Jesus Creed

Jesus Creed


Pagitt on Preaching 2

posted by xscot mcknight

This is the second post by Brad Boydston and me on Pagitt’s new book on preaching.
Scot:
Doug Pagitt’s new book, Preaching Re-imagined, suggests that we compare two kinds of preaching: “speaching” and “progressional dialogue.” He sees big problems with the former, and great potential in the latter.
For instance, he says on p. 14: “I believe preaching to be a crucial act of the church. That’s why preaching needs to be released from the bondage of the speech making act. Our impulse to tell the story of God in our communities is the right one, but making speeches is the wrong way to do it…. This dependence on preaching as speech making has become a form of communication I call speaching.”
Pagitt offers plenty of observations about the negative impact of speaching, but the major issue is the relationship that is established by the speacher and the audience — lecture-like, standing in front and above, in total control of every word and every suggestion, and shaping the applications while the audience sits and takes it and is to listen and learn and move on with the pastor’s suggestions to a better Christian life. Pagitt sees speaching as “relational violence” (26). Preaching means proclaiming; it doesn’t mean “inarguable, one-way communication” (27). He says this started with the Enlightenment, but on this he is simply mistaken: “speaching” has its origins, at least in the Western world, in 6th Century and earlier Greece with Demosthenes and his followers, in Rome’s great orator, Cicero, in the early eastern preacher John Chrysostom, in the Italian Renaissance’s development of commonplace books for preachers and politicians to draw from… and I could go on.
Pagitt believes in the priesthood of all believers and sees progressional dialogue as a more fitting form of communication for the church. For him, even the content of the sermon should be shaped by the congregation — Bible study for him is with the congregation as they listen to the text to be preached on Sunday and Doug weaves in and out of their mutual Bible study as he preaches on Sunday. Progressional dialogue means the pastor will move within the sermon: from here to there but the movement is shaped by the congregation instead of the pastor.
I don’t agree with Pagitt about everything here, but as I said before I think he has pointed to an issue we need to consider. He says “The value of our practices — including preaching — ought to be judged by their effects [I think he means "affects" from the way the next paragraph goes] on our communities and the ways in which they help us move toward life with God.” Here, I think he has nailed it. I think Doug’s biggest issue is not so much with the speaching style as the impact that style has on everything that happens. Instead of being a servant-shaped act that leads people toward well-crafted outcomes, speaching can become (easily enough, let’s admit it) random talks about a variety of topics with no discernible long-term aims and goals. And we get what we aim for: good, random sermons that do help people.
The issue for many of us, and I’m only a visiting preacher, is the impact of our sermons. How do we preach in such a way that it makes an impact? And Pagitt is aware, though he does not develop it enough, of the educational theory called Outcome-Based Education [OBE].
Teachers are no longer tolerated who think they are teaching by simply lecturing through material — coverage is the word. We know that what a teacher says and what a student learns is different — sometimes dramatic. So, OBE (Alverno College in Milwaukee is the center of the world for this discussion) has an alternative: we don’t ask “What did I expose my students to?” but “What can students do as a result of the course?” The operative word here is “do.” What can students now “do” that they couldn’t before?
The difference is dramatic. And I think Pagitt sees this as a fundamental problem in speaching: the educational model of speaching is the old one — the preacher’s job is to inform. The new model of education goes beyond that (it is post-teaching) and becomes learning-based. We ask now, “What can people do?” And that means we become assessers as much as teachers. We are asking “where is this student in the process from where she or he was to where she or he needs to be if this [say loving others] is the outcome desired?”
So, let me make a proposal that I think Pagitt forces us to consider: what would our churches be like if we developed an “Outcome-Based Church Ministry”? First, we’d need to discuss very carefull what our desired outcomes are. I suggested in The Jesus Creed that they should be loving God and loving others. Second, and this too is just as hard, we need to develop criteria and rubrics of what loving God and loving others look like. Third, we need to develop a step-progression or a matrix of such criteria to use for assessment. Fourth, we need to develop sophisticated assessment tools to be used within churches that help us see where we are and where others we care for are in this process. And, fifth, we need to shape everything we do in our churches so that we are leading people to loving God and loving others.
There is much more to be said about Pagitt’s book, but Outcome-Based Church Ministry is one idea that Pagitt stimulated in my mind as I was working through his book. We’ll have further thoughts later in the week.
Brad:
Pagitt’s historical understanding of “speeching” is way off. But in spite of that he raises some valid issues — which you (Scot) have done a good job summarizing. Your introduction of OBE into the discussion is helpful.
All of this has me asking questions about why I do what I do. So I started making lists. There’s not enough space to flesh everything out but here is a summary.
Why do I preach?
1. I’ve been positively affected by preachers in my own life. (Even speeching preachers)
2. I’ve been negatively affected by preachers in my own life. Occasionally as a kid I remember thinking, “He gets PAID to do that? I could do that and say it a lot more clearly and to the point than he does.”
3. Even though I never aspired to be a preacher the church kept nudging me in that direction.
4. I promised that I would be faithful in doing so.
5. I seem to have a certain knack for it — giftedness — or so they say. I have to take their word for it. (I’ve never been terribly impressed with my sermons. I feel that I’m pretty average — not bad but certainly not spectacular. And average isn’t bad.)
6. There is something energizing about working with the scripture and with the people day-in and day-out that has changed my life.
7. I see people change. It doesn’t happen very often with just one sermon or even in a short period of time. Over the years I have seen growth in lots of people. Some of them have attributed it to what happens on Sunday mornings. I always want to see more — and more quickly. (There are people who never seem to get it.)
8. Preaching is an adventure. I’m never quite sure what is going to happen in that moment. Whatever it is that God is doing I want to be a part of it.
9. I’m not yet fully able to articulate it but there is something objectively valuable about simply proclaiming God’s Word. Even if no one were to listen or there was no one else to listen — it would still be honoring to God to repeat the story and the good news aloud.
10. It keeps me humble. I trip over my words enough and agonize when things don’t come easily to realize that this whole thing is a whole lot bigger than I am.
11. I love these people.
What do I hope to accomplish in my preaching?
There are the broad answers such as making sure the gospel is proclaimed and that I am faithful to what God has said and continues to say through ancient inspired words. However, more precisely there are three things I want to do in each message/sermon — Encourage, Educate, and Reorient.
(Sorry, I couldn’t find another E word for the third point).
To encourage means to give people the boost they need to step out and trust Christ on a daily basis. Sometimes it means telling them that they’re doing something wrong, but more often it’s about reminding them that God’s grace and mercy is sufficient and that there is hope and that they can move forward — cheerleading through the ups and downs of life.
To educate is about biblical content. I want people to be biblically literate so that they can go out and study the scriptures on their own and so that their crap detectors are finely honed. I do this by modeling solid exegesis. The structure of the sermon provides a template that they can use on their own.
To reorient is to get people to look at life from God’s perspective.
Sometimes this means that sermons will not have anything more tangible than asking them to adjust their vantage point. Such ultimately leads to worship.
What do I struggle with?
1. Sometimes I like words too much. I’m a writer before I am a speaker and I can become very attached to a certain way of articulating something.
2. Sometimes I struggle to get things focused. I don’t have the same level of emotional energy every week. But I feel that I should.
3. Sometimes I don’t have enough time to prepare. Generally, speaking those are the Sundays that I speak longer and ramble more.
4. Sometimes I wish that people would be more responsive. I would feel much more freedom to make things more interactive if I there was greater response — more nods, more smiles, more comments, more laughter (I realize that I have a warped sense of humor). I’ve on occasion turned things into more of a chat when people seem more engaged. (I personally prefer a more interactive sermon — even in the delivery — as I think Pagitt would like
– but there are years of social conditioning at work). About seven years ago I started an online sermon preparation group with over 100 people subscribed to the emails. Over two years or so people lost interest — didn’t have enough time to contribute their input — and I closed it down.
But I loved the interaction.
5. Sometimes I struggle with the whole event and performance mentality that goes with being church. High churches and low churches both get stuck here
– just with different criteria. In order to keep people engaged (and
coming) you always have to come up with something newer and more novel than what you’ve done before. It never seems to be enough to simply enjoy the routine and the cycle of hearing the story over and over again. Everything has to “be fresh” — as though you’re re-inventing the gospel just for them. And there is something unhealthy about that.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(19)
post a comment
ScottB

posted September 1, 2005 at 9:05 am


What do you (Brad and Scot) make of the approach to preaching that Doug references in ch. 13? Specifically (for those w/o benefit of the book) the thought, as related in the quote by Dr. Lloyd-Jones, that the spoken word is the beginning and end of pastoral obligation – that there is no further obligation to actually be about doing the things on which he or she preaches? I think it was the same chapter (not certain) where another person is quoted as saying that, insofar as the preaching is about the Word of God, it IS the Word of God.
This is the approach to preaching that terrifies me – the thought that something mystical happens through the vehicle of the sermon that can’t happen in other ways. Sacramental is a good word for it, and it makes me extremely uncomfortable. There is so much of the self – and I speak as one who has regularly been given the privilege of preaching – in the sermon that I simply can’t fathom putting it on the same level as those acts more normally considered sacraments.
The reason I mention this here is that the way you approach that question – what is preaching? – determines how you view the desired outcome. For the kind of approach I’m describing here, the outcome seems to begin and end with the preacher – did the sermon accurately communicate the truth of the Word? Congregational transformation isn’t under consideration, because the theology prevents it from being considered. It’s God’s responsibility to transform people through the vehicle of the spoken word – which seems to obviate the need for the preacher to be concerned with the effectiveness of the sermon.



report abuse
 

John Frye

posted September 1, 2005 at 10:29 am


I think ScottB is on to something. For many evangelicals there is a magic view of the Bible. We want a person to just “preach the Word. Everything else will just fall into place.”
I think we’ve confused “proclaiming the Gospel” which is an announcement “Hear ye, hear ye, read all about it! The kingdom of God here. Believe it. Jesus is Lord and Caesar (and capitalism) isn’t!”–that’s preaching. Now, the “Jesus Creed” lifestyle doesn’t take root by preaching alone, but by living it together in community and talking about our successes and failures at it. This is dialogical and open-ended. Creating transformational conversation is different than creating a sermon. Hopefully a man does not make love to his wife with a manual by his pillow–”now next, oops, I’ve got to turn the page…” but out of a loving, relational conversation. We don’t want to manualized “loving God and loving people.”



report abuse
 

Pat

posted September 1, 2005 at 12:11 pm


I think the OBE comparison could be very helpful for us to consider. It’s interesting to me that schools are moving to more experiential forms of learning : interaction; multisensory; outcome-evaluated; whereas the teaching in our churches often isn’t moving this way at all.
I don’t think Doug does much experiential teaching, as I understand his emphases, but this is another area that I’m trying to incorporate in order to draw people into the story from the midst of it, not by observing the story from outside it.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted September 1, 2005 at 5:45 pm


ScottB,
I’m not keen on how Pagitt handled M. Lloyd-Jones by simply saying if you like him you won’t like my approach. Still, his point is clear: Lloyd-Jones was a master speacher and saw that as the most important thing.
I’m persuaded that preaching is central to the pastor’s task, but I’m not persuaded that is the only thing or even the major thing. Pastors are pastors and not just preachers. The Sunday service is more than a sermon. This is what Pagitt fears it too easily becomes.
The Christian life is a 24/7 thing and not just something that happens on Sunday; the pastoral task is a 24/7 thing as well. So, I fear what happens when a pastor becomes a gift that is performed behind the pulpit. I go back to Matt 4:23 and 9:35, where Matt sums up Jesus’ ministry: teaching, preaching, and healing. It is holistic, and the ministry needs to be that today, and it can be if pastors become fully pastoral and missional in focus.



report abuse
 

Dana Ames

posted September 1, 2005 at 8:10 pm


Scot, your threefold summation of Jesus’ holistic ministry in Matt is much like Willard’s summary in “Divine Conspiracy” of what ministry involves: teaching, proclaiming and manifesting.
I’m not sure how sophisticated the assessment tools need to be re sermon impact. The outcomes in terms of how sermons can help with spiritual formation, with “being apprenticed to Jesus”, have to do more with character and relationships. These are certainly observable, but hard to quantify, and again require investment of time in community.
Brad, thank you for your thoughtfulness and honesty.
Dana



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted September 1, 2005 at 8:45 pm


Dana,
Thanks.
As for outcome assessments, I’m talking more about overall impact and assessments, and more than just what happens as a result of sermons.
Isn’t it more that the entire ministry/church should have outcomes and every ministry, including preaching, should be shaped to produce such outcomes?



report abuse
 

Jamie Arpin-Ricci

posted September 1, 2005 at 8:47 pm


Scot/Brad,
While Jesus did interact widely with people, did he not also speach on some level? Should Doug’s approach add balance to speaching, rather than simply replace it?
Peace,
Jamie



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted September 1, 2005 at 9:04 pm


It seems to me that Doug has less problem with the “length” of the speech and more with the intensity of its status and its structure within the ministry of the church. In a sense, all speaking requires listening, or an audience sitting still and listening until the person speaking is done, but I sense Doug’s concern is the intensity of that listening and speaching — so that it becomes a one-way, controlled environment rather than an opportunity for the sort of response that provokes change (he calls this, rather helpfully, implicating).



report abuse
 

Ben

posted September 1, 2005 at 10:12 pm


Scot,
I agree with your conclusion that we should have “outcome assessments” (fruit inspections?). Then, even if we can’t actually quantify results, at least we know what we’re aiming at. When there is not an identifiable outcome stated and looked for, I’ve observed that the church/ministry tends to default to working to get 1) more people in the building, and 2) more money in the bank account, all the while sort of assuming that if that happens, they’ve accomplished something. Of course there’s nothing wrong with lots of people in a building, or lots of money, but when those are the main goals of ministry (even if they aren’t explicitly stated as such), we’re in trouble.
Nobody would say those are their goals, but I’ve noticed that when there aren’t clear, identifiable goals/outcomes/fruit that are assessed, the “budgets/butts-in-seats” goal takes over.



report abuse
 

Brad Boydston

posted September 1, 2005 at 10:14 pm


ScottB:
What do you (Brad and Scot) make of the approach to preaching that Doug references in ch. 13? Specifically (for those w/o benefit of the book) the thought, as related in the quote by Dr. Lloyd-Jones, that the spoken word is the beginning and end of pastoral obligation – that there is no further obligation to actually be about doing the things on which he or she preaches?
Brad:
If my assessment is correct Lloyd-Jones’ was reacting against a high-church Anglo-Catholic trend which was de-emphasizing preaching in order to emphasize ritual. Like Doug, Lloyd-Jones (who was a brilliant preacher) overstates his case to make a point — an occupational hazard for those who preach. As I read Lloyd-Jones he is saying that we should take preaching seriously and not try to excuse ourselves from the hard work by saying that we make up for the lack of effort in the study by doing visitation, etc. And certainly, you wouldn’t want to try to shorten your sermon time to make room for more ritual and singing. :-)
Jamie:
While Jesus did interact widely with people, did he not also speach on some level? Should Doug’s approach add balance to speaching, rather than simply replace it.
Brad:
Exactly. It’s not an either/or but a both/and issue — at least as I see it.



report abuse
 

Dana Ames

posted September 1, 2005 at 10:41 pm


Again you’re resonating with Willard, Scot. We surely do need to keep the vision of we’re aiming for in front of our eyes.
So, examples? Or is that fodder for a separate post?
Dana



report abuse
 

Robert Campbell

posted September 2, 2005 at 4:48 pm


I’ve enjoyed the experience of both “reimagining” books. As a preacher (but one who has always included dialog purposefully into my preaching) my reaction to Pagit was not with method but Scripture.
Pagit certainly seems to elevate dialog over the value of the Bible. In “Reimagining spiritual formation” Pagit records that he generally appends any preaching from the Bible with “it seems to me.” I am sure the intent is to step back from being an authoritative preacher but I fear that he has given the impression that we have less than an authoritative text.
If outcome is what we are after, it seems that the authoritative text in the dialog (which is sometimes one sided for 45 minutes but never remains that way) of the Spirit filled community will be most likely to produce a Christ like outcome.
Thanks for the discussion, even though Scott and Brad get to write first :)



report abuse
 

James

posted September 3, 2005 at 1:03 pm


This is a good discussion. I think that there is still another issue that needs to be addressed in relation to this and that is the ongoing division between clergy and laity. I think Pagitt’s methodology is much more helpful here. While OBE may be helpful in many contexts I doubt it will have much of an impact in churches that spend the majority of their resources on the act of speeching. As Edward Farley and others have pointed out, very little education takes place in the speeching sermon. (To paraphrase Farley, why is it that people can go to church all their lives, even teach Sunday School, and still not know how to interpret a Scriptural text as well as a first year Bible college student?) I would argue that most speeching sermons are not designed to be educational at all, but rather designed to provide a spiritually therapeutic buzz that helps sustain an institution that requires a group of people to be dependant on the pastor. I think that is unhealthy for everyone involved.
What I like about what Pagitt is promoting is that it is opening the door for the laity–or more properly, the whole community– to participate in the proclamation of the gospel in a more meaningful way. It also creates much more room for the primary interpreter of the community to receive back from the community in a give and take relationship.
But I greatly appreciate the insights from Scott and Brad and I thank them for sharing here and all the other commentators for a great discussion.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted September 3, 2005 at 1:10 pm


James,
I think you are right about Doug’s intention to include the congregation in the sermon. But, I’m not so sure about education not taking place — but if it is not outcome-based related it will fall away (by the way, 90+% of what we hear we forget anyway). So, I don’t think the issue is “just” speaching (he spells it with an “a”) but the overall program.



report abuse
 

James

posted September 3, 2005 at 1:44 pm


I will grant that some form of education takes place through the speaching (I never was much of a speller so these creative communicators who coin new words and phrases are pushing me past my limits) but the point I would try to make is that the amount of resources (time, money, etc) that we place in the speaching event does not produce what we all say we are hoping to accomplish. If it is true that we forget 90+% of what we hear than why does so much of our energy and resources go towards the speaching event? It seems to me that if we were really serious about producing an outcome of a faithful community of people who lived as followers of God 24/7 that we would not focus so much on this 45 minutes a week. It has been my experience that the overall program is something all of us ecclesial dreamers (including myself) talk about but I see better than I hear. I can talk about it all I want. A look at the budget and the org chart will show that we spend our time, energy and resources on what we really value and that in turn produces the outcomes we desire. As long as we like to hear our selves speach and need an audience to pay us to do it we will not really want to rock the boat all that much (and probably be very suspicious of others who do want to rock it).
I would love to hear more about how you see structuring ecclesial communities in such a way that more meaningful education takes place. I know this blog is not the right context for that but it sure makes me glad that thinkers and educators like yourself are thinking through these issues. And I cannot thank you enough for sharing your thoughts and interacting here like you do. I look forward to the next post from you and Brad.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted September 3, 2005 at 2:13 pm


James,
I think I agree with 100% of what you just said. How to organize? You’re right — too big for this context. But it is as simple as this: (1) list your outcomes; (2) construct a “dept” or volunteer for each one; (3) start shaping the whole ecclesial work toward those outcomes. Assess as you go along; revise as you go along; adjust as you go along. But defining outcomes is critical.



report abuse
 

Doug Pagitt

posted September 6, 2005 at 2:29 pm


It is so surreal to listen to you folks talk about the book – I love it.
Could I add that my take on the history of preaching is that the enlightenment changed the way authority is understood. I know that people gave sermons before that (take that in the tone of Bush telling Kerry that he knows USA attacked the US on sept. 11 and not Sadam), but the function of the sermon changed. I think it is one of the marks of pre and post reformation.
On the OBE, I have concerns about this as well for the church. If what we are doing is getting group of planners together to decide what others need to learn or do, then we are still not being the kinds of communities that have the full ebb of what I think churches need to have.
For me it is not the content, or even the outcomes, but who is in control and what does that leave out.
I am not suggesting that PD (progressional Dialog) gives us better outcomes but less control, which I think is a good thing.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted September 6, 2005 at 2:45 pm


Doug,
Great to hear from you. I was hoping you’d be following along.
On the first one, I’d have to see some proof to believe authority changed — I can think of plenty of “preachers/speachers/pastors/bishops/popes” with authority, and Calvin/Beza had enough authority for all of us combined.
On OBE, I’m not quite sure what you are saying. It seems to me that we have to know what we are doing and where we are going, if even that means we will be flexible in our direction toward what Scripture/tradition/Spirit tells us the goal is. (I still think love of God, love of others is enough to get us headed in the right direction.) And I don’t think we have to be rigid or too systematic about it all, but we need to know what a mature community and Christian looks like. It is more than “planners” then.
Your issue of control is an interesting one. I think you are right in that the preacher/speacher has total control of what he or she says. But, that preacher then needs to surrender control to the Spirit –in prep, in delivery, in impact — and once that happens, then the Spirit can create the freedom needed.
Tell me more.



report abuse
 

Greg Loveless

posted September 12, 2005 at 1:31 am


Doug:
Could I add that my take on the history of preaching is that the enlightenment changed the way authority is understood. I know that people gave sermons before that (take that in the tone of Bush telling Kerry that he knows USA attacked the US on sept. 11 and not Sadam), but the function of the sermon changed. I think it is one of the marks of pre and post reformation.
Greg:
When Luther broke from the Catholic Church he developed the Seven Marks of the Church. He developed these to distinguish The Church from any other group of people meeting together. For a Church to exists it had to have all seven marks. One of these seven was “where the Word of God is Read and Preached”.
Now Luther had one foot in the medieval age so his list is really that of sacrament and authority. Where the Word is read and then “Preached”, and when the other marks are present, God works in this activity and creates His will. Thus the reading of the Word and the Preaching of the Word is an act of authority given by God in Christ beyond the control of any person, government or church official.
This concept changed the location of the authority. It is not just in the activity of the priest and the sacraments but in the hearing of the Word read and hearing the Word Preached. This is understood to be the sacred ground of God’s creative action.
This “activity” of God is not located in the preacher. Neither is it located in the hearer. Rather it is located in the moment of exchange between the preacher and the hearer. This moment is when what the preacher meant in the words preached meets the hearers “history” and “story” and creates. In this the Church is present.
The “loss of control” over this exchange and the OBE is where God works. This is why we do not see a one-to-one correlation with the “meaning of the preaching” and the “hearing of the meaning”.
This is His play ground where His creative presence creates in the present moment as it did in the Beginning. As all things came into being through Him (the Alpha and Omega) so also this same Alpha and Omega is present in this moment of the Word Preached.
If the congregates do not grasp this sacred activity and have need to replace it with theater, it be best to preach on the above paragraph, lest one loose the right to preach while preaching to a congregation which possesses only six marks of the church and thereby is not a church, but a club whose members applaud the speacher.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Jesus Creed. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:15:58am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Our Common Prayerbook 30 - 3
Psalm 30 thanks God (vv. 1-3, 11-12) and exhorts others to thank God (vv. 4-5). Both emerge from the concrete reality of David's own experience. Here is what that experience looks like:Step one: David was set on high and was flourishing at the hand of God's bounty (v. 7a).Step two: David became too

posted 12:15:30pm Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Theology After Darwin 1 (RJS)
One of the more important and more difficult pieces of the puzzle as we feel our way forward at the interface of science and faith is the theological implications of discoveries in modern science. A comment on my post Evolution in the Key of D: Deity or Deism noted: ...this reminds me of why I get a

posted 6:01:52am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Almost Christian 4
Who does well when it comes to passing on the faith to the youth? Studies show two groups do really well: conservative Protestants and Mormons; two groups that don't do well are mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics. Kenda Dean's new book is called Almost Christian: What the Faith of Ou

posted 12:01:53am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Let's Get Neanderthal!
The Cave Man Diet, or Paleo Diet, is getting attention. (Nothing is said about Culver's at all.) The big omission, I have to admit, is that those folks were hunters -- using spears or smacking some rabbit upside the conk or grabbing a fish or two with their hands ... but that's what makes this diet

posted 2:05:48pm Aug. 30, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.