This is the continuation of a dialog between "OnceAWesleyan" and me under the comment section of the previous post.
____________________
Question: Where does the biblical worldview come from?
OAW: The mind of God, by the procession of the Holy Spirt as He runs along the tracks of Scripture. It's called conversion and ongoing sanctification. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus. Be not conformed to this World but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind. Conversion and then progressive sanctification is what changes our Worldview so that our interpretations increasingly reflect the mind of God.The existence of the God of the Bible and the verity of His Word thus becomes the axiomatic presupposition upon which our Worldview rests. God is the necessary pre-condition for intelligability but it is a pre-condition that only God can give in conversion.
ME: It gives me no end of joy to see a Calvinist point to "experience" as the authenticator of the right presuppositions with which to approach the Bible :-)
I accept the strong possibility that there are clear presuppositional leanings a person will likely have after conversion that they might not have had prior to conversion. But I have two or three serious questions (and here I will not say I represent my tradition):
1. Since among those I would consider genuinely converted we find countless different understandings of the Bible, we are forced to a) deny most of them a true conversion or b) consider the conversion presuppositions very broad indeed.
2. I think I can follow the reasoning of the Reformed epistemologists. They seem to be using the same sort of "microreason" that people use every day in all sorts of different contexts, from blog discussions to scientific laboratories to choosing jello. These are rules of logic like a=a, if a=b and b=c then a=c, and so forth. The difference seems to be in the presuppositions, what possibilities are allowed (e.g., are miracles possible? can someone rise from the dead?).
3. There are points where this microreason and experience seem overpowering over the most faith-filled unless they are highly unstable mentally. So if I believed God was telling me that I had to believe that my car was purple to be saved, could I? If I tried would I not find myself on a path to lose my faith?
My point is that there is some level on which the reasoning of the converted and the reasoning of the unconverted seems to be the same basic micro-reason and experiential reasoning. I can account for Reformed epistemology simply by saying the presuppositions are different without saying the reasoning is different.
Wesley, who for good or ill was at least in part a child of the Enlightenment, saw this basic ability to reason as a product of God's prevenient grace. God has partially fired up the engines of all humanity's fallen natural image so that we can micro-reason correctly.
Now I'm sounding very modernist here, and there are a number of "after-modern" footnotes I think, but this line of thought seems to "work."
OAW: In the end, there are only two Worldviews.
ME: What do these each look like specifically?
Question: What is the source of this authoritative worldview?
OAW: The B-I-B-L-E Yes, that's the book for me.I stand alone on the Word of God.The B-I-B-L-E
ME: My problem is that my micro-reason has looked into the ancient context of the Bible and noticed a few things about the thoughts in the Bible. I see that Paul says he was taken up into the third heaven. I notice that the Testament of Levi pictures three heavens. I see that God separates waters in Genesis and puts the stars in between the waters. I see that the Enuma Elish has a creator God separating waters at the beginning of creation. I see Paul saying that husbands are the heads of their wives and then notice that Aristotle said the same thing a few hundred years before.
In short, I notice that the individual biblical writings seem to be in a dialog with their own worlds, that they share many worldview elements with their individual worlds. My micro-reason pushes me to wonder whether I do the same thing and often read these words quite differently than the original audiences did.
Take the vapor canopy theory of scientific creationists. A "literal" reading of Genesis places the stars between the waters above and the waters beneath. Is not then the vapor canopy reading an example of a modern scientific worldview directing the line of thought of a fundamentalist?
Question: Are you really going to suggest that in coming to Scripture you do so without biases that affect your conclusions on what counts for evidence?
ME: No, of course I have biases too. I advocate a "faith seeking understanding" model. But I would go insane if I had to continue to hold to various beliefs in the face of overwhelming "naughty data" that didn't fit it. It won't help my PR to mention Bultmann at this point, but there seems to be some truth (to put it in my words) to the idea that we can't rationally use cell phones, lap tops, and believe the Space Shuttle really flies and then arbitrarily reject the micro-reason that has brought these things in some other area of our thinking.
In these thoughts I only speak for myself, not for the Wesleyan Arminian tradition. Wesley's Enlightenment element is probably fair game for inner critique, even if I personally like it.
P.S. Quite funny isn't it, the Wesleyan argument for cognitive integrity, the Reformed person arguing for the importance of an experiential basis...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I think it's funny how you sometimes jump right into a post without any introduction of what you're doing . . .
. . . but overall nice discussion.
I would still like to know how you answer the question (with regard to hermeneutics): If you can "explain away" a passage of scripture by relegating its relevance to ancient worldviews, then how do you know you are "explaining too much away"?
Perhaps this is my own question. It is somewhat based on a slippery-slope fallacy, and is especially curious as regards a contemporary interpretation of the Christian's understanding of things like "wives, submit to your husbands."
Do you retort with something like: "Why don't we all reintroduce the practice of the holy kiss? or baptism in the name of 'Jesus only'? vel cetera?"
The fundamentalist goes nuts, the premodern listens carefully, and the modern and his descendants claim to 'listen insightfully' (or do they explain away?).
Thanks,
This is helpful. Please continue to post on this subject
Scott, I added an intro.
The expression "explain away" is of course loaded, even though I understand what it is getting at. But it's connotations are of someone trying to get out of following the Bible. To me this is a question of discerning God's will correctly. The Pharisees might have accused Jesus of trying to explain away the sabbath laws or Paul as explaining away the covenant rules on circumcision.
I think the situation is actually the other way around. Almost every word of the Bible (allowing some slack for prophecy) is enculturated (incarnated) in the sense that it made sense against the ancient worldviews of its first audiences. But "cultural" in my sense here need not be pitted against "timeless" in that some aspects of all cultures are common. So the fact that Aristotle and Paul agree on husband headship doesn't necessarily mean that this is not God's desire for all times and places. Maybe Aristotle had it right.
But ultimately I think the "consensus of the church" has, even for orthodox Protestants who deny it) and always is the true arbiter of Christian understanding of the Bible. The NT alone was not able to arbitrate between Athanasius and Arius.
My (well known) positions...
Question: Where does the biblical worldview come from?
OAW: The mind of God, by the procession of the Holy Spiirt as He runs along the tracks of Scripture. It's called conversion and ongoing sanctification. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus. Be not conformed to this World but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind. Conversion and then progressive sanctification is what changes our Worldview so that our interpretations increasingly reflect the mind of God.The existence of the God of the Bible and the verity of His Word thus becomes the axiomatic presupposition upon which our Worldview rests. God is the necessary pre-condition for intelligibility but it is a pre-condition that only God can give in conversion.
ME: It gives me no end of joy to see a Calvinist point to "experience" as the authenticator of the right presuppositions with which to approach the Bible :-)
OAW2 –
Appeal to the Spirit of the living God is an appeal to experience? Well I guess to a hammer everything looks like a nail.
This started when you questioned me,
“Where does the right worldview come from?”
This is basically a question asking, ‘how do we know what we know.’
We are shut up to three basic approaches to this question.
Reason
This is the approach of the Rationalist. Man, starting from himself, can develop the right worldview. (I would put ‘tradition’ as a subcategory here.)
Intuition
This is usually associated with mystical type approaches to truth.
Revelation
This is the reality that before people can have a Worldview that comports with true Knowledge of God, God must crush the unbelievers previous Worldview that is designed for the very purpose of suppressing God. In revelation God make Himself known. People only reason accurately about God once God has revealed Himself to them. They never autonomously reason their way to the God of the Bible. While there is such a thing as Natural Revelation there is no such thing as natural Theology because the unbeliever using his God hating Worldview suppresses the truth from Natural revelation that ontologically he can’t help but know to be true, since he is made in the Imago Dei. This is standard Christianity. The mind experiences the noetic effects of sin and like the rest of man is dead (I Cor. 2:14, Romans 8:7). In unrighteousness man builds Worldviews that are lies because they are from the Father of lies.
Now Christ is not only Priest and King but He is also Prophet, which is to say that He is the chief interpreter of reality. If we would interpret reality correctly we must think our thoughts after Him. The Spirit of Christ has been sent to lead us into all truth. Scripture teaches us that ‘God’s Word is Truth.’ In light of this if you will re-read my original answer you will see that I included all of these in answering you as to where right Worldviews come from.
Dr. Schenk writes,
I accept the strong possibility that there are clear presuppositional leanings a person will likely have after conversion that they might not have had prior to conversion. But I have two or three serious questions (and here I will not say I represent my tradition):
OAW
I would like to be clear here about how dramatic a difference conversion makes in our thinking and presuppositions.
Let’s take a hypothetical Western Pagan Scientist. Before conversion when the Scientist picked up a fossil he looked at it and saw evidence of billions and billions of years driven by godless evolution. Being Elect, our Scientist is regenerated and is given the mind of God and in Sanctification grows in the mind of God. Now our Scientist picks up the same fossil and looking at it see evidence of Creation.
What changed? Well in conversion His beginning point was changed and with his beginning point being changed His Worldview went from the anthropocentrism of Evolution to the Christocentrism of Biblical Christianity.
Dr. Schenk writes,
1. Since among those I would consider genuinely converted we find countless different understandings of the Bible, we are forced to a) deny most of them a true conversion or b) consider the conversion presuppositions very broad indeed.
OAW
Or we conclude that
c.) Sanctification is a process that requires the continual work of the Spirit of God to bring His people in harmony, and that God has good reasons for not bringing that harmony of thinking about yet.
d.) That there is room for SOME elasticity in a Biblical Worldview. That would fit nicely with the idea that God is both one and many. It would stand to reason that since in God both Unity and Diversity are equally ultimate you would find in Christian World views both a Unity that identifies them all as Christian and a Diversity that accounts for the elasticity.
e.) That an individual’s Theology has not yet caught up to their conversion.
I must admit, though that I believe, that many of those who are Christians in an objective sense need to be born again.
Dr. Schenk writes,
2. I think I can follow the reasoning of the Reformed epistemologists. They seem to be using the same sort of "microreason" that people use every day in all sorts of different contexts, from blog discussions to scientific laboratories to choosing jello. These are rules of logic like a=a, if a=b and b=c then a=c, and so forth. The difference seems to be in the presuppositions, what possibilities are allowed (e.g., are miracles possible? can someone rise from the dead?).
OAW
Actually, I’ve always thought of Biblical epistemology to be of the ‘macroreason’ variety. Biblical epistemology does not compartmentalize reality and so seeks to see the whole and how the parts inner-connect. For example, Biblical epistemology understands that there are distinctions between History and Literature, and Economics but we them all as but subsets of Theology.
Dr. Schenk writes,
3. There are points where this microreason and experience seem overpowering over the most faith-filled unless they are highly unstable mentally. So if I believed God was telling me that I had to believe that my car was purple to be saved, could I? If I tried would I not find myself on a path to lose my faith?
OAW
To be honest I don’t see how 3 follows two. Maybe it’s because I do believe that my car has to be purple in order to be saved.
Dr. Schenk writes,
My point is that there is some level on which the reasoning of the converted and the reasoning of the unconverted seems to be the same basic micro-reason and experiential reasoning. I can account for Reformed epistemology simply by saying the presuppositions are different without saying the reasoning is different.
OAW
OK… this makes sense (and don’t make fun of my purple car).
Surely you must admit that the reasoning is different. Someone who is reasoning while suppressing the truth in unrighteousness is surely going to be reasoning differently then somebody who isn’t. Now clearly when unbelievers get things right in their pagan Worldviews with their microreasoning it is an instance where they have imported Christian Capital into their Worldview in order to get it off the ground. It’s as if they have to sit in God’s lap in order to slap him in the face. Because the unbeliever could only go insane (Nietzsche) or kill themselves (all those who hate Wisdom love death) with a consistent unchristian reasoning and Worldview they import Christian capital into their non-Christian Worldviews. They hence become walking contradictions and it is precisely at those points of contradictions that God honored evangelism can happen.
Dr. Schenk,
Wesley, who for good or ill was at least in part a child of the Enlightenment, saw this basic ability to reason as a product of God's prevenient grace. God has partially fired up the engines of all humanity's fallen natural image so that we can micro-reason correctly.
Now I'm sounding very modernist here, and there are a number of "after-modern" footnotes I think, but this line of thought seems to "work."
OAW,
I really don’t know what you do with Romans 1:18-32 or what you do with the reality of the noetic effects of sin. In my humble opinion these seem to be major problems for you.
OAW2: In the end, there are only two Worldviews.
Dr. Schenk asks,
What do these each look like specifically?
OAW,
What, you want me to write a book on your blog?
Briefly – Very briefly,
Seed of the serpent vs. Seed of the woman
The antithesis – another Christian 101 doctrine.
A Christian Worldview
Epistemology -- Revelation – To the law and to the testimonies
Axiology – God is the ultimate value – All that we do is for His Glory
Ontology -- Personal creator
Teleology – Kingdom of God (I prefer postmillennial)
Pagan Worldview
Epistemology – Reason or intuition
Axiology – Man, individually or corporately, is the ultimate value
Ontology – Time + Chance + Circumstance / Chaos and Dark night
Teleology – Utopian or Nihilistic
The Christian worldview coheres because it corresponds to reality. The pagan worldview and putatively Christian worldviews that are laced with pagan presuppositions are full of contradictions and do not cohere because they do not correspond to reality.
I tell you what… I’ll recommend some books that deal with this question
Idol’s For Destruction – Schlossberg
Christian View Of Men & Things – Clark
Worldview- History of a concept – Naugle
The Christian View of God and the World As Centering in the Incarnation – Orr
Stone Lecture Series – Kuyper
City Of God – Augustine
Calvinistic Concept of Culture – H. Van Til
Now, if you’d like I’d be glad to go into this myself but it will take lots and lots of space and reading time.
Dr. Schenk wrote,
Question: What is the source of this authoritative worldview?
OAW: The B-I-B-L-E Yes, that's the book for me.I stand alone on the Word of God.The B-I-B-L-E
ME: My problem is that my micro-reason has looked into the ancient context of the Bible and noticed a few things about the thoughts in the Bible. I see that Paul says he was taken up into the third heaven. I notice that the Testament of Levi pictures three heavens. I see that God separates waters in Genesis and puts the stars in between the waters. I see that the Enuma Elish has a creator God separating waters at the beginning of creation. I see Paul saying that husbands are the heads of their wives and then notice that Aristotle said the same thing a few hundred years before.
OAW
Oh my.
Surely if the World is the way that God made it we can expect cultures that have deviated from the word of God to still retain vestiges of the rejected authority of God in their culture. As I said earlier, it is impossible to have a pagan worldview without some Christian capital in it to make it successful. Therefore, given that, I would contend that where we find Hittites with certain habits concerning covenants or where we find similar flood accounts (Gil Gameish epic) or where we find patriarchy being shared what we are seeing when inspired writers appeal to the same sort of thing are not examples of shared constructed reality but rather what we are seeing is non-Christian cultures maintaining their defiance of reality by incorporating enough of real reality in order to make sure the wheels of their psuedo-realities don’t fall off.
So if the biblical writers are in dialog with their own worlds and if they share many elements with it is because, in the end, the World they all live in is God’s world. They have, at the same time, everything in common and nothing in common with pagans. They have everything in common because it is God’s world and pagans can’t get away from that. Real reality is what it is. but they have nothing in common because the pagan is by means of his fallen epistemology is denying what ontologically he can’t escape, while the believer’s epistemology is seeking to re-interpret God’s reality after him and so is complimenting his confessed ontology.
Question: Are you really going to suggest that in coming to Scripture you do so without biases that affect your conclusions on what counts for evidence?
ME: No, of course I have biases too. I advocate a "faith seeking understanding" model. But I would go insane if I had to continue to hold to various beliefs in the face of overwhelming "naughty data" that didn't fit it.
OAW
There is no such thing as a brute fact. All facts are interpreted facts.
Dr. Schenk,
It won't help my PR to mention Bultmann at this point, but there seems to be some truth (to put it in my words) to the idea that we can't rationally use cell phones, lap tops, and believe the Space Shuttle really flies and then arbitrarily reject the micro-reason that has brought these things in some other area of our thinking.
OAW
LOL
Those things would have never come into being were it not for a Biblical Christian Worldview where the belief obtains that God is a God of order. The rise of Science is beholden to Christianity and in cultures where Christianity goes into eclipse you can look forward to the kind of Science that we find in Huxley’s BNW or in Lewis’ Space Trilogy, or you can look forward to the eclipse of Science.
Dr. Schenk,
P.S. Quite funny isn't it, the Wesleyan argument for cognitive integrity, the Reformed person arguing for the importance of an experiential basis...
OAW
As I said … to a hammer everything looks like a nail.
The only way one can achieve cognitive integrity is by embracing a Worldview that begins and ends with the God of the Bible. How you can take that as an argument appealing to experiential basis is beyond me.
Dr. Schenk wrote,
But ultimately I think the "consensus of the church" has, (even for orthodox Protestants who deny it) and always is the true arbiter of Christian understanding of the Bible. The NT alone was not able to arbitrate between Athanasius and Arius.
OAW
Then you are wrong for not being either EO or RC, and the Reformation was wrong because it broke from the consensus of the Church and the Wesleyans were wrong when they broke away from the Anglicans, and what's more if the Church ever decides that Arius was right you'll be wrong for disagreeing with that if you do.
Surely the Church has a ministerial role in interpreting God's word but you are suggesting that the role should be magesterial. This is most un-protestant.
OAW, great response. Do you mind if I put it up as the main post tomorrow morning. It is extensive enough to warrant its own full identity. I'll leave this one up for today for others to post. Then tomorrow you can be the main show. Then on Monday I'll post a response to your post.
Does that work?
To discuss this side point:
OAW: "Then you are wrong for not being either Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic, and the Reformation was wrong because it broke from the consensus of the Church and the Wesleyans were wrong when they broke away from the Anglicans, and what's more if the Church ever decides that Arius was right you'll be wrong for disagreeing with that if you do."
ME: But I would not identify either the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics as constituting the consensus of the church--this is the universal, "invisible" church to which I refer. And I believe the original meaning of Scripture stands as an important potential corrective to points where the collective church is moving in tangential and unprofitable directions (thus the Protestant Reformation was an important corrective many of whose main points even Roman Catholics have acknowledged over time).
You do raise the key issues in my hermeneutic--when do we know that a consensus has arrived on any issue? Are there periods of time when the consensus is wrong (like on the necessity for bishops to be celibate at AD1000).
OAW: "Surely the Church has a ministerial role in interpreting God's word but you are suggesting that the role should be magisterial. This is most un-protestant."
OAW:I am not suggesting that any visible church body has a magisterial authority over the meaning of Scripture (thus I am not Roman Catholic). I am suggesting that verses like Colossians 1:15, especially in the light of Jewish background, probably know nothing of distinctions like that Christ was "begotten, not made" or "eternally begotten of the Father." In fact the church of the fourth century moved away from the "Middle Platonic" logos approach to Christology (as John 1 may generally presuppose) in part because it played too easily into unorthodox conceptions of Christ's relationship with God the Father.
I believe that in the next fifty years we will see an increasing rapprochement between Protestantism and Catholicism, as we have already seen happening in the writings of people like Mark Noll, Greg Jones, Stephen Fowl, etc... And I believe it will take place along the lines that I am suggesting here.
Dr. Schenk,
Whatever arrangements you would like to make with your blog is most satisfactory with me. I am humbled that you would ask my permission to do with your own blog what you would like. In general if I comment here you're welcome to do with those comments anything you would like.
Thanks for your continuing kindness.
Now to the sidebar conversation,
Dr. Schenk writes,
But I would not identify either the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics as constituting the consensus of the church--this is the universal, "invisible" church to which I refer.
OAW,
If Scripture can not speak for itself on its own meaning then surely you can not appeal to history to speak for itself as to what constitutes the consenus of the 'invisible' church.
Dr. Schenk,
And I believe the original meaning of Scripture stands as an important potential corrective to points where the collective church is moving in tangential and unprofitable directions (thus the Protestant Reformation was an important corrective many of whose main points even Roman Catholics have acknowledged over time).
OAW,
But apparently not the point of Sola Scriptura -- a point without which the Reformation could not have transpired.
Besides you are caught on the horns of a dilemma here. You have already said that it is the consensus of the Church that determines the meaning of the text, but here you are appealing to an 'original meaning' of Scripture that can be appealed to even in defiance of the consensus of the Church.
If the Scripture alone can not determine the problems with Arius then how can we, apart from the Church, determine when the Church is moving in a tangential and unprofitable direction?
Dr. Schenk,
You do raise the key issues in my hermeneutic--when do we know that a consensus has arrived on any issue? Are there periods of time when the consensus is wrong (like on the necessity for bishops to be celibate at AD1000).
OAW,
How can it be that in appealing to human consensus as arbiter of truth we are not falling into some form of Humanism? What if 500 years later the Church decides that a new consensus on issues is needed? How do we build bulwarks against that? Let's take birth control as an exammple. Up until the 1920's almost the whole Church from Rome to Protestants declared Birth Control to be sin. Suddenly that consensus was overthrown. Was the Church wrong for those 1900 years or more likely is it the case that much of the Church departed from her Scriptural moorings for the expertise of Margaret Sanger?
Dr. Schenk,
I am not suggesting that any visible church body has a magisterial authority over the meaning of Scripture (thus I am not Roman Catholic). I am suggesting that verses like Colossians 1:15, especially in the light of Jewish background, probably know nothing of distinctions like that Christ was "begotten, not made" or "eternally begotten of the Father."
OAW,
Well, the Jews did understand Jesus claim to divinity. All that the early councils did was to make that claim speak Greek.
Second if no Visible Church body has Magisterial authority then it is difficult for me to see how any invisible church could have magisterial authority since without a Visible Church to incarnate the invisible Church's authority a invisible church is just a wishing and a hoping when it comes to authority. Besides, it would seem that according to your paradigm that somebody has got to decide how the invisible Church's authority walks and talks.
Dr. Schenk,
In fact the church of the fourth century moved away from the "Middle Platonic" logos approach to Christology (as John 1 may generally presuppose) in part because it played too easily into unorthodox conceptions of Christ's relationship with God the Father.
OAW,
The Church split over a dipthong.
Dr. Schenk,
I believe that in the next fifty years we will see an increasing rapprochement between Protestantism and Catholicism, as we have already seen happening in the writings of people like Mark Noll, Greg Jones, Stephen Fowl, etc... And I believe it will take place along the lines that I am suggesting here.
OAW
I hope I have displayed that if a rapproachment does happen across the lines that you suggest that it will be a rapproachment filled with contradictions.
But... I tend to agree unless we are given Reformation and Awakening we will see the Protestant faith compromised.
OnceAWesleyan
OAW: The point of Sola Scriptura -- a point without which the Reformation could not have transpired -- was not to correct the direction of the church catholic.
Besides you are caught on the horns of a dilemma here. You have already said that it is the consensus of the Church that determines the meaning of the text, but here you are appealing to an 'original meaning' of Scripture that can be appealed to even in defiance of the consensus of the Church.
One of the most crucial points in my understanding is the realization that the words of the biblical text "alone," taken apart from a specific context--indeed of any text--are liable to multiple meanings and connotations. 25,000 different denominations, dozens of commentaries that interpret individual texts different, make the point all too painfully.
I believe texts can have fixed meanings when they are read against concrete contexts. The question is thus what the appropriate context is against which to read the words of the Bible. When we read them against their original contexts (as best we can with what knowledge of the world they say they addressed--"to those at Rome"), we have original meanings. These are slightly different meanings and connotations from what Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley understood them to mean when they (without even knowing it) read the words from where they stood in the flow of Christian history and tradition (admittedly Calvin gets the prize for understanding the original meaning the best of these four).
In my opinion, Wesley (although he thought he was interpreting sola scriptura) might better be described as interpreting "prima scriptura" (using a phrase Gary Cockerill at Wesley Biblical Seminary coined): scripture first.
Because of the dynamics I mentioned above, the idea of "Scripture alone" is not even possible, for without the addition of a context we have no certain meaning yet. But it further is not what those who say scripture only actually do, for they (without realizing it) have an orthodox subconscious in the mix. The NIV is a wonderful example of this in process. So many of the translations are seriously questionable, yet very appropriate from the standpoint of evangelical "orthodoxy."
But I would say that some of the most bizarre cults and denominations have resulted from individuals who claim to follow "Scripture only," while themselves ignoring the common understandings of Christian orthodoxy.
My thoughts...
I'm glad that I'm forced to think about this now, since it's a huge epistemological deal with truth and theological source and method . . . even though sometimes the whole 'problem' makes me want to run to a corner and cry. These are important questions that have to be addressed and answered by those proclaiming God's truth to his church and world.
whoa.
Post a Comment