Debate on The Passion (still a very long post... sorry)
Ok friends, at first I posted a very long post that had Dr. G's and I'd email debate back and forth over this issue. After talking to Dr. G I decided to change it to this post. Instead of posting every email I will simply sumarize his points and my counter points (just remember these all took place over a "conversation" of several emails). Finally, I will end with my final (and longest) email that I sent yesterday after seeing the film.
This will STILL be a very long post (my apologies).
First, Dr. G and Rebecca wrote this letter to the editor of Christianity Today which most of us have seen:
"Re: “The Passion of the Christ”
Dear Editor:
There is no need to depict graphically the suffering of the Suffering Servant. We know from Scripture that he suffered. We know it was terrible. The inspired Gospel writers describe these events in careful, factual detail, but they stop short of the sensational. Jesus did not die for the sake of spectacle, box office revenues, or the feeding frenzy of a society hooked on cinematic violence.
Why would anyone who loves Christ want to see image after gruesome image of his torture? Would we want to witness the torture of a loved one, however noble the suffering may have been? Reviewers have said the movie’s violence is “ferocious” and that it will test the audience’s emotional stamina. But the test God requires of us involves recoiling from the sin that put Jesus on the cross, not enduring sustained, explicit, and horrifying images of his suffering.
But perhaps the gory and gratuitous display is what is required to grip the desensitized souls of people today. If so, one hardly knows whether to be glad or sad for it.
Sincerely,
Douglas Groothuis
Rebecca Merrill Groothuis"
That started our debate because I disagreed with them. I agreed with them that our society is obsessed and overrun with wonton and gratuitous violence. However, I argued that in this one (and only this one) case I feel that the graphic violence depicted in film is warranted. Yes, our society may be desensitized to such violence, or, perhaps, they are so desensitized that something like this is needed to wake them from their slumber. And that is sad. Yet, at this point, I recognize this concerning the film: it is an accurate representation of what our Lord did on behalf of this fallen world because he so loved it. Millions upon millions in America have utterly no understanding of this and think of Jesus only as a particularly flavorful curse word. This film, if the Church is behind it and follows up on the wake it will make, has the opportunity to force people into some level of thinking on the person of Christ. Dr. G, you and I are both thinkers. It is what we do -- our minds are constantly at work. But, believe it or not, I've discovered that most people today simply do not think very long or hard or deeply about much anything, much less God and his incredible love for them. If this films forces them to think, for many for the first time, seriously about the blood that was spilt by the perfect and holy God incarnate in human flesh -- then I say Amen.
Yes, we love Jesus. You are correct -- who would want to watch a film about the torture that their loved one endured? But you have to admit this: the suffering of our Lord is quite different from any other suffering that has ever taken place in all of history (or ever will). Yes he is our dearly loved one, but he is also the perfect Lord. His suffering is very different than if we were watching a movie on the suffering of, say, Jed McFatter (someone we both care about). His Passion (in the original meaning of the word) is horrific and yet, in a divine, unique, and ultimate way, shockingly beautiful. It is beautiful because of what we know his death accomplished. So much of Christian theology can be wrapped up in his suffering: the fall of humanity, the sin of the world, the separation from God, His desire for reconciliation, His work to accomplish it, His unsurpassable love for us, His substitutionary death on our behalf. I could go on and on. Paul tells us very plainly to preach Christ and Him Crucified. The crucifixion of our Lord, of THE Lord, is a terrible and disgusting and shocking and disturbing thing. That is simply what it is -- and whatever it is, is what people need to see. Whatever it is, is what we need to proclaim. People are going to Hell everyday in this broken world and the breaking of Christ is their only hope.
I then told Dr. G that I am planning on seeing the film on Ash Wednesday and after I see it, most likely I will then try to take several friends who do not believe in Christ to see it with me.
In the conversation that followed this initial starting point, Dr. G made several strong points: 1) He questioned the use of not just the Gospel’s but the Catholic mystic’s visions of Christ as the content source for the film. 2) He questioned some of the speculation that was taken in the film concerning some of the things that are stated very plainly in the Gospels (specifically the Roman soldiers being depicted as sadistic and some particulars like Jesus’ eye being swollen shut. 3) He went on to point out that several reviewers say that only the violence and gore come through in the film, not the message of Christ. Specifically a scholar Rabbi in the Rocky Mountain News made this point. 4) He pointed to the fact that images are very limited in what they can convey properly and accurately – and if this is just images of Christ’s death, the meaning – the propositions – contained in the events will be missed
I responded to those charges, I think, adequately. 1) I was basically under the impression that relatively little was taken from the Catholic mystic. Now that I have seen the film I can affirm that. I read the passion accounts in all 4 gospels before seeing the film and the vast majority of the content is straight from those. 2) If we can get past the mystic, I argue that some speculation is needed if we are to tell a story at all. Guessing what a human body will look like (swollen eye) or the character traits exhibited by certain people in the story (soilders) I did not feel was outlandish historical speculation. Here’s the content of that argument from me: Forget the Catholic mystic for a minute: aren't the speculations taken the most likely ones? I mean, yes we don't know that the Romans were particularly mean or sadistic: but we know that they spit in his face, mocked him, hit him, kicked him, beat him, scourged him, yelled at him to prophesy, etc. Do you think they did this in a "nice" way? I think for anyone to be capable of scourging another human being they would have to be sadistic. I think speculating, based upon what we know about how the human body responds to beatings, that Jesus's eye was swollen shut is a completely plausible and likely speculation. I do not think that any of these things that you raise are way out there or ridiculous. Instead, they seem like the most likely way it went down. The gospels don't spell out every detail of what happened during the Passion, so a film about it has to make the best possible guesses on what would be most likely to fill in some of the details
3 & 4) I completely agreed that propositions are essential and we cannot rely on images alone to convey truth. I also have no doubt many people will watch this film and simply “not get it” (that has been confirmed by a few post movie interviews (and that Rabbi), but the vast majority do “hear” the propositional message declared by the image of Christ’s suffering in this film). My point was simply that perhaps many WILL hear the truthful propositions concerning Christ, and that is a very good thing.
Now, up until this point neither one of us had seen the film. On Ash Wednesday, as I said in my previous post, Abbi and I both saw the film. After I had seen it, I sent this email below off to Dr. G. In one of Dr. G’s email he quoted the prolific film critic Roger Ebert and particularly his comment that “It was the most violent movie I’ve ever seen”. I actually found Ebert’s review to be a strong defense of my position. This may get a little confusing, because I quote from Ebert review quite a bit (I have placed everything that is quoted from Ebert in italics). If you would like to read the entire review, go to: http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html
Here is the email:
Dr. G,
Yes, I have read the Ebert review as well, and, actually, I was going to bring it up in defense of the film.
I am writing you this on Thursday morning. I saw the film last night and I had a deep and profound spiritual experience with my Lord. Abbi and I both did. You and I need to discuss this face to face. Yes, the film is violent, but the crucifixion was violent. That is what it was. Dr. G, you and I need to talk more about this in person for several reasons: 1) because you command a lot of respect regarding your opinion on issues in popular culture (which you should) and I simply think you are mistaken on this one. 2) You are a mentor, role model, teacher, and friend of mine. My respect for you and your opinion is incredibly high. It is rare that I disagree with you at all. But, in this case I completely disagree with you and as such I want to hear your case (perhaps I am not fully hearing your argument) and I want to have a chance to give you mine more fully.
Now that I have seen the movie I encourage all to prepare their hearts, contemplate over the love of Christ, and then go and watch this film. I can imagine no better way to start this season of Lent.
Since you brought up the Ebert review, here is also what he said:
"Is the film "good" or "great?" I imagine each person's reaction (visceral, theological, artistic) will differ. I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what. To discuss individual performances, such as James Caviezel's heroic depiction of the ordeal, is almost beside the point. This isn't a movie about performances, although it has powerful ones, or about technique, although it is awesome, or about cinematography (although Caleb Deschanel paints with an artist's eye), or music (although John Debney supports the content without distracting from it). "
You feared that this movie would be too image based and would not be able to communicate propositions, but look here at how Ebert says this movie is about an idea:
"It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a single-minded urgency. "
Frankly, Ebert is not a Christian (but he was raised Christian). Yet, look at how incredibly he understands the concept of Christ's Passion. His words are powerful: the idea of Christ's suffering is necessary to fully comprehend Christianity. Amen. He is right on. Ebert also says this, which I think describes you:
"Some will agree [with the above claim about the centrality of the cross to Christianity] , but be horrified by the graphic treatment. "
You and I agree that today's society doesn't think nearly enough and is always wanting to be entertained -- that we are amusing ourselves to death. Ebert, traditionally would be considered one of the gatekeepers of this insatiable hunger for entertainment, but look what he says claiming very explicitly that this film is not entertainment:
"This discussion will seem beside the point for readers who want to know about the movie, not the theology. But 'The Passion of the Christ,' more than any other film I can recall, depends upon theological considerations. Gibson has not made a movie that anyone would call 'commercial,' "
Furthermore, you have here a film to help Christians encounter and understand the cross. Yes, I think all Christians have heard and accepted the proposition that Christ died on the cross for my sins. But how many have really internalized this concept existentially? Ebert, in describing how as a Catholic he was raised with an attempt by the Church to help him understand this idea (the suffering of Christ through the stations of the cross), points out that he never really "got it" deep down, and this film has been able to do that for him:
"For we altar boys, this was not necessarily a deep spiritual experience [the stations of the cross]. Christ suffered, Christ died, Christ rose again, we were redeemed, and let's hope we can get home in time to watch the Illinois basketball game on TV. What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it. "
Let me reiterate: This film is a visualization of the central message of the Christian religion. And so many simply "don't get it". Ebert's words here are strong when he says for the first time in his life he has a true idea of what the Passion consisted of. That is powerful. Here's the thing Dr. G: I love my Lord. I know you do too. I have often contemplated the cross that he bore for me. But I too can say, like Ebert here, that this film gave me, in many ways for the first time in my life, a look deep into the suffering Christ took upon himself on my behalf. I understand it now better than I did before. In Ebert you have an American who has turned away from his faith but responded to and respected the film nonetheless:
"I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it. "
Yes, Ebert said it was very violent. But he was not condemning the film by that statement -- let's look specifically at what he said:
"I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. "
Do not mishear Ebert on his statement about the film's violence: Ebert is not trying to turn you away from seeing this film, but he is trying to do his part to prepare a culture that is normally jaded and flighty to prepare themselves for a deep and powerful experience encountering Christ the Lord. This is not entertainment. It is not supposed to be that. If this was supposed to be a "gory spectacle" as you call it -- the crucifixion put on a show for us to gawk at -- then I too, like you, would be in utter revulsion. But it is NOT. This is not a spectacle. This is a proclamation of the Passion of Christ. This is a film doing what Paul did: I preach Christ and him Crucified. In the book of Corinthians we read, : "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" In the same chapter we also read: "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." Christianity is not nice and clean. It is messy. It is bloody. It is in many ways horrific to this world that wants everything to be nice and tidy. But that is because Christianity understands just how messed up this fallen and broken world is -- this world is not nice and tidy and only a bloody, bloody savior, to be frank, can possibly deal with this evil world properly. Christ is the only answer to it. Christ's suffering, Christ's Cross, Christ crucified is bloody, messy, and horrible. And it is the power of God to save this broken world. I worship him. I worship the crucified and risen Christ.
Let us talk more of this face to face.
Many Blessings upon you,
-Tornado
That was my letter. He and I continue to be in dialogue about it. I’ll give you more updates if I think they are warranted. Thanks for reading such a long post. That is the substance of the dialogue up until this point. I will gladly talk to anyone of you about the film. Please go and see it when your heart is prepared to deal with this, and then make sure you are not planning on doing anything else that night.
This will STILL be a very long post (my apologies).
First, Dr. G and Rebecca wrote this letter to the editor of Christianity Today which most of us have seen:
"Re: “The Passion of the Christ”
Dear Editor:
There is no need to depict graphically the suffering of the Suffering Servant. We know from Scripture that he suffered. We know it was terrible. The inspired Gospel writers describe these events in careful, factual detail, but they stop short of the sensational. Jesus did not die for the sake of spectacle, box office revenues, or the feeding frenzy of a society hooked on cinematic violence.
Why would anyone who loves Christ want to see image after gruesome image of his torture? Would we want to witness the torture of a loved one, however noble the suffering may have been? Reviewers have said the movie’s violence is “ferocious” and that it will test the audience’s emotional stamina. But the test God requires of us involves recoiling from the sin that put Jesus on the cross, not enduring sustained, explicit, and horrifying images of his suffering.
But perhaps the gory and gratuitous display is what is required to grip the desensitized souls of people today. If so, one hardly knows whether to be glad or sad for it.
Sincerely,
Douglas Groothuis
Rebecca Merrill Groothuis"
That started our debate because I disagreed with them. I agreed with them that our society is obsessed and overrun with wonton and gratuitous violence. However, I argued that in this one (and only this one) case I feel that the graphic violence depicted in film is warranted. Yes, our society may be desensitized to such violence, or, perhaps, they are so desensitized that something like this is needed to wake them from their slumber. And that is sad. Yet, at this point, I recognize this concerning the film: it is an accurate representation of what our Lord did on behalf of this fallen world because he so loved it. Millions upon millions in America have utterly no understanding of this and think of Jesus only as a particularly flavorful curse word. This film, if the Church is behind it and follows up on the wake it will make, has the opportunity to force people into some level of thinking on the person of Christ. Dr. G, you and I are both thinkers. It is what we do -- our minds are constantly at work. But, believe it or not, I've discovered that most people today simply do not think very long or hard or deeply about much anything, much less God and his incredible love for them. If this films forces them to think, for many for the first time, seriously about the blood that was spilt by the perfect and holy God incarnate in human flesh -- then I say Amen.
Yes, we love Jesus. You are correct -- who would want to watch a film about the torture that their loved one endured? But you have to admit this: the suffering of our Lord is quite different from any other suffering that has ever taken place in all of history (or ever will). Yes he is our dearly loved one, but he is also the perfect Lord. His suffering is very different than if we were watching a movie on the suffering of, say, Jed McFatter (someone we both care about). His Passion (in the original meaning of the word) is horrific and yet, in a divine, unique, and ultimate way, shockingly beautiful. It is beautiful because of what we know his death accomplished. So much of Christian theology can be wrapped up in his suffering: the fall of humanity, the sin of the world, the separation from God, His desire for reconciliation, His work to accomplish it, His unsurpassable love for us, His substitutionary death on our behalf. I could go on and on. Paul tells us very plainly to preach Christ and Him Crucified. The crucifixion of our Lord, of THE Lord, is a terrible and disgusting and shocking and disturbing thing. That is simply what it is -- and whatever it is, is what people need to see. Whatever it is, is what we need to proclaim. People are going to Hell everyday in this broken world and the breaking of Christ is their only hope.
I then told Dr. G that I am planning on seeing the film on Ash Wednesday and after I see it, most likely I will then try to take several friends who do not believe in Christ to see it with me.
In the conversation that followed this initial starting point, Dr. G made several strong points: 1) He questioned the use of not just the Gospel’s but the Catholic mystic’s visions of Christ as the content source for the film. 2) He questioned some of the speculation that was taken in the film concerning some of the things that are stated very plainly in the Gospels (specifically the Roman soldiers being depicted as sadistic and some particulars like Jesus’ eye being swollen shut. 3) He went on to point out that several reviewers say that only the violence and gore come through in the film, not the message of Christ. Specifically a scholar Rabbi in the Rocky Mountain News made this point. 4) He pointed to the fact that images are very limited in what they can convey properly and accurately – and if this is just images of Christ’s death, the meaning – the propositions – contained in the events will be missed
I responded to those charges, I think, adequately. 1) I was basically under the impression that relatively little was taken from the Catholic mystic. Now that I have seen the film I can affirm that. I read the passion accounts in all 4 gospels before seeing the film and the vast majority of the content is straight from those. 2) If we can get past the mystic, I argue that some speculation is needed if we are to tell a story at all. Guessing what a human body will look like (swollen eye) or the character traits exhibited by certain people in the story (soilders) I did not feel was outlandish historical speculation. Here’s the content of that argument from me: Forget the Catholic mystic for a minute: aren't the speculations taken the most likely ones? I mean, yes we don't know that the Romans were particularly mean or sadistic: but we know that they spit in his face, mocked him, hit him, kicked him, beat him, scourged him, yelled at him to prophesy, etc. Do you think they did this in a "nice" way? I think for anyone to be capable of scourging another human being they would have to be sadistic. I think speculating, based upon what we know about how the human body responds to beatings, that Jesus's eye was swollen shut is a completely plausible and likely speculation. I do not think that any of these things that you raise are way out there or ridiculous. Instead, they seem like the most likely way it went down. The gospels don't spell out every detail of what happened during the Passion, so a film about it has to make the best possible guesses on what would be most likely to fill in some of the details
3 & 4) I completely agreed that propositions are essential and we cannot rely on images alone to convey truth. I also have no doubt many people will watch this film and simply “not get it” (that has been confirmed by a few post movie interviews (and that Rabbi), but the vast majority do “hear” the propositional message declared by the image of Christ’s suffering in this film). My point was simply that perhaps many WILL hear the truthful propositions concerning Christ, and that is a very good thing.
Now, up until this point neither one of us had seen the film. On Ash Wednesday, as I said in my previous post, Abbi and I both saw the film. After I had seen it, I sent this email below off to Dr. G. In one of Dr. G’s email he quoted the prolific film critic Roger Ebert and particularly his comment that “It was the most violent movie I’ve ever seen”. I actually found Ebert’s review to be a strong defense of my position. This may get a little confusing, because I quote from Ebert review quite a bit (I have placed everything that is quoted from Ebert in italics). If you would like to read the entire review, go to: http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html
Here is the email:
Dr. G,
Yes, I have read the Ebert review as well, and, actually, I was going to bring it up in defense of the film.
I am writing you this on Thursday morning. I saw the film last night and I had a deep and profound spiritual experience with my Lord. Abbi and I both did. You and I need to discuss this face to face. Yes, the film is violent, but the crucifixion was violent. That is what it was. Dr. G, you and I need to talk more about this in person for several reasons: 1) because you command a lot of respect regarding your opinion on issues in popular culture (which you should) and I simply think you are mistaken on this one. 2) You are a mentor, role model, teacher, and friend of mine. My respect for you and your opinion is incredibly high. It is rare that I disagree with you at all. But, in this case I completely disagree with you and as such I want to hear your case (perhaps I am not fully hearing your argument) and I want to have a chance to give you mine more fully.
Now that I have seen the movie I encourage all to prepare their hearts, contemplate over the love of Christ, and then go and watch this film. I can imagine no better way to start this season of Lent.
Since you brought up the Ebert review, here is also what he said:
"Is the film "good" or "great?" I imagine each person's reaction (visceral, theological, artistic) will differ. I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what. To discuss individual performances, such as James Caviezel's heroic depiction of the ordeal, is almost beside the point. This isn't a movie about performances, although it has powerful ones, or about technique, although it is awesome, or about cinematography (although Caleb Deschanel paints with an artist's eye), or music (although John Debney supports the content without distracting from it). "
You feared that this movie would be too image based and would not be able to communicate propositions, but look here at how Ebert says this movie is about an idea:
"It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a single-minded urgency. "
Frankly, Ebert is not a Christian (but he was raised Christian). Yet, look at how incredibly he understands the concept of Christ's Passion. His words are powerful: the idea of Christ's suffering is necessary to fully comprehend Christianity. Amen. He is right on. Ebert also says this, which I think describes you:
"Some will agree [with the above claim about the centrality of the cross to Christianity] , but be horrified by the graphic treatment. "
You and I agree that today's society doesn't think nearly enough and is always wanting to be entertained -- that we are amusing ourselves to death. Ebert, traditionally would be considered one of the gatekeepers of this insatiable hunger for entertainment, but look what he says claiming very explicitly that this film is not entertainment:
"This discussion will seem beside the point for readers who want to know about the movie, not the theology. But 'The Passion of the Christ,' more than any other film I can recall, depends upon theological considerations. Gibson has not made a movie that anyone would call 'commercial,' "
Furthermore, you have here a film to help Christians encounter and understand the cross. Yes, I think all Christians have heard and accepted the proposition that Christ died on the cross for my sins. But how many have really internalized this concept existentially? Ebert, in describing how as a Catholic he was raised with an attempt by the Church to help him understand this idea (the suffering of Christ through the stations of the cross), points out that he never really "got it" deep down, and this film has been able to do that for him:
"For we altar boys, this was not necessarily a deep spiritual experience [the stations of the cross]. Christ suffered, Christ died, Christ rose again, we were redeemed, and let's hope we can get home in time to watch the Illinois basketball game on TV. What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it. "
Let me reiterate: This film is a visualization of the central message of the Christian religion. And so many simply "don't get it". Ebert's words here are strong when he says for the first time in his life he has a true idea of what the Passion consisted of. That is powerful. Here's the thing Dr. G: I love my Lord. I know you do too. I have often contemplated the cross that he bore for me. But I too can say, like Ebert here, that this film gave me, in many ways for the first time in my life, a look deep into the suffering Christ took upon himself on my behalf. I understand it now better than I did before. In Ebert you have an American who has turned away from his faith but responded to and respected the film nonetheless:
"I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it. "
Yes, Ebert said it was very violent. But he was not condemning the film by that statement -- let's look specifically at what he said:
"I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. "
Do not mishear Ebert on his statement about the film's violence: Ebert is not trying to turn you away from seeing this film, but he is trying to do his part to prepare a culture that is normally jaded and flighty to prepare themselves for a deep and powerful experience encountering Christ the Lord. This is not entertainment. It is not supposed to be that. If this was supposed to be a "gory spectacle" as you call it -- the crucifixion put on a show for us to gawk at -- then I too, like you, would be in utter revulsion. But it is NOT. This is not a spectacle. This is a proclamation of the Passion of Christ. This is a film doing what Paul did: I preach Christ and him Crucified. In the book of Corinthians we read, : "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" In the same chapter we also read: "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." Christianity is not nice and clean. It is messy. It is bloody. It is in many ways horrific to this world that wants everything to be nice and tidy. But that is because Christianity understands just how messed up this fallen and broken world is -- this world is not nice and tidy and only a bloody, bloody savior, to be frank, can possibly deal with this evil world properly. Christ is the only answer to it. Christ's suffering, Christ's Cross, Christ crucified is bloody, messy, and horrible. And it is the power of God to save this broken world. I worship him. I worship the crucified and risen Christ.
Let us talk more of this face to face.
Many Blessings upon you,
-Tornado
That was my letter. He and I continue to be in dialogue about it. I’ll give you more updates if I think they are warranted. Thanks for reading such a long post. That is the substance of the dialogue up until this point. I will gladly talk to anyone of you about the film. Please go and see it when your heart is prepared to deal with this, and then make sure you are not planning on doing anything else that night.
posted by BJS at
8:04:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home