Place your banner ad here.          See all banner ads

|| ConcernedMembers.com || About || Links Library || Help Warn Others ||
|| Madison Church of Christ || Richland Hills Church of Christ || Hillcrest Church of Christ || More Churches || Sunday School in Exile ||

Where is my NewThisWeek Email subscription?Click Here

Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

The Future of the Progressive Churches of Christ

November 11 2010 at 9:30 AM
Dave  (no login)
from IP address 130.127.43.117

Wineskins
by Jay Guin
September - December, 2010


The Future of the Progressive Churches of Christ

In the interview, Rick and Chris made a powerful point regarding the future of the progressive Churches of Christ, which is that these churches are plateaued and soon to die if they dont change.

Up until now, most progressive Churches of Christ have operated as hospitals for broken Church of Christ members but not as beachheads of the Kingdom in the world. My own congregation has many members who grew up in legalistic a cappella Churches of Christ, and weve experienced dramatic growth because of they transferred from less grace-centered churches. But were plateaued. Why? Well, in part because you cant grow but so much through transfers, and in part because we arent very evangelistically effective.

Meanwhile, in my home town, community churches that teach a non-denominational Christianity that places scripture above tradition and that study the Bible rather than their denominational history are growing. They stole our playbook!

There is unquestionably a need for a church that nurses and heals those broken by the legalist congregations of our denomination. But that need is quickly ending as the old legalistic congregations are dying. Members my age tell me of their old churches back home being down to 20 members, demanding one more sermon on baptism and the Five Acts. We wont be receiving any more wounded from those churches.

While we still need to help wounded Christians recover from legalism, the greater need is to help heal a wounded world. And we are working to becoming that kind of church. But, yet, one thing remains. We have to become united with the rest of Gods Kingdom. We cant plausibly claim to be a part of the body of Christ while isolated from our instrumental brothers in other congregations. And our members have to decide that we have to give a few comforts up to be more effective in the mission of God.

Recent studies show that evangelical churches arent growing much at all as a whole, but that non-denominational community churches are growing rapidly. That means the denominational churches are losing members to non-denominational churches. And isnt that what the Restoration Movement has always been about? Calling believers out of the denominations to be united on just the gospel?

Of course, it would be woefully inadequate to merely steal sheep from the denominations in order to grow a congregation but not the Kingdom! No, the goal is the expansion of the Kingdom, and that can only be accomplished by uniting the Kingdom which is quite impossible if we insist on being separate.

As Thomas Campbell wrote in 1809

Meantime the truly religious of all parties are grieved, the weak stumbled; the graceless and profane hardened, the mouths of infidels opened to blaspheme religion; and thus, the only thing under heaven, divinely efficacious to promote and secure the present spiritual and eternal good of man, even the gospel of the blessed Jesus, is reduced to contempt; while multitudes deprived of a gospel ministry, as has been observed, fall an easy prey to seducers, and so become the dupes of almost unheard of delusions. Are not such the visible effects of our sad divisions, even in this otherwise happy country. Say, dear brethren, are not these things so.



The goal of the Restoration Movement was to heal divisions. Thomas Campbell and Barton W. Stone had founded the Movement and seen it grow and prosper long before anyone even thought about an instrumental music controversy. The goal was unity, and we cant claim to be promoting unity while insisting on remaining a sect separate from other believers, divided by our anti-gospel refusal to fellowship those who use the instrument.

Finally, our children care nothing about the instrumental music controversy. Theyve not heard the sermons, and theyve not engaged in the debates. To them, the instrument just isnt an issue. And thats true of the children of many very conservative Churches of Christ. In an age when the Bible is available in easy-to-read contemporary English, and when the struggle against the world is vastly more important than the churchs internal struggles, our kids are just not persuaded that we need to divide over the instrument.

Amen.

And this means that theyll find a church that helps them grow in faith and serve Christ without regard to the instrument. And a church thats entirely a cappella may well appear legalistic to the eyes of a young man or woman, even if the church teaches the true gospel. They will look for churches that practice what they preach including unity and including presenting the gospel in terms of the local culture.
Im not saying that an instrumental service is essential to a church today. Rather, Im saying

* Actively and visibly fellowshipping instrumental churches is essential to being the church God calls us to be.
* Choosing to be exclusively a cappella because your members are too legalistic to permit it means you have some serious teaching to do.
* If the world is searching for nondenominational Christianity that puts scripture above tradition and works of service above doctrinal disputation, then God has answered the prayers of the Restoration Movement. We should join in the work of God by making as many churches of this kind as possible.

The Progressive Church of Christ

http://www.piney.com/The.Progressive.Church.Of.Christ.html



    
This message has been edited by Ken.Sublett from IP address 67.142.130.31 on Dec 21, 2010 4:07 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
99.177.249.211

The Future of the Progressive Churches of Christ (by Jay Guin)

November 11 2010, 5:58 PM 

Dave,

First, do you ever click "Preview" or "Edit" before you click "Respond" to submit your post? As you know, previewing or editing is really helpful as it ensures a more accurate reporting and better readability (such as a blank line between paragraphs). If in previewing, certain punctuation marks "disappear," use Notepad to locate and replace the marks (single quotation mark or apostrophe, double quotation mark, dash, etc.). Many of these marks are missing in the article above.

I gather from the article above that Jay Guin no longer believes that the church that Christ established at Pentecost was/is still not a denomination. He has gravely mistaken the expression "interdenominational" or "interdenominationalism" for "non-denominationalism." Jay Guin's misuse of the expression is apparent as he essentially espouses "unity" among various denominations -- the correct expression that Mr. Guin should use is "interdenominational" as that would indicate a merger or affiliation with any denomination of any size, color, doctrine or practices. In a stark contrast, the Restoration Movement emphasized leaving (not embracing) "dehominationalism" behind and restoring the New Testament church, New Testament Christianity and abiding by New Testament principles and directives. The men and families of the Restoration Movement left their respective denominations and their denominational creeds, beliefs and practices to become members of the "restored" church of the first century. They DID NOT found another denomination. Jay Guin has insulted Christ by asserting and claiming that the church He established is a denomination.

There's so much more of Jay Guin's opinions to be debated, but let's reserve for a more thorough discussion the many assertions and proposed ideas of this change agent that are contrary to the unity, doctrine and truth that Christ and His apostles taught in the New Testament.

Meanwhile, here's more information concerning Jay Guin, a change agent among others who are determined to restructure and reorganize the church of our Lord. If we follow and continue with Guin's proposal, we will reach a point where the "church of Christ" is just another denomination. In fact, that is his intention and mission. Interestingly, he identifies the church or congregation that he has "converted" as a "PROGRESSIVE" church of Christ. Wow! Is that just the politically correct way of referring to the LIBERAL Church of Christ? So there is a perpetration of LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE agenda not only in politics but also in the church of our Lord.

As the author of "One in Jesus," a writeup from one of his sites provides the following information about Mr. Guin [with emphases mine, d.c.]:

[In his congregation in Alabama:] They made Jay an elder in 2003.

Jay has recently spoken at the Pepperdine Lectureship, ACU Lectureship, the Harding University Lectureship, the Lipscomb lectureship (called Summer Celebration), and at ElderLink programs in Atlanta. (Outlines from these lectures are posted on this site.)

Nothing in this book represents the official or received position of the eldership of the University Church of Christ Jay speaks for himself only.
Indeed, we should be glad that "Jay [Quin] speaks for himself only." Hmmm, what's going on with the other elders not speaking WITH him?.

We do not prohibit the other side from posting its arguments and opinions, but you said nothing of Jay Guin's background. So, I will do that in order not to misled the reader.

In my response to Sonny's article titled "A Brief Historical Timeline Of The Genesis Of Change Agents In The Church Of Christ" [which is currently in a "locked" status], I listed a few of the "change agents" operating in the brotherhood as follows (and I will highlight Jay Guin's name -- the author of the article you've submitted for discussion):
-- Rubel Shelly
-- Max Lucado
-- Leroy Garret
-- John Mark Hicks
-- Joe Beam
-- Rick Atchley
-- Al Maxey
-- John York
-- Mike Cope
-- Ronnie Norman
-- Jay Guin -- author of above article
-- et al
The list of "change agents" is not complete by all means. The "et al" simply indicates there are more "change agents" not on the list.

Now that we have identified with which side Jay Guin aligns himself, another of Dave's favorite change agents (besides Al Maxey). let the discussion begin as many of Jay's statements are debatable.

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
72.171.0.144

My REVIEW of Jay Guin's disturbed postg.

November 11 2010, 11:59 PM 

http://www.piney.com/New.Wineskins.Jay.Guin.Reflections.Atchley.Seidman.html

"The development both of religion and of the arts can be traced back in a continuous line to the hunting era. The group ritual of the primeval tribesmen were the origin not only of all religious ceremonial, but also of the drama and of poetry and music, while magic gave birth to the visual arts." (Parkes, Henry Bamford, On Gods and Men, p. 30).

"Awed by the mysteries of his own spirit no less than by those of nature, primitive man was likely to attribute to divine influence

any abnormal emotional state, whether above or below the usual level. Medicine men customarily went into states of trance in which they were believed to be in communication with the gods,

and many tribes supposed lunatics and sexual deviants to be divinely possessed.H. Bamford Parkes, Of God and Men.


I believe that everyone would feel better if they just wore their ribbon and got over the shock.

 
 Respond to this message   
AM
(no login)
75.89.66.220

Re: The Future of the Progressive Churches of Christ (by Jay Guin)

November 12 2010, 12:11 AM 

Jay's interviewed Rick Atchley, as noted on his web site. I have heard people refer to the Change agents as followers of Rick. The main reason for that is, some churches pass around a DVD that Rick made to help foster his movement. The DVD talks about his dad and how his dad could not find a reason in the Bible not to have a children's choir in church. The DVD was filled with a lot of simple ideas. More and more I hear the Atchlians are out to take on the Christians. Jay is a Legal Atchlian unable to defend the example of Christ and he stand ever ready to defend the example of what Christ is not. Jay Guin's visit to Christian Colleges will keep many people from encouraging kids to attend these schools.

Something about Rick that intrigues many people, is how warm he is when he speaks. But when there is a personal one on one with him, he lacks personal warmth. In fact he is cold and unable to relate to people. Why is that? For a man to be teaching us about the Love of God, he does have a difficult time expressing it. We are known by the Fruit of our spirit and Preaching skills are not listed as a fruit of the spirit. I guess Rick's personal journey is leading him to a more fruitful job experience. He can show people first hand how that making his salary, from his knowledge of Christ, is the way to go. Although, that is the same way Judas would show us.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dave
(no login)
130.127.43.117

Thanks AM

November 12 2010, 4:37 PM 

AM, when you make the claim...."Something about Rick that intrigues many people, is how warm he is when he speaks. But when there is a personal one on one with him, he lacks personal warmth. In fact he is cold and unable to relate to people," then I expect that you have met him personally.
That is the ONLY way you could lay hold to what you have claimed.
Please provide said experience, and I look forward to your response.

 
 Respond to this message   
AM
(no login)
75.89.66.220

Re: Thanks AM

November 12 2010, 5:51 PM 

"then I expect that you have met him personally." YES


"That is the ONLY way you could lay hold to what you have claimed.
Please provide said experience, and I look forward to your response."Church


 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
70.157.38.35

Re: Thanks AM

November 12 2010, 6:26 PM 

Perhaps Dave was waiting and hoping that AM would say, "No, I never met Rick personally" so Dave could pounce like a cat. happy.gif

 
 Respond to this message   
Dave
(no login)
69.59.112.185

Unproven Still

November 14 2010, 12:22 AM 

AM,
When you say something a personal claim about someone, as you did with Rick Atchley by saying..."But when there is a personal one on one with him, he lacks personal warmth" ....and you respond with a one word answer of "church" when I ask for substantiating your claim.....well I have to tell you something AM.....that is a poor unacceptable answer.....it doesn't tell of a personal one on one encounter, does it?
It is a poor answer indeed for such a critical comment about someone.

Is that what you were looking for William? The pounce you were expecting?



 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
70.156.13.178

Re: Unproven Still

November 14 2010, 10:52 AM 

Of course, we know that when Dave asks for "proof" from someone with whom Dave disagrees and that someone gives it, Dave has no intention whatsoever of accepting it. That's an old argumentative tactic of denial. Even if someone gave Dave a long, elaborate dissertation, Dave would say, "Nope, not good enough!" AM stated that he had personally met Rick at "Church." Now, Dave as much as wants to know the full conversation, the address of the church, the name of the preacher and his sermon topic, what Rick was wearing, whether Rick parted his hair on the right or left, the names of the song leader and all witnesses who were present, and a notarized affidavit from each one of them as well. Even then, Dave would still say, "Nope, AM has not supported his statement." It amounts to this: If a conservative told Dave that the earth was round and showed him pictures of the earth from space, Dave would flatly deny that just to be argumentative. Needless to say, we need not take Dave very seriously. happy.gif

 
 Respond to this message   
Dave
(no login)
69.59.112.185

AS MUCH

November 14 2010, 8:08 PM 

William said about me....."Now, Dave as much as wants to know the full conversation, the address of the church, the name of the preacher and his sermon topic, what Rick was wearing, whether Rick parted his hair on the right or left, the names of the song leader and all witnesses who were present, and a notarized affidavit from each one of them as well."

Calm down William. When you say 'as much' what does that mean? Since I did not say what you accused me of....would that mean that you can read minds now? If you can't read minds....then the ONLY other possibility and conclusion that can be reached here is that you aren't telling the truth...again?



 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
70.156.18.213

Re: AS MUCH

November 14 2010, 10:16 PM 

Dave seems to have trouble with phraseology and word meanings. Not having an unabridged dictionary might be the cause. No, Dave did not explicitly say that he wanted the information I posted, and I did not say that he said it. Since Dave would not accept AM's answer that AM had met Rick at "Church," then Dave evidently wanted more information (no doubt to be more argumentative). I simply suggested some inquiries that might satisfy Dave's curiosity if he had the answers. In other words, I am quite sure that Dave would like to have as much detailed information as possible about AM's encounter with Rick. It's not mind-reading; it's simply human nature. Dave may deny that up and down blue blazes, but it's true nonetheless.

BTW, the person who needs to calm down is Dave. He goes ballistic at hearing the truth from conservatives, and that truth always gets under Dave's skin. Dave then grows paranoid and imagines that people "aren't telling the truth." It's too bad that Dave refused to enroll in an anger management course. I think it really would have done wonders for him.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dave
(no login)
130.127.43.117

Your Choice

November 15 2010, 10:44 AM 

William Crump said....."In other words, I am quite sure that Dave would like to have as much detailed information as possible about AM's encounter with Rick. It's not mind-reading; it's simply human nature. Dave may deny that up and down blue blazes, but it's true nonetheless."


IN OTHER WORDS, if someone creates, assumes, and goes as far to believe that he can speak for someone else by making it up as they go, as William did with....."Now, Dave as much as wants to know the full conversation, the address of the church, the name of the preacher and his sermon topic, what Rick was wearing, whether Rick parted his hair on the right or left, the names of the song leader and all witnesses who were present, and a notarized affidavit from each one of them as well."....then tells everyone that he is "quite sure of it".....well I would only let the reader make up his own mind.

Is William delusional? Is he a liar? It is your choice? Is making this up, as William counters, "human nature?"
He says that it is "true nonetheless." How does he know it is true if the person didn't say it. When he falsely accuses someone and produces a vexing "as much" tale of someone, what does that tell you?

I thought I had heard it all........now someone wants to equate "human nature" with lying.

Simply put, for someone, as William Crump did, to make up something about another person, trying to make it sound like it comes from that person (AS MUCH), trying to shed a poor light on this person.....could it just mean......that they have let that person get under their skin???

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
72.154.219.240

Re: Your Choice

November 15 2010, 12:26 PM 

Once again, Dave has gone ballistic. I gotta reveal something to Dave that he might not realize: Dave has become a real source of abundant entertainment here at Concerned Members, despite his mean-spirited attitude. It's actually comical to witness Dave's endless tantrums and ridiculous smearings of those with whom he disagrees. It's kinda like watching a type of Concerned Members Barney Fife running wildly around in total hysterics, hollering and screaming. Only instead of yelling, "Nip it, nip it in the bud!" as Barney Fife did, Dave hollers, "Liar!" and "False teacher!" over and over.

I can almost imagine Dave locked in his room all bug-eyed, huffin' and puffin' and sweaty at the computer, fists pounding the table, slamming his raving messages into the keypad, and bellowing blue blazes. His wife and kids (if he has them) are huddled in terror in another room, while the kids ask, "OMG, Momma, who IS that crazy man locked in Daddy's room?" And the wife replies, "Sweeties, that's Daddy. Someone's gotten under his skin again, and that upsets him a little!!" A loyal wife does tend to downplay her husband's worst faults, don't ya know.

Just as Barney Fife consistently made a clown of himself, so Dave by his sophomoric antics and smear tactics has done the same to himself. No wonder we just can't take Dave seriously anymore. All I can say is, "Keep it up, Dave. Your performances provide 'theater' at its best." happy.gif

 
 Respond to this message   
Fred Whaley
(no login)
173.162.22.85

Re: Unproven Still

November 15 2010, 1:39 PM 

I have not met Mr. Crump personally but I will continue to say HIS "Christianity" AND personality are equally toxic based on reading his remarks. And while I agree with Dave about the lack of credibility of AM's statements, if AM believes that Rick Atchley lacks warmth in person, I wonder what AM thinks about Mr. Crump's "warmth"? Mr. Crump just oozes love and warmth in his statements, so to meet him in person must really be an experience. Mr. Crump will likely point out my hyperbole and sarcasm on the previous sentence. I would not bet my house on the church where Mr. Crump worships as growing in leaps and bounds as he demonstrates such love and warmth to visitors and the community. Toxicity. Mr. Crump will likely point out that this is neither a word nor a complete sentence with subject and verb. Dave, do not let Mr. Crump's tantrums and pestering remarks bother you. Mr. Crump is just acting like a chump the way he treats you.

Fred Whaley

"If you are in the parking lot and have still not quit arguing with the people on the porch, you haven't left the Church of Christ yet."

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
72.154.219.62

Re: Unproven Still

November 15 2010, 3:07 PM 

I believe Donnie wrote: "Please ... no more of that other stuff than seriously discussing important issues." Time for Fred and Dave (two birds of a feather) to put their insults and smearings on the back burner. happy.gif

 
 Respond to this message   
Fred Whaley
(no login)
173.162.22.85

A Quaqmire and Conundrum

November 15 2010, 5:27 PM 

Then practically all of Mr. Crump's messages would have to be deleted since they are rarely about important issues but only Mr. Crump pestering and insulting Dave with frivolous remarks, including the latest 3 PARAGRAPHS of remarks about Barney Fife and going ballistic and HYPOTHETICAL scenarios about Dave's possible wife and children. IF THIS IS NOT REMOVED THEN NOTHING SHOULD EVER BE REMOVED OR EDITED ON THIS SITE PERIOD. What a load of garbage! All a reader on this site has to do is read the dozens of messages and statements of Mr. Crump toward Dave to see that Mr. Crump has decided to be less like Christ toward Dave and more like a chump. I have read where a man named Roger has noticed the same thing and expressed concern for Mr. Crump. Again Dave do not concern yourself so much with replying and defending yourself to Mr. Crump. Readers with a brain disregard his toxic behavior and stupidity. It is people like Mr. Crump that give the Church of Christ a bad reputation period. The Holy Spirit is alive and at work in the hearts of men and it is not too late for the Holy Spirit to quicken the conscience of Mr. Crump that he may repent of his pride, superior attitude, judgmental comments, and insulting and vulgar hypothetical remarks towards people like Dave. He strains a gnat and swallows a camel. Such a religion and way of life is toxic and tragic.

Fred Whaley

"If you are in the parking lot and have still not quit arguing with the people on the porch, you haven't left the Church of Christ yet."

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
74.241.142.99

Re: A Quaqmire and Conundrum

November 15 2010, 6:59 PM 

I see that Fred wishes to continue his insults and smears. Why not invite Dave to join you and collaborate on smear jobs? Birds of a feather, you know. That would make the entertainment here far more interesting. happy.gif

 
 Respond to this message   
Fred Whaley
(no login)
173.162.22.85

Passive Aggressive Behavior

November 16 2010, 11:35 AM 

Mr. Crump is aggressive toward people until people are aggressive toward him and then he backs off and passively accuses those people of smearing or whatever like he is appalled. Mr. Crump this is not about entertainment nor smears but accountability as I am simply holding you to such and encouraging Dave to ignore you when you take jabs at him below the belt which is almost every message from you to him. As long as you refrain from jabs toward Dave you will not hear from Fred. On the other hand as long as you take jabs at Dave you will continue to hear from Fred.

Fred Whaley

"If you are in the parking lot and have still not quit arguing with the people on the porch, you haven't left the Church of Christ yet."

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
70.146.139.186

Re: Passive Aggressive Behavior

November 16 2010, 1:35 PM 

Fred can make himself "heard" all he wants or as much as the moderator will allow here, but I doubt that anyone is taking Fred's tantrums and ravings very seriously. He's beginning to sound more and more like Dave, who often throws tantrums, and I doubt that anyone takes Dave very seriously either.

 
 Respond to this message   
AM
(no login)
75.89.66.220

Re: Unproven Still

November 14 2010, 9:19 PM 

"well I have to tell you something AM.....that is a poor unacceptable answer.....it doesn't tell of a personal one on one encounter, does it?" Yes.

It is a poor answer indeed for such a critical comment about someone.-Oh?

 
 Respond to this message   
 
< Previous Page 1 2 3 Next >
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

This web site is not part of or approved by any Church!

...........................THE BOOK

What Happened at the Madison Church of Christ?


There are thousands of churches being taken over across America.

This book is only about one of those churches. It's about the Madison Church Of Christ. By studying the methods used here along with the resource references you might be able to inoculate your church. At the very least you will recognize the signs early on.

Many of the current members of the Madison Church of Christ still don't know what happened.
Some never will know! This book is for them as well.

Madison Church of Christ was a 60 year old church. At one time it was one of the largest churches in the US, and the largest Church of Christ.

It thrived for many years on the vision of it's elders and those of it's ministers. Those visions undoubtably came from the the inspired word of Jesus Christ.

At sometime in the last 10 years there was a deliberate plan by a majority of the elders to take the Madison Church of Christ into a more worldly realm.

They used secrecy, covert planning, and outside sources to scheme and to change the format and direction of the Madison Church of Christ.

The Elders knew that the membership would never approve such a plan. Using the tools of the "Community Church Movement"(consultants, books, seminars, meetings,planters,seeders) they slowly started initiating change so it was never noticed by the members until it was too late.....

At the heart of the plan was the fact that old members were going to be driven off so new techniques could be used to go out and reach the unchurched through new "Contemporary Holy Entertainment" methods developed by the "Community Church Movement"

Old members had to be kept on board long enough to get their plans ready, or the funds would not be there to pay for the new building. So by the plans very nature, it had to be secret.

The church had no plan in effect to renew or approve elders. There was never any need. The elders had always been "as approved by God". 10 of the last 15 elders would begin to shed some doubt on that.

The Elders did not even need a majority at first, because some of the elders went along unwittingly.

This edition starts shortly after some of the members begin to smell something strange in January 2001. Later editions may go back and fill in some of the timeline.

To even start to understand whats happening here, you must read the background materials in the first of the book.

This is only the first edition, and not the end. New editions will be printed as needed. To keep abreast of current changes, please visit our web site; http://www.concernedmembers.com/madison

Here is the list of players;

5 Godly Elders
10 Not so Godly Elders
120 "Deacons" (allegiance unknown)
2,800 - 4,000 church "members"
2 "teners" (people who have publicly confessed to have broken all ten commandments)
Unknown number of "sinners" (This is what the 10 elders call us.)
Unknown number of "demons" (Flying everywhere, to many to count)
 

Click Here......The Book is Available Now FREE

Place your banner ad here.           See all banner ads

...ConcernedMembers.com ...About ...Links Library ...Sunday School in Exile ...Help Warn Others


FastCounter by bCentral

CM Visit Counter as of 6/25/2015
2,101,394

Site Visits Since 6/30/2015
page counter