Hi everyone! I just want to take a break from my 'heavy duty' postings lately and let you know that I am about to start a new position. I am the new Executive Director of a non-profit, non-religious organization that connects people in need with available social services in the city. Officially I start on Monday, but last night I attended a board meeting and was introduced to the Board of Directors. I am really excited about the mandate of the organization and their desire to keep growing. There are some great people on the Board. They are all highly qualified and passionately involved with the community. They warmly welcomed me, but at the same time were clear that they have high expectations. I am really looking forward to the challenge. It's been a long, long time since I feel this alive and excited about an opportunity.
After the meeting, I walked out into the cold evening air. I took a deep breath, and said to myself, "This is it. It's time to leave the past and move on." I hope to share with all of you new lessons that I learn as I turn the page to this new chapter of my life. Thanks for reading :-)
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Reflection (4): Brokenness...
Mother Teresa once said "You will never know Jesus is all you need, until Jesus is all you have."
I have been thinking about that quote a lot lately.
How often have we been guilty of telling the world that "Jesus is all you need!" When we have never, not once, allowed ourselves to remotely come close to a place in life where Jesus is all we have? In fact, don't most of us direct our lives, our studies, our careers, our financial planning to avoid ending up in a situation where "Jesus is all we have"?
But, as part of the evangelical church culture, we do this sort of thing all the time. We speak about things that we have no business speaking on:
We declare forgiveness without knowing the pain of being offended.
We pronounce judgement on people without ever spending 5 minutes in their shoes.
We promise to embrace all people in our community without really knowing how difficult it can be...is it any wonder that people who are most difficult to "embrace" usually would not touch the church with a ten foot pole?
We really should stop saying those things. Really.
Because, with all due respect, we don't know what we are talking about.
Recently I discovered something about myself: I am deeply flawed.
(I know some of you find that VERY hard to believe..."You mean, he is not perfect? Oh, say it ain't so! For the love of God, say it ain't so!")
I am not just talking about having a couple of annoying habits ("Would you PLEASE stop leaving your socks all over the place??") or some less than ideal, but "safe" shortcomings ("I don't spend nearly enough time in prayer."). Rather, I am talking about being flawed and broken and corrupted and polluted at the core of my being. That I am capable of things that I never thought possible.
This new "appreciation" of my own brokenness has led me to a startling realization: As a Christian, it is much easier to talk about how God's grace is all YOU need when I have never been in a situation where God's grace is all I have. I would tell people to "receive" or "accept" God's grace in Jesus in much the same fashion that a doctor would instruct a patient to take two asprins and call him in the morning.
It is simple. It is easy.
I now know that only those who have never really confronted their own brokeness and ugliness, and thus have never really needed grace would talk about grace being simple and easy to accept.
You can always figure out who they are. One word betray their identity. That favorite word in the evangelical dictionary: "Just"
"Just believe it."
"Just accept it."
Those who have been to that pit where they have stared at their own brokenness know very well that when you are at that place where you really, really need grace, there is nothing "just" about it...
You do not "just" believe because you once did, and you really don't know if you want to do it anymore.
You do not "just" accept it because there are things that you are angry and bitter about, and like Job in the Bible, you want your day in court. With God and with others.
For all my life, my favorite verse in the entire Bible is "My grace is sufficient for you..." I quoted it often for others in speech and in writing. I tossed it around like croutons in a salad. Only now do I know how heavy a statement that is...when I struggle with my need for grace. When I wonder and doubt if grace truly is sufficient.
I have now learned I should stop pronouncing grace as if it is the easy magic pill that will solve all your problems.
May be our Jewish brothers and sisters have it right when they refuse to speak aloud the name of God. Because certain things are truly best left unsaid, partly because they are sacred.
And partly because we truly, truly do not know what we are talking about.
I have been thinking about that quote a lot lately.
How often have we been guilty of telling the world that "Jesus is all you need!" When we have never, not once, allowed ourselves to remotely come close to a place in life where Jesus is all we have? In fact, don't most of us direct our lives, our studies, our careers, our financial planning to avoid ending up in a situation where "Jesus is all we have"?
But, as part of the evangelical church culture, we do this sort of thing all the time. We speak about things that we have no business speaking on:
We declare forgiveness without knowing the pain of being offended.
We pronounce judgement on people without ever spending 5 minutes in their shoes.
We promise to embrace all people in our community without really knowing how difficult it can be...is it any wonder that people who are most difficult to "embrace" usually would not touch the church with a ten foot pole?
We really should stop saying those things. Really.
Because, with all due respect, we don't know what we are talking about.
Recently I discovered something about myself: I am deeply flawed.
(I know some of you find that VERY hard to believe..."You mean, he is not perfect? Oh, say it ain't so! For the love of God, say it ain't so!")
I am not just talking about having a couple of annoying habits ("Would you PLEASE stop leaving your socks all over the place??") or some less than ideal, but "safe" shortcomings ("I don't spend nearly enough time in prayer."). Rather, I am talking about being flawed and broken and corrupted and polluted at the core of my being. That I am capable of things that I never thought possible.
This new "appreciation" of my own brokenness has led me to a startling realization: As a Christian, it is much easier to talk about how God's grace is all YOU need when I have never been in a situation where God's grace is all I have. I would tell people to "receive" or "accept" God's grace in Jesus in much the same fashion that a doctor would instruct a patient to take two asprins and call him in the morning.
It is simple. It is easy.
I now know that only those who have never really confronted their own brokeness and ugliness, and thus have never really needed grace would talk about grace being simple and easy to accept.
You can always figure out who they are. One word betray their identity. That favorite word in the evangelical dictionary: "Just"
"Just believe it."
"Just accept it."
Those who have been to that pit where they have stared at their own brokenness know very well that when you are at that place where you really, really need grace, there is nothing "just" about it...
You do not "just" believe because you once did, and you really don't know if you want to do it anymore.
You do not "just" accept it because there are things that you are angry and bitter about, and like Job in the Bible, you want your day in court. With God and with others.
For all my life, my favorite verse in the entire Bible is "My grace is sufficient for you..." I quoted it often for others in speech and in writing. I tossed it around like croutons in a salad. Only now do I know how heavy a statement that is...when I struggle with my need for grace. When I wonder and doubt if grace truly is sufficient.
I have now learned I should stop pronouncing grace as if it is the easy magic pill that will solve all your problems.
May be our Jewish brothers and sisters have it right when they refuse to speak aloud the name of God. Because certain things are truly best left unsaid, partly because they are sacred.
And partly because we truly, truly do not know what we are talking about.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Reflections (3): Humpty Dumpty...
"Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall;
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall!
And all the King's horses and all the King's men
Couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again."
Ah...one of my favorite children's rhyme. Knew it for as long as I could remember. Yet years after learning about the tragedy of poor Mr. Dumpty, unanswered questions continue to haunt me:
(1) Why was Humpty Dumpty sitting on the wall in the first place? Who put him there? As far as we can tell from the forensics Mr. Dumpty was alone on top of the wall when the fateful fall occured. Where were the people who put him there? Why was he allowed to remain on top of the wall alone?
(2) If, and we are speculating here beyond the available evidence...but hypothetically speaking, if Mr. Dumpty had expressed a desire not to be on the wall, were the people who left him alone up there held accountable for the fall? Should they share some responsibility?
(3) Did anyone ask why Mr. Dumpty fell? Was it an accident? A simple act of recklessness or carelessness? Was he pushed? Was it a suicide attempt? Does it matter to anybody why? Did anyone even bother to ask before the mop up operation began?
(4) When the King's horses and the King's men discovered that Mr. Dumpty was beyond repair, what did they do? Did they just leave him there? Evidence seems to suggest that Mr. Dumpty was alive after the fall, albeit badly broken. Did they conclude that a broken Humpty Dumpty is no longer fit for their company?
(5) More importantly, did anyone learn anything from Mr. Dumpty's fall? Was anything done to prevent the same thing from happening again? Or did they simply put another Mr. Dumpty on the wall again?
So in the story, we met Mr. Dumpty, we met the King's horses, we met the King's men...of course there remains the most troubling question in all of this:
Where was the King?
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall!
And all the King's horses and all the King's men
Couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again."
Ah...one of my favorite children's rhyme. Knew it for as long as I could remember. Yet years after learning about the tragedy of poor Mr. Dumpty, unanswered questions continue to haunt me:
(1) Why was Humpty Dumpty sitting on the wall in the first place? Who put him there? As far as we can tell from the forensics Mr. Dumpty was alone on top of the wall when the fateful fall occured. Where were the people who put him there? Why was he allowed to remain on top of the wall alone?
(2) If, and we are speculating here beyond the available evidence...but hypothetically speaking, if Mr. Dumpty had expressed a desire not to be on the wall, were the people who left him alone up there held accountable for the fall? Should they share some responsibility?
(3) Did anyone ask why Mr. Dumpty fell? Was it an accident? A simple act of recklessness or carelessness? Was he pushed? Was it a suicide attempt? Does it matter to anybody why? Did anyone even bother to ask before the mop up operation began?
(4) When the King's horses and the King's men discovered that Mr. Dumpty was beyond repair, what did they do? Did they just leave him there? Evidence seems to suggest that Mr. Dumpty was alive after the fall, albeit badly broken. Did they conclude that a broken Humpty Dumpty is no longer fit for their company?
(5) More importantly, did anyone learn anything from Mr. Dumpty's fall? Was anything done to prevent the same thing from happening again? Or did they simply put another Mr. Dumpty on the wall again?
So in the story, we met Mr. Dumpty, we met the King's horses, we met the King's men...of course there remains the most troubling question in all of this:
Where was the King?
Monday, January 14, 2008
Reflections (2): Stones
Stones.
They were the first things she saw when she opened her eyes again.
She is standing in the middle of the empty courtyard. He is kneelinig down, writing in the sand, seemingly oblivious to everything around him. She looked around, and there are just the two of them left.
And the stones.
A moment ago, these same stones were clinched in the hands of angry men. Poised to be launched. To hurt. To injure. To punish. To cause pain. In the name of Justice. In the name of The Law. In the name of Honour and Discipline.
In the Name of God.
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" the man said
Silence.
Thump. A stone fell.
Thump, thump, thump.
And now there is just the two of them left in the courtyard.
And the stones.
Meanwhile, the men spilled out into the streets.
"Hey, what happened this morning? I heard there was a stoning?"
"Don't ask me...I didn't throw my stone."
I didn't throw my stone.
Is that enough?
Is that all there is when we use words like "Community", "Forgiveness", "Embracing"?
When something goes wrong, terribly wrong with one of us, is that our defining "claim to fame" as a Christian Community?
"I didn't throw my stone. I am not here to judge."
So...what DID we do? What ARE we here for?
It's too bad the men left so quickly. Had they stayed around a bit, they would have heard Jesus' pronouncement of forgiveness: "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."
If sin is communal. Perhaps they needed to hear it too.
They were the first things she saw when she opened her eyes again.
She is standing in the middle of the empty courtyard. He is kneelinig down, writing in the sand, seemingly oblivious to everything around him. She looked around, and there are just the two of them left.
And the stones.
A moment ago, these same stones were clinched in the hands of angry men. Poised to be launched. To hurt. To injure. To punish. To cause pain. In the name of Justice. In the name of The Law. In the name of Honour and Discipline.
In the Name of God.
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" the man said
Silence.
Thump. A stone fell.
Thump, thump, thump.
And now there is just the two of them left in the courtyard.
And the stones.
Meanwhile, the men spilled out into the streets.
"Hey, what happened this morning? I heard there was a stoning?"
"Don't ask me...I didn't throw my stone."
I didn't throw my stone.
Is that enough?
Is that all there is when we use words like "Community", "Forgiveness", "Embracing"?
When something goes wrong, terribly wrong with one of us, is that our defining "claim to fame" as a Christian Community?
"I didn't throw my stone. I am not here to judge."
So...what DID we do? What ARE we here for?
It's too bad the men left so quickly. Had they stayed around a bit, they would have heard Jesus' pronouncement of forgiveness: "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."
If sin is communal. Perhaps they needed to hear it too.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
反思(1)﹕ 保護教會﹖
(註﹕在未來幾個星期我將會post出一連串的文章﹐定名為“反思”。這些文章記載了我在人生這段最黑暗的日子中問過的問題。當中的重點是分享問題多於給予答案。而我的目的也不是要說服任何人。我只希望這些問題可以激發起大家的思潮﹐能使用這blog去交流﹐分享﹐對話。也希望透過這過程我們可彼此學習﹐讓我們每個人的思想可以全面化一點。老套的加多一句﹕請多指教!)
****************
當傳道人“出事”時﹐教會或機構往往第一個"下意識"的反應﹐就是說要"保護教會"﹐或"保護機構"。 比較少聽到第一個反應是要保護當事人的感受和私隱。 當然﹐這也是情有可原。一般人都會想﹐既然“當事人”是犯了錯﹐他的難受也可算是“自食其果”。
但當我們覺得要從“保護教會”和“保護當事人”中作出選擇時﹐其實會不會在思想上已出現了嚴重的問題呢﹖
當我們覺得要選擇保護 "教會" 或保護"人"的時候﹐這選擇假設了這兩件事是分開的。這個選擇﹐這個心態把教會變成了一個跟“人”分開的“獨立個體”﹐所以我們會想要犧牲“人”去保護“她”。
讓我班門弄斧﹐從商界舉一個例子﹕假如明天你決定開始一檔新的小生意﹐從法律的眼光中﹐這檔生意的存亡和你的本人是分不開的。這生意的收入就是你的收入。這生意所負的債務就是你的債務。但如果你辦手續把你這檔生意變成一個企業(即英文的"Corporation"),在法律的眼光中這生意跟你就劃清了界線。它已成為了一個“獨立個體”(Entity)。它的生死存亡跟你自己的個人財產是分開的。
在我們北美的基督教文化當中﹐會否漸漸的把教會變成一個一個﹐跟人分開的corporation﹖
這是否能解釋為甚麼我們見到越來越多“教會增長”﹐“教會管理”﹐“教會發展”一類型的講座﹐但在這“增長”﹐“管理”﹐“發展”的巨輪底下﹐卻經常見到被壓傷﹐被遺忘的人﹖
“人”和“教會”真的是兩個獨立的個體嗎﹖
真的可以犧牲“人”去保護“教會”嗎﹖
再班門弄斧﹕在神學上﹐這觀點是正確嗎﹖
請賜教!
這段日子﹐不少教會中的朋友寫信來給我鼓勵。當中我最珍惜的是其中的一句話﹕“...想到你要離開我們﹐就像要看到自己的親骨肉離家出走一樣心痛!”
"親骨肉"...每次我讀到這三個字﹐眼淚就一滴一滴的流下來...
****************
當傳道人“出事”時﹐教會或機構往往第一個"下意識"的反應﹐就是說要"保護教會"﹐或"保護機構"。 比較少聽到第一個反應是要保護當事人的感受和私隱。 當然﹐這也是情有可原。一般人都會想﹐既然“當事人”是犯了錯﹐他的難受也可算是“自食其果”。
但當我們覺得要從“保護教會”和“保護當事人”中作出選擇時﹐其實會不會在思想上已出現了嚴重的問題呢﹖
當我們覺得要選擇保護 "教會" 或保護"人"的時候﹐這選擇假設了這兩件事是分開的。這個選擇﹐這個心態把教會變成了一個跟“人”分開的“獨立個體”﹐所以我們會想要犧牲“人”去保護“她”。
讓我班門弄斧﹐從商界舉一個例子﹕假如明天你決定開始一檔新的小生意﹐從法律的眼光中﹐這檔生意的存亡和你的本人是分不開的。這生意的收入就是你的收入。這生意所負的債務就是你的債務。但如果你辦手續把你這檔生意變成一個企業(即英文的"Corporation"),在法律的眼光中這生意跟你就劃清了界線。它已成為了一個“獨立個體”(Entity)。它的生死存亡跟你自己的個人財產是分開的。
在我們北美的基督教文化當中﹐會否漸漸的把教會變成一個一個﹐跟人分開的corporation﹖
這是否能解釋為甚麼我們見到越來越多“教會增長”﹐“教會管理”﹐“教會發展”一類型的講座﹐但在這“增長”﹐“管理”﹐“發展”的巨輪底下﹐卻經常見到被壓傷﹐被遺忘的人﹖
“人”和“教會”真的是兩個獨立的個體嗎﹖
真的可以犧牲“人”去保護“教會”嗎﹖
再班門弄斧﹕在神學上﹐這觀點是正確嗎﹖
請賜教!
這段日子﹐不少教會中的朋友寫信來給我鼓勵。當中我最珍惜的是其中的一句話﹕“...想到你要離開我們﹐就像要看到自己的親骨肉離家出走一樣心痛!”
"親骨肉"...每次我讀到這三個字﹐眼淚就一滴一滴的流下來...
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
給跌倒過, 受傷過的傳道者
您好!
最近好嗎﹖您可能不認識我是誰﹐其實我也可能不認識您。但我決定開始再寫blog的一晚﹐心中就想起您。很想﹐很想跟您分享心裡的一些話。
雖然我們可能素未謀面﹐但某程度上我可能也頗認識您...
我不知道您事奉年日的長短﹐但我知道無論是一年﹐五年﹐十年﹐或二十年﹐您曾經為了教會把自己100%﹐毫無保留﹐從無怨言﹐徹徹底底地付出。 一日復一日﹐一年又一年...
我不知道您發生事情的來龍去脈﹐但我知道您心中﹐您背後的故事﹐可能沒有太多人能真正明白。
我不知道您身邊的人對整件事的反應﹐但我知道您自己所流過的眼淚﹐一定不比其它人少。
朋友﹐是嗎﹖
作晚自己一個拿起結他﹐隨意地自彈自唱。無意中彈出了粱漢文的“七友”。唱到某一句﹐忽然唱不下去了﹕“誰人曾介意我也不好受﹐為我出頭﹐碰過我的手...”
“出事”後﹐聽過一些令自己十分難受的說話。 每晚夜瀾人靜時﹐經常在腦海中重複地聽到這些話。每“重播”一次﹐心中就痛一次。您也是這樣嗎﹖
後來﹐慢慢的想通了﹕自己受傷﹐並不等於人家蓄意中傷自己。 大家處理這種事情都缺乏經驗﹐而感到束手無策。無意中失言﹐也是在所難免。 再加上有時“言者雖無心﹔聽者則有意”。 誤會就由此產生了。您和我可能都有這共通之處﹕在您我身邊﹐“有職在身”要處理事情的人其實都是關心我們的。只不過除了“在私”對我們有關心﹐他們覺得“在公”﹐他們對教會﹐機構﹐組織...要有“交代”。我們可能不認同他們處事的“手法”﹐但我相信他們絕對是無心傷害我們的。 朋友﹐算了吧。不要再把這些事放在心裡。釋放他們﹐也釋放自己吧。
其實﹐昨天人家對我們說了甚麼話﹐已不再重要。今天﹐人家怎樣講我們﹐也不重要。唯一重要的﹐是明天﹐您和我怎樣走面前的路...
朋友﹐黑夜終於都會過去。黎明﹐很快就到。不要放棄...hang on....
給自己一些時間和空間去休息﹐療傷。如果暫時不想返教會﹐不要強迫自己。您已經很久沒有好好的為自己著想了。您以前總是把教會﹐把他人放在第一位。今日﹐是時候好好的照顧自己了。當給自己放假吧。但休息過後﹐記得要再上路啊!
答應我。不要做任何傷害自己的事。 千萬不要。我自己有想過。我知道您一定也有。 相信我﹐您和我的戲﹐最精彩的劇情還未上演。那裡會有人這麼笨﹐付錢看戲﹐未到高潮就離座回家﹖您這麼聰明﹐您一定會明白這道理...
最近時常想起“真阿Lam"的一首舊歌。下面把歌詞寫下與您分享互勉。 記住﹐我們都是同路人。少了您﹐這條路就會變得更孤單。咬緊牙關﹐提起精神﹐前面還有很多事情等著我們去做呢!
保重!
您的朋友﹐
阿Lam
莫再悲
莫再悲﹐莫再傷。遇到悲哀休誇張。誰亦要經風與浪﹐誰遇挫敗不受傷﹖
逝去的﹐莫再想。路正崎嶇更漫長。何用嘆息風裡望﹖寶貴光陰笑著量。
愁和哀﹐風與霜﹐不會天天都探訪。用幻想與夢想﹐編織那遠大理想。
斜陽好﹐花正香﹐跟那寂寞和著唱。歌聲一句句跳越屏障赴远方!
默默的分享﹐默默的欣賞﹐路上一切美丽况!
人生总会碰着悲哀苦恼为何流泪看?
幸运不希罕 热泪不轻淌 愿做真正既硬汉
何必口說快樂心中一個樣﹖
最近好嗎﹖您可能不認識我是誰﹐其實我也可能不認識您。但我決定開始再寫blog的一晚﹐心中就想起您。很想﹐很想跟您分享心裡的一些話。
雖然我們可能素未謀面﹐但某程度上我可能也頗認識您...
我不知道您事奉年日的長短﹐但我知道無論是一年﹐五年﹐十年﹐或二十年﹐您曾經為了教會把自己100%﹐毫無保留﹐從無怨言﹐徹徹底底地付出。 一日復一日﹐一年又一年...
我不知道您發生事情的來龍去脈﹐但我知道您心中﹐您背後的故事﹐可能沒有太多人能真正明白。
我不知道您身邊的人對整件事的反應﹐但我知道您自己所流過的眼淚﹐一定不比其它人少。
朋友﹐是嗎﹖
作晚自己一個拿起結他﹐隨意地自彈自唱。無意中彈出了粱漢文的“七友”。唱到某一句﹐忽然唱不下去了﹕“誰人曾介意我也不好受﹐為我出頭﹐碰過我的手...”
“出事”後﹐聽過一些令自己十分難受的說話。 每晚夜瀾人靜時﹐經常在腦海中重複地聽到這些話。每“重播”一次﹐心中就痛一次。您也是這樣嗎﹖
後來﹐慢慢的想通了﹕自己受傷﹐並不等於人家蓄意中傷自己。 大家處理這種事情都缺乏經驗﹐而感到束手無策。無意中失言﹐也是在所難免。 再加上有時“言者雖無心﹔聽者則有意”。 誤會就由此產生了。您和我可能都有這共通之處﹕在您我身邊﹐“有職在身”要處理事情的人其實都是關心我們的。只不過除了“在私”對我們有關心﹐他們覺得“在公”﹐他們對教會﹐機構﹐組織...要有“交代”。我們可能不認同他們處事的“手法”﹐但我相信他們絕對是無心傷害我們的。 朋友﹐算了吧。不要再把這些事放在心裡。釋放他們﹐也釋放自己吧。
其實﹐昨天人家對我們說了甚麼話﹐已不再重要。今天﹐人家怎樣講我們﹐也不重要。唯一重要的﹐是明天﹐您和我怎樣走面前的路...
朋友﹐黑夜終於都會過去。黎明﹐很快就到。不要放棄...hang on....
給自己一些時間和空間去休息﹐療傷。如果暫時不想返教會﹐不要強迫自己。您已經很久沒有好好的為自己著想了。您以前總是把教會﹐把他人放在第一位。今日﹐是時候好好的照顧自己了。當給自己放假吧。但休息過後﹐記得要再上路啊!
答應我。不要做任何傷害自己的事。 千萬不要。我自己有想過。我知道您一定也有。 相信我﹐您和我的戲﹐最精彩的劇情還未上演。那裡會有人這麼笨﹐付錢看戲﹐未到高潮就離座回家﹖您這麼聰明﹐您一定會明白這道理...
最近時常想起“真阿Lam"的一首舊歌。下面把歌詞寫下與您分享互勉。 記住﹐我們都是同路人。少了您﹐這條路就會變得更孤單。咬緊牙關﹐提起精神﹐前面還有很多事情等著我們去做呢!
保重!
您的朋友﹐
阿Lam
莫再悲
莫再悲﹐莫再傷。遇到悲哀休誇張。誰亦要經風與浪﹐誰遇挫敗不受傷﹖
逝去的﹐莫再想。路正崎嶇更漫長。何用嘆息風裡望﹖寶貴光陰笑著量。
愁和哀﹐風與霜﹐不會天天都探訪。用幻想與夢想﹐編織那遠大理想。
斜陽好﹐花正香﹐跟那寂寞和著唱。歌聲一句句跳越屏障赴远方!
默默的分享﹐默默的欣賞﹐路上一切美丽况!
人生总会碰着悲哀苦恼为何流泪看?
幸运不希罕 热泪不轻淌 愿做真正既硬汉
何必口說快樂心中一個樣﹖
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
