack for writing this book because she suggests that the real issue of the Gnostic controversy in the early centuries of the church was not the theological dispute, but rather the challenge that Gnosticism presented to church authority and leadership as a result of differing ideologies.
Basically, she says that the Gnostics questioned the authority of church leaders that claimed their authority rested on the authority of the apostles. This is a result of the difference in interpretation of the resurrection of Christ. Orthodox Christians believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, who appeared to the apostles. This encounter with the bodily risen Christ becomes the standard for one being an apostle. In the generations following the apostles, leaders in the church claimed their authority as being approved by those whom the apostles approved, the apostles being the ones approved by Christ (this is the same idea to this day about the ordination of ministers). The Gnostics disagreed with the orthodox Christians, claiming that the resurrection was not bodily and only served as a symbol of one's spiritual enlightenment that God provides. Thus, the Gnostics argued that the requirement for authority and leadership in the church is not apostolic succession, but the divine enlightenment that comes from self-knowledge and the search for truth.
Therefore, Pagels argues that since the Gnostics would not accept the authority of the bishops, priests, and deacons (she also explains some other reasons for this, but they do not serve this blog installment), they were ousted from the fellowship of believers because their ideology so contrasted the goals of the church in becoming an institutionalized religion. Pagels says that the survival of Christianity owes much to this "political" decision to make Christianity an instituion. We of course look at this decision as a triumph over heresy in which God preserved true doctrine in order to continue Chrsitianity throughout history. I believe that perhaps both interpretations work together, but this is not the point of this installment.
Also this weekend, Kasey and I watched the hilarious movie Saved! about the quirkiness of the Chrsitian subculture set in a suburban Maryland Christian high school (comically named American Eagle). Among a number of criticism of the Christian subculture this film presents, I noticed the role that personal revelation plays in this film (one girl claims that Jesus told her to have sex with her gay boyfriend to make him straight, while another girl claims Jesus told her to vandalize the school and blame it on the only Jewish girl in the school to get her expelled). And this made me wonder... how often to people claim "divine revelation" as the source of what they do?
Now, I know that these examples are extremes. But what about lesser cases, ones that would go under the radar of spiritual discernment? What if someone felt that God had told them to do something that was so completely irrational that it would seem foolish to do it? What would a church be like if everyone acted out any whimsical thought or deed ostensibly as the divine revelation or commandment?
Here is why I am glad orthodoxy did triumph, among other reasons. Thanks to God, the triumph of orthodoxy allowed for leaders within the church to be entrusted with the calling and equipping of the apostles for the purpose of ordering the congregation (one of the three purpose the church, as I remember from Dr. Bounds's theology class). In addition, I am thankful that God gifts some people with spiritual discernment to counsel others who sense God's calling into any part of life. And there is also the affirmation of the congregation, which I feel is necessary in confirming any calling that God has given someone.
I understand that the authority of the church and its leaders is subject to abuse and corruption. This is in part why there was such a thing as the Reformation. Luther himself was an advocate for personal conviction, as was John Wesley. However, they both also upheld the role and authority of the church (Luther said that if the church's authority was soundly based on the Bible he would submit to it; Wesley's quadrilateral included church tradition with personal experience). Though, I see the possible abuses and corruption that could result in letting people act on what they believe is divine revelation (or what they tell people is divine revelation) without being checked by any authoritative standard. Can you imagine if all we had to check someone's personal conviction was someone else's personal conviction? Though both are dangerous, I am going to side with an orthodox understanding of church leadership and authority. While I might disagree with church leaders from time to time in my life, I will ultimately have to submit as long as their authority is grounded in Scripture, based on sound reason, and affirmed by the congregation. How about you?
This weekend I read The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels, a church historian from Princeton (though she received her degree from Harvard, ironic). I had to write a review on the book, and overall I really enjoyed it.
Pagels received a lot of flack for writing this book because she suggests that the real issue of the Gnostic controversy in the early centuries of the church was not the theological dispute, but rather the challenge that Gnosticism presented to church authority and leadership as a result of differing ideologies.
Basically, she says that the Gnostics questioned the authority of church leaders that claimed their authority rested on the authority of the apostles. This is a result of the difference in interpretation of the resurrection of Christ. Orthodox Christians believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, who appeared to the apostles. This encounter with the bodily risen Christ becomes the standard for one being an apostle. In the generations following the apostles, leaders in the church claimed their authority as being approved by those whom the apostles approved, the apostles being the ones approved by Christ (this is the same idea to this day about the ordination of ministers). The Gnostics disagreed with the orthodox Christians, claiming that the resurrection was not bodily and only served as a symbol of one's spiritual enlightenment that God provides. Thus, the Gnostics argued that the requirement for authority and leadership in the church is not apostolic succession, but the divine enlightenment that comes from self-knowledge and the search for truth.
Therefore, Pagels argues that since the Gnostics would not accept the authority of the bishops, priests, and deacons (she also explains some other reasons for this, but they do not serve this blog installment), they were ousted from the fellowship of believers because their ideology so contrasted the goals of the church in becoming an institutionalized religion. Pagels says that the survival of Christianity owes much to this "political" decision to make Christianity an instituion. We of course look at this decision as a triumph over heresy in which God preserved true doctrine in order to continue Chrsitianity throughout history. I believe that perhaps both interpretations work together, but this is not the point of this installment.
Also this weekend, Kasey and I watched the hilarious movie Saved! about the quirkiness of the Chrsitian subculture set in a suburban Maryland Christian high school (comically named American Eagle). Among a number of criticism of the Christian subculture this film presents, I noticed the role that personal revelation plays in this film (one girl claims that Jesus told her to have sex with her gay boyfriend to make him straight, while another girl claims Jesus told her to vandalize the school and blame it on the only Jewish girl in the school to get her expelled). And this made me wonder... how often to people claim "divine revelation" as the source of what they do?
Now, I know that these examples are extremes. But what about lesser cases, ones that would go under the radar of spiritual discernment? What if someone felt that God had told them to do something that was so completely irrational that it would seem foolish to do it? What would a church be like if everyone acted out any whimsical thought or deed ostensibly as the divine revelation or commandment?
Here is why I am glad orthodoxy did triumph, among other reasons. Thanks to God, the triumph of orthodoxy allowed for leaders within the church to be entrusted with the calling and equipping of the apostles for the purpose of ordering the congregation (one of the three purpose the church, as I remember from Dr. Bounds's theology class). In addition, I am thankful that God gifts some people with spiritual discernment to counsel others who sense God's calling into any part of life. And there is also the affirmation of the congregation, which I feel is necessary in confirming any calling that God has given someone.
I understand that the authority of the church and its leaders is subject to abuse and corruption. This is in part why there was such a thing as the Reformation. Luther himself was an advocate for personal conviction, as was John Wesley. However, they both also upheld the role and authority of the church (Luther said that if the church's authority was soundly based on the Bible he would submit to it; Wesley's quadrilateral included church tradition with personal experience). Though, I see the possible abuses and corruption that could result in letting people act on what they believe is divine revelation (or what they tell people is divine revelation) without being checked by any authoritative standard. Can you imagine if all we had to check someone's personal conviction was someone else's personal conviction? Though both are dangerous, I am going to side with an orthodox understanding of church leadership and authority. While I might disagree with church leaders from time to time in my life, I will ultimately have to submit as long as their authority is grounded in Scripture, based on sound reason, and affirmed by the congregation. How about you?
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
A Voice in the Wilderness: Barton Price in Carbondale, IL
Yes, I know some of you are wondering why I would be blogging. Well... because I am avoiding homework, that's why. But seriously, in the past couple weeks I have began to read the insightful and contemplative writings of the esteemed Dr. Kenneth Schenck and insightful, yet often humorous, writings of Rev. John Freed, and in so reading I found that maybe I should also begin posting some of my thoughts as well. I mean, I'm thinking all the time. So, I might as well post, right?
As the title may have given it away, yes I am living in Carbondale, IL where my wife, Kasey, and I are in grad school and working as graduate assistants at Southern Illinois University. I say that I am the voice in the wilderness because in some respects, Carbondale is comparable to the wilderness of John the Baptist (sort of). We do live less than 30 minutes from the Shawnee National Forest, and that's wilderness. Though I am no prophet. However, in this season I can hear faintly something telling me "prepare the way of the Lord." Here I apologize to all those exegesis gear heads like me who cringe at my poor appropriation of Scripture, but please allow me some creative license. I am sure that some of you will be comforted by what I have to say.
I loved being a student at Indiana Wesleyan, to some degree. I know I probably complained too much about some things and did not appreciate other things. But all in all, I loved being a student there, perhaps too much. I chose a major that provided opportunities to engage in some weighty theological and philosophical discussions with my colleagues, only to abandonment of any professional development. Choosing not to pursue a career in pastoral ministry, I graduated with the tools for theory with very little praxis.
Now a college grad, married, and functionally unemployed outside of my job (for which I am truly grateful) that pays for my graduate education, I am considering what truly is my ambition in life. Simply, I want to teach. I want to be the very men I admired everyday I went to class (and still admired in spite of how much they challenged my critical thinking). This is what I am convinced is my calling. As Kasey and I are in this season here at SIU, we are preparing for the way of the Lord, the careers that we are sure He has called us to perform.
No, sadly I do not have it all figured out. But this confirmation is my comfort as I study (and as I neglect the paper I should be writing). Hoping and praying that I survive grad school and hoping and praying all the more that I am marketable when I graduate, I strive on to do better justice to my calling that I think that I did while in college. Please keep us both in your prayers.
More to come on this page. Feel free to respond to my postings. I would love to hear from all of you. Sincerely,
Barton
As the title may have given it away, yes I am living in Carbondale, IL where my wife, Kasey, and I are in grad school and working as graduate assistants at Southern Illinois University. I say that I am the voice in the wilderness because in some respects, Carbondale is comparable to the wilderness of John the Baptist (sort of). We do live less than 30 minutes from the Shawnee National Forest, and that's wilderness. Though I am no prophet. However, in this season I can hear faintly something telling me "prepare the way of the Lord." Here I apologize to all those exegesis gear heads like me who cringe at my poor appropriation of Scripture, but please allow me some creative license. I am sure that some of you will be comforted by what I have to say.
I loved being a student at Indiana Wesleyan, to some degree. I know I probably complained too much about some things and did not appreciate other things. But all in all, I loved being a student there, perhaps too much. I chose a major that provided opportunities to engage in some weighty theological and philosophical discussions with my colleagues, only to abandonment of any professional development. Choosing not to pursue a career in pastoral ministry, I graduated with the tools for theory with very little praxis.
Now a college grad, married, and functionally unemployed outside of my job (for which I am truly grateful) that pays for my graduate education, I am considering what truly is my ambition in life. Simply, I want to teach. I want to be the very men I admired everyday I went to class (and still admired in spite of how much they challenged my critical thinking). This is what I am convinced is my calling. As Kasey and I are in this season here at SIU, we are preparing for the way of the Lord, the careers that we are sure He has called us to perform.
No, sadly I do not have it all figured out. But this confirmation is my comfort as I study (and as I neglect the paper I should be writing). Hoping and praying that I survive grad school and hoping and praying all the more that I am marketable when I graduate, I strive on to do better justice to my calling that I think that I did while in college. Please keep us both in your prayers.
More to come on this page. Feel free to respond to my postings. I would love to hear from all of you. Sincerely,
Barton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
