(Virtue Online) Not obscurantism but faith. We need to learn to face problems relating to the Bible as we face problems surrounding other Christian doctrines. If somebody comes to us with a biblical problem (a discrepancy, for example, between theology and science, or between two gospel accounts, or a moral dilemma), what should we do? We should not (from a mistaken integrity) suspend our belief in the truth of Scripture until we have solved the problem. Nor should we place the problem either on a shelf (indefinitely postponing its challenge) or under a carpet (permanently concealing it, even from ourselves). Instead, we should struggle conscientiously with the problem in thought, discussion and prayer. As we do so, some difficulties will be either wholly or partly cleared up, but then, in spite of those which remain, we should retain our belief about Scripture on the ground that Jesus himself taught and exhibited it. If a critic says to me, ‘You are an obscurantist to believe the Bible to be the Word of God in defiance of the problems,’ I nowadays return the compliment and say, ‘OK, if you like, I am. But then you are an obscurantist to believe in the love of God in defiance of the problems.’ Actually, however, to believe a Christian doctrine in spite of its problems, because of the acknowledged lordship of Jesus Christ, is not obscurantism (preferring darkness to light) but faith (trusting him who said he was the light of the world). It is more than faith; it is the sober, intellectual integrity of confessing Jesus as Lord.
Michael Gerson,a columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group, observes that:
According to Pew, 74 percent of the nones grew up in a religious tradition of some sort. Yet while conversion has increased the ranks of the nones, retention is not particularly good. Protestantism, for example, loses about 20 percent of those raised Protestants. Of those raised unaffiliated, 40 percent fall away from the nonfaith and rebel toward religion, making for a new generation of awkward Thanksgivings.
While I might fiddle with the numbers a bit, this certainly has been my experience in the Orthodox Church. The Church is also suffering from the “declining trust in religious institutions since the 1990s.” This isn’t limited to religion but
…has been accompanied by declining trust in most institutions (with the notable exception of the military). Confidence in government and big business has simultaneously fallen—and the public standing of both is lower than that of the church. Americans may be less affiliated with religious organizations because they have grown generally more individualistic and skeptical of authority.
If I were to hazard a guess, it’s because whatever it is they do, Christians typically don’t invite young people (or anyone else for that matter) to become friends of Jesus AND His disciples. Like the larger culture, the Orthodox Church seem to be raising the next generation of “nones” precisely because we have failed to foster friendship, much less discipleship, among in our own parishes.
Image via WikipediaLet me conclude by suggestion that the right use of authority, our willingness to be ruled by law and our commitment both to fulfill and transcend the demands of justice are all essential to the effective outcome of our evangelical witness. When we fail to exercise authority rightly (that is according to the standards of this world or not at all) we abandon the Gospel. Again, as Paul writes:
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Cor 1.19-25)
So for example, when we minimize or ignore misconduct within the Church we not only fail to win the favor of the world, we simply compound their disdainful view of us. It is a mystery to me, but it seems that the world can "bless" any vice except hypocrisy, and especially when it is motivated by piety. So strong is the association of hypocrisy and piety that Ambrose Bierce calls hypocrisy "prejudice with a halo."
Even those who do not love us, expect better of us than they do of themselves, and even more at times than we do of ourselves. The right understanding and exercise of authority within the Church and by the Church is not optional. Once upon a time, the Church's use of authority in the service the good of the human family, converted an empire. Granted this conversion was imperfect, but then what conversion isn't? If this were true during the patristic era, how can it be any less true in our own?
Speaking on the exercise of divine authority in Christ, St John Chrysostom says that "God wants for nothing and has need for nothing. Yet, when He humbled Himself, He produced such great good, increased His household, and extended His Kingdom." The saint then turns his attention from Christ to the Church, to us and himself: "Why, then, are you afraid that will become less if you humbled yourself?"
The exercise of authority, the upholding of the rule of law, the fulfilling and transcending of the demands of justice requires from us--from me--a humility that we--I--often lack. But this lack reflects fear and a lack of the love that drives out fear. Looking into my own heart I know that I often fail to exercise the authority I have been given because of my own fear and lack of gratitude for what I have been given in baptism and ordination--I wonder is it any different for any of us?
In the Christian understanding, exercise of authority is always mutual. Authority is given within the body, for the body, but it can never supplant the authority of the members of the body either in their own areas of responsibility OR for the responsibility of the one for the whole:
For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free-and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body," is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body," is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. And if they were all one member, where would the body be? But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way. (1 Cor 12.15-31)
Returning to my initial concern, that of misconduct in the Church. Based on the above, I would suggest that the enforcing of laws, even punishment and requiring (where possible) restitution for harm done, are not only NOT contrary to the exercise of authority within the Church, but in fact consonant with its exercise and even necessity.
When, as AK and Mark allude to, we minimize sexual misconduct by clergy, and/or ignore or minimize the needs of victims, we have failed to exercise authority in a Christ pleasing manner. The problem, as I see it, is less that a monastery offers hospitality to a defrocked priest but more if no one in the Church offers hospitality to those who suffered the consequences of the misconduct that lead to the priest's removal from the ranks of the clergy.
Likewise, we must be critical of the exercise of authority that has as its goal the "reputation" of the Church if good opinion of others comes at the expense of those who were harmed. Paul is not indifferent to how those of good heart outside the Church view the Church. Indeed, this is part of why he dismisses from fellowship the incestuous couple and requires that the use of tongues be limited within the assembly.
I will conclude these reflects tomorrow by arguing that, paradoxical thought it may seem, in the Church we must exercise authority is such a way that we bear the contempt of the world precisely for the life of the world.
While there have been some good responses, in main the Church's response to misconduct in the Church, has suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of public authority as given for the common good. Paul, ever the clear eyed commentator of all things human and divine, puts the matter directly: authority is "appointed by God" (Rms 12.1) not as a terror "to good works, but to evil." (v. 3) Granted Paul is speaking in this passage of civil authority, but even within the Church the Apostle to the Gentiles was willing to exercise a terrible authority in the face of evil.
The same man who writes the hymn of the primacy of love among the spiritual gifts (1 Cor 13), soundly condemns the divisions in the Church (1.10-17; 3.1-3; 6.1-11), sexual immorality (5.9-12; 6.12-20), the indifference of some to the spiritual and physical needs of others in the community (8.1-9; 11.21-22), and even (implicitly to be sure) criticize his brother apostles (9.1-18). Without a hint of the embarrassment that has come to characterize the contemporary use of authority (when it is not exercised in a heavy handed manner), Paul lays down rules for worship (11.1-16; 14.6-19, 26-40) and sexual morality (7.10-40).
And when there are those among the faithful who would sacrifice the common good in the pursuit of their own self-desires?
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named[a] among the Gentiles-that a man has his father's wife! And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (5.1-5)
After excommunicating (to speak anachronistically) the offending couple, Paul then goes on the chastise the Church for its failures. The Church was willing to sacrifice its shared responsibility to preserve the common good rather than offend (given the general tenor of the community) wealthy members. Again Paul:
Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (vv. 6-8)
This brings us back full circle. Authority, the rule, the fulfillment and transcendence of the demands of justice is in the service of the common good. But the common good is served only through an attention of those in authority to the particular good of those who are members of the community. Granted as the community grows numerically, this service of the common good by attending to the particular good of individuals becomes increasingly complicated, but the principle is nevertheless consistent. As human reason serves the good of whole physical and spiritual good of the person through reason's thankful obedience to Christ, so too in marriage the father serves the good of the family through his thankful obedience to Christ. Likewise, for the priest in the parish, the bishop in the diocese and the civil authority in the state, are all called to serve the good of all by serving the unique good of each.
BUT, as we will see tomorrow, the visible authority within the body does not invalidate the shared responsibility, and thus authority, of all members of the community to work for the common good of all by serving the particular good of others.
Building what I said yesterday, I would argue that the right exercise of authority, the rule of law and the respectful transcendence of justice, are what makes it possible for us by grace to be "renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created [us], where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all" (vv. 10-11) and,
as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. (vv. 11-16)
Classical Christian political philosophy (which is grounded in the experiences as the sacramental presence of City of God in the midst of the City of Man) draws from the parallel Paul sketches between the human body and the body of human society. In the human body, it belongs to reason (broadly understood to include what we call emotion and desire) to rule the whole body. We get a sense of what reason's rule means in the prayer at tonsure in the baptismal service:
Master, Lord our God, who honoured mortals with your image, furnishing them with a rational soul and a comely body, so that the body might serve the rational soul, you placed the head at the very top and in it you planted the majority of the senses, which do not interfere with one another, while you covered the head with hair so as not to be harmed by the changes of the weather, and you fitted all the limbs most suitably to each one, so that through them all they might give thanks to you, the master craftsman.
The human person is seen as a harmonious whole. The head (i.e., reason) has the first place in the body, but is submissive to the rational soul. I would suggest that we see in the rational soul not the faculty of reason, but the source of human reason AND an image of Christ. Reason governs the body, but is not only not separate from the body, but dependent on it. And, together, reason and the body are submissive to Christ. It is only through a thankful obedience the human person can be him or herself. Reason, emotions, desires, senses, and physical needs--can function properly, that is, without interfering with one another, in obedience to Christ and with a reason being exercised with concern and respect for the proper role of all the faculties of the body.
This is what Paul tells us in Romans when, writing about the different spiritual gifts given to each member of the Body of Christ, he writes:
For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness. (Rm 12.3-8)
Authority is given for the service of all. This service is not passive, a benign neglect if you will, but rather (I would suggest) a matter of actively fostering the common good by serving the particular good in Christ of each member of the Body. Again, Paul:
Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality. (vv. 9-13)
Tomorrow, I want to reflect briefly with you on what we can learn about authority from those times when we fail to exercise authority "on behalf of all and for all" but only for some and ourselves.
Recent comments offered by AKand Mark Partalis raise for me important questions that are of both great theoretical and practical interest. Specifically, the comments they, and others, offer cause me to reflect on the nature of authority generally and in the life of the Church.
In classical Christian thought, authority--whether personal, secular or religious--is not an end in itself, but given for the common good. So for example we have Jesus reminding the disciples that in imitation of his example, they are given authority not to lord it over others, but for service:
Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Mk 10: 42-45)
The Apostle Paul builds on this idea when he argues that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are given to each on behalf of all:
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head-Christ- from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. (Eph 4:12-16)
It is worth noting, that for Paul (as with Jesus) authority to rule, and by implication, the rule of law and the demands of justice, are not opposed to love. Rather, authority, law, justice are all in the service of joining and knitting together of the whole Body of Christ. Seen in this light, authority takes on a decidedly eschatological character--it points beyond itself to that time in the life to come when it will be revealed that " Christ is all and in all." (see, Col 3:11)
Authority, the rule of law and the fulfillment and transcendence of the demands of justice is what makes it possible for us, personally and communally, to put to "death" that in us which is of "the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry." (Col 3:5) These vices bring down upon us as Paul says, "the wrath of God . . . upon the sons of disobedience (v. 6) and bred in the human heart "anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, [and] filthy language." (v. 8) And not only that, but between us, in the social realm grounded not in truth spoken in love (see Eph 4:15), but rather a "lie . . . since [we] have [not yet] put off the old man with his deeds." (Col 3.9).
Isaac the Syrian is probably the most eloquent patristic witness for the position I have been sketching out (you can read that post here). The saint writes that "Someone who has actually tasted truth is not contentious for truth. Someone who is considered by people to be zealous for truth has not yet learnt what truth is really like; once he has truly learnt it, he will cease from zealousness on its behalf." [Kephalaia IV.77; The Wisdom of Saint Isaac the Syrian, translated by Sebastian Brock, (Fairacres, Oxford: SLG Press Convent of the Incarnation, 1997), p15.]
Commenting on this passage, David Goa, writes that like relativism, the zealousness that informs our polemical attitude "fail to discern aright what stands under the desire we have for that which is true." Both relativism and zeal, deform our desire for the truth "into an appetite." Once the pursuit of truth becomes an appetite, a passion in patristic terminology,
Whatever we come to look at and care about is then forced into conformity with the idea, image, or ritual that we have erected as absolute. We begin to hang all our hopes and dreams on the truth of our chosen framework, our precious absolutes (including the relativists' precious absolute that there is nothing of ultimate value). Our longing is captured by an absolute of our own making. It follows, almost without saying, that once we hang all our hopes and dreams on something that we claim as absolute, it is a short step to hanging all our fears on it as well. In this moment the holy longing of the human heart and mind that lies behind the search for absolutes becomes polluted. Zealousness for the truth frames how we see and understand and reshapes our response to the fragility of the life of the world.
Goa continues by observing that the symptom our passionate pursuit of the truth is a need for enemies. My passion (pathos) for the truth can only be sustained insofar as I stand in opposition to someone or something. But this approach is one "that reduces complexity and purpose to frame [my assumed] conclusions." But for the Christian "this is a false start for it begins neither at the heart of human nature or in the presence of God's love" but in fear. Again, Goa: "For St. Isaac, zeal for truth is itself a symptom of a spiritual disease. Or, perhaps, it is a condition that tends to develop at a certain stage in the spiritual life and is itself simply a marker of that stage. It is the spiritual equivalent of adolescence where the young try out all sorts of ideas and actions with the conviction that no one else has ever had these thoughts or feelings and they are exploring them for the first time. How can it be that no one else has ever seen just how important and ultimate these thoughts and feelings are?"
There is a sense in which our zealous pursuit of truth "is part of the process of maturation." So when as a spiritual father I see the "zealousness for truth" spoken of by St. Isaac, I understand that it is "a stage in the spiritual development of the person. But just as with adolescence, if the condition persists, spiritual growth is arrested. One is stuck in the adolescent stage of the spiritual life."
Christ however calls us to wholeness of being. Part and parcel of this wholeness means that by God's grace and our own efforts "we are freed from the habit of taking refuge in abstract notions of truth. If we taste of truth at every Eucharist we know better. If we taste of truth every time we, like the disciples, find ourselves in Emmaus breaking bread with someone we didn't know we knew, we know better. We know better every time our hearts are moved with compassion."
But as I mentioned earlier, polemics, a zealous approach to the truth has a strangle hold on us because we do not wish to grow, to change. Our conversations are polemical because more often than not, our thinking about ourselves is static and rigid. Catholic/Orthodox polemics—at least as we see them in contemporary practice—are only accidentally theological. In the main (and I will address this more in another post) our polemics reflect our own lack of wholeness, of balance, of our own lack of virtue. We are, as I said earlier, neurotic
At the risk of misapplying the theory, I will in the next essay explore the different neurotic styles that seem favored by Eastern and Western Christians. To anticipate, Eastern Christians tend to see themselves as standing "against" others, even as Western Christians tend to move "toward."
Counseling resource recommendations are hard for me to make without a sense of what skill level the person has. As a general rule of thumb, however, the very first thing to bear in mind is that we ought not to enter into a counseling relationship that is beyond our comfort level. So for example, even if I'm comfortable and competent (different things by the way, the former not being in anyway a predictor of the latter) in a therapeutic setting deal with this or that issue, I often find that I need to refer the person to a therapist who has more time and access to greater social service resources then I do in a parish.
What I'm getting at is this: The best resource we have in counseling is a sense of our own personal and technical limitations.
What studies that have been done on the effectiveness of counseling relationships suggest that the quality of the relationship between counselor and client is what is most important. Second on the list are the personal internal and social resources of the client. The specific therapeutic orientation and skill set of the counselor is relatively low down on the list of predictors for a successful counseling relationship. This doesn't mean professional competence is unimportant, only that it is not the primary predictor of success.
So, looking at the first element, the relationship between counselor and client, you might want to read Adrian van Kaam's The Art of Existential Counseling: A New Perspective in Psychotherapy. I have found this and a number of van Kaam's books to be very helpful and very accessible. You also might want to look at Dynamics of Spiritual Direction also by van Kaam. The Art of Spiritual Guidance by Carolyn Gratton might also be of use to you. (Having studied with both authors I can testify to both their professional competency and commitment to Christ.)
As for the second element, before getting involved in any type of ongoing counseling relationship, it is important to have a sense both of the person's internal, moral strength as we well as what kind of social support they have to encourage and sustain change. People without these internal and social resources are generally not good candidates for counseling, at least without enlisting significant support from social services. In a parish setting we simply can't work with people who lack these personal and social resources. Again, this isn't a reflection on our commitment to Christ or His People, but rather of the whole range of resources we can bring to bear.
BUT, even if I cannot enter into a formal counseling relationship with someone, I certainly can refer them to a professional therapist and commit to being a support for them as they go through counseling. This works most effectively if I have a pre-existing professional relationship with area therapists (and this is one of the things on my "to do" list when I come to a new parish) who can act as potential partners when I refer folks. Also a relationship with a therapist is good to help me get a sense of when people bring me things about which I'm not in a position to help them.
In my own ministry I have some general rules that I follow.
First, I divide my counseling ministry into three basic areas:
PASTORAL counseling for those who are still functional (i.e., can love and work successfully) and whose basic concern is to find meaning in Christ for themselves or their life.
PSYCHOLOGICAL counseling is for those who are not able to function or only marginally functional. As a rule, these I refer to a professional therapist though I do try and offer what pastoral support I can give and they can receive.
POLICE matters pertain to anything criminal. Here all I can really do is support the victim in making the best of the situation they find themselves in. As for perpetrators, these folks I encourage to turn themselves in. Any instance of actual or threatened physical violence is a police matter.
Second, I need to realize that I can't deal with every person who comes to me looking for help. While some times what they bring me are outside my area of technical competence, generally and for most part the issue is one of time management. I have limits on my time and energy. If I spend several hours in a series of high stress counseling sessions (which sometimes happens), I'm useless for much of anything else for DAYS.
Third, counseling in a parish setting is often crisis oriented--clergy are good first responders, but we are not in a situation to do long term, or even short term, counseling. The further we get from a pastoral relationship the more danger we are in of malpractice, malfeasance, misconduct or personal burn out.
Fourth, when in doubt about my abilities or if I don't have the time/energy to help someone I refer them to a professional therapist. Yes, this comes with a commitment to support them in therapy—but as their priest who will help them bear the cross of mental illness.
Fifth things which are clearly PSYCHOPATHOLOGICAL (e.g., depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) I refer to a clinical psychologist. Pastoral support here means checking in with the person from time to time and seeing how they're doing. Oh, yes, I also will ask them about medication usage--basically, "Are you taking your medication(s)?"
Sixth, PHYSICAL VIOLENCE (either ACTUAL or THREATENED) is NEVER something that I work with as the primary caregiver. Instance of physical violence, like all crimes, are POLICE MATTERS. Yes there is a pastoral dimension to say domestic violence, but it is fundamentally a legal matter and I need to respect that even if my parishioner is not willing to report the crime.
Finally, I think one of the best things I have ever done for my own counseling ministry was to be in therapy. I have seen a therapist several times in my life. The old psychoanalytic model (now increasingly ignored) was clear: You must undergo analysis to become do psychoanalysis. Being in counseling has been most helpful for me learning what my limits are.
Let me know if the above is of any help to you. Of course you can always invite me to come and speak and do a clergy training workshop.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=a03d40b7-8982-4838-94f6-914d791de7fc)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=ead6e691-6472-4b0b-85ca-7afad458d60d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=088c859f-39bd-4b50-8bba-69918cf4721d)
