|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Jack Spong Dishonest and Wrong?
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
What if Spong is being true to his earlier baptismal vow in the face of his perceived error of the creeds?
Then he may be acting in a moral way within the context of his understanding, but it does not mean he ought to be a bishop sworn to uphold those creeds.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Okay, so if he is acting moral, why again should he step down?
The more I've thought about it, the less I have liked the position that he should assume himself wrong if the church cannot bring itself to challenge him officially. The lack of testicles (on the part of the church) argument doesn't quite cut it.
If the church doesn't find fault with him, then he shouldn't have to assume it.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Mad Geo wrote: quote:
The more I've thought about it, the less I have liked the position that he should assume himself wrong if the church cannot bring itself to challenge him officially.
Precisely. This is why we should leave, not him. OK, I'm not a member of ECUSA, but the CofE is in full communion with them. It takes a while to wind yourself up when you've given it the entire span of your life so far...
BTW, apropos not very much, did you know that for the special-offer price of $25, you can get hot fresh Spong delivered to your desktop? Sign up
here.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Okay, so if he is acting moral, why again should he step down?
I said "within the context of his understanding." Not that he is right. I am sure that he really and sincerely believes what he says, and if he does not believe in the Creeds then he should be honest about that, but if one swears to uphold something and then rejects it, then continuing to hold a position which is rooted in upholding that thing, whether the Creeds or some other thing, seems very inapppropriate to me. If Spong left the Episcopal Church to found (or join) another one which holds the beliefs he holds and argues for, I think that would be the appropriate thing to do.
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
So he can "moral within the context of his understanding", not be "wrong" enough in the eyes of the church to be tried, and STILL should step down?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
It's simple, Mad Geo -- the ECUSA does not try people for heresy. For whatever reason, they don't.
It doesn't make Spong any less a raving hypocrite.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Well, who said he wasn't wrong enough in the eyes of the church? The comment (Erin's I believe) was that the church was devoid of testicular material.
If I (as a CEO) employ someone as a general manager to serve the Americas, and he goes and does something else, I fire him. Its a dishonest use of the salary I pay him, it is a blatant disregard of his terms of employment, and is at variance with the corporate objectives, part of which he is there to fulfil.
Whatever else he does may well not be immoral in itself, though you may wish to ask what sort of person buys refurbished old heresies, given a quick respray to make them look new, from the back door of someone else's business.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
It's simple, Mad Geo -- the ECUSA does not try people for heresy. For whatever reason, they don't.
But they did...
quote:
It was my first heresy: my first deviation... The Trial of William Montgomery Brown
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
So he can "moral within the context of his understanding", not be "wrong" enough in the eyes of the church to be tried, and STILL should step down?
Acting "in a moral way within the context of his understanding" -- that is, from an orthodox point of view, he could be doing the best he knows how even if he is utterly wrong about the nature of God and the like -- is not the same as holding to the Creeds. An atheist, a polytheist, a Mormon, or any other person can be acting in a moral way within the framework they know. It does not make any of them qualified to act as a bishop in a Creedal church.
As for "not be[ing] 'wrong' enough in the eyes of the church to be tried," I don't believe that this is the case. It's just that we don't "do" heresy trials as such these days. I don't think that we would hold a heresy trial for anyone at the moment, regardless of their belief. But this has been posted about by many other people who know more about it than I do.
And, yes, I think he should still have stepped down regardless of whether or not the church held a heresy trial; he made a commitment and a public statement to uphold the Creeds, and then did not, and even publicly directed efforts against their content. And the Creeds are still there and read every Sunday as part of the Communion and other services. It's not a minor thing.
PS: Crossposted with everyone else. ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 19. August 2003, 21:53: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
An atheist, a polytheist, a Mormon, or any other person can be acting in a moral way within the framework they know. It does not make any of them qualified to act as a bishop in a Creedal church.
Depending on the creed their church holds, of course. My apologies to any atheists, polytheists, or Mormons who hold to a creed appropriate to their religion or church. Obviously other people hold to creeds of one kind or another...
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
So a Bishop, presumably acting in the capacity of a leader of his church, sees that the creeds may be in need of change, and acting within the context of his understanding posits that the creeds may need to be changed or even abandoned, is not tried by a church that has adequate procedures for such things, and he is supposed to step down?
How would such a leader conduct change within the church (even the creeds) exactly?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
So a Bishop, presumably acting in the capacity of a leader of his church, sees that the creeds may be in need of change, and acting within the context of his understanding posits that the creeds may need to be changed or even abandoned, is not tried by a church that has adequate procedures for such things, and he is supposed to step down?
How would such a leader conduct change within the church (even the creeds) exactly?
The point is -- other than Spong, who says the creeds need to be changed? It seems to me that change happens in large organizations when there is either a groundswell of consensus (which Spong didn't have), or the political will of those in authority (which Spong didn't have either). Why do creeds need to be changed, anyway? They're not like lightbulbs or racket strings, lasting for a little while before needing to be replaced. They're a set of beliefs. Either you believe them or you don't.
The idea of Spong deciding on his own that the creeds need to be changed is precisely equivalent to the idea of a line supervisor at Kelloggs deciding the recipe for Rice Crispies needs to be changed.
--------------------
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
The point is -- other than Spong, who says the creeds need to be changed? It seems to me that change happens in large organizations when there is either a groundswell of consensus (which Spong didn't have), or the political will of those in authority (which Spong didn't have either).
Ideas and changes generally start with one person then spread to a few more and a few more and pretty soon you have a groundswell of consensus. Unless, of course, the first person having the idea is required to automatically penalize himself for having it.
quote:
The idea of Spong deciding on his own that the creeds need to be changed is precisely equivalent to the idea of a line supervisor at Kelloggs deciding the recipe for Rice Crispies needs to be changed.
If such a thing happened, whose job would it be to remove the supervisor from his position?
I'm curious, are the ECUSA bishops allowed any scope for free thought, or are they restricted to saying only that which has already been said and approved? If they have scope for free thought, how are they to know when they've gone too far? These are sincere questions coming from my lack of knowledge of how things work in the ECUSA. I'm honestly confused about how the organization can function given what you and others seem to be saying about it.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
It's simple, Mad Geo -- the ECUSA does not try people for heresy. For whatever reason, they don't.
But they did...
quote:
It was my first heresy: my first deviation... The Trial of William Montgomery Brown
They do try people for heresy. They tried a bishop for heresy only a few years ago because he ordained an openly homosexual man to the diaconate. (He was acquitted 8-0 on the grounds that homosexuality is not a doctrinal issue, and the 9th bishop on the panel recused himself because he had himself ordained openly gay people.)
The thing is, people have to get together to make the charge, and this just hasn't happened in Spong's case. I imagine because no one's decided he's a big enough threat to the church to make this important.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
They do try people for heresy...
The thing is, people have to get together to make the charge, and this just hasn't happened in Spong's case. I imagine because no one's decided he's a big enough threat to the church to make this important.
I imagine however they tried it, they'd lose. If they tried him and it didn't stick (for whatever reason), then Spong would gain face. If they tried it and he was defrocked, then he'd be a martyr.
Likewise, when nobody writes to refute him, it's because he simply can't be refuted. Whereas if people do write to refute him (e.g. Can a Bishop Be Wrong?), it means his ideas are so powerful and innovative that they're frightening people and the other bishops have to reassure them.
Heads Spong wins, tails tradition loses. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Okay so now we have a leader Bishop, that is not tried by a church that DOES try people for heresy, does not have enough people that disagree with him to challenge him and have him tried, and he is supposed to step down?
I think I am seeing a trend here....
Why again should he step down?
I am wondering if he was ahead of his time and not enough congregation disagreed with him. I can assure you that were he to say the things he does in the church I was raised in, he woulda been run out on a rail.
I don't think this is a congregational testicular problem as earlier proposed.
What's the real deal with ECUSA here guys and gals?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Scot asked: quote:
I'm curious, are the ECUSA bishops allowed any scope for free thought, or are they restricted to saying only that which has already been said and approved? If they have scope for free thought, how are they to know when they've gone too far?
I won't presume to answer on behalf of ECUSA, but what you describe is exactly the purpose of the creeds. They say very little about defining the core beliefs of orthodox christianity - they simply say "here they are". But if you read the tortuous history of the discussions up to and including the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, it's clear that they actually were not too keen on saying anything very much unless they had to - the apophatic principle would see to that. What really drove it all was the spate of developments asserting propositions that were in some way misrepresentative of the testimony of those closest to the life of the God-man, in particular as recorded. They were painfully aware, too, that these ideas had consequences.
So in many ways, the Nicene creed is a set of boundary markers. You are welcome to explore within the boundary, but if you cross that boundary, you are rejecting the considered and accepted views of the entire church through the ages, under the ultimate conditions of inspiration by the Holy Spirit. That's called leaving the church.
Mad Geo asks: quote:
What's the real deal with ECUSA here guys and gals?
Well, that's the biggie, isn't it? But somone who is actually a member of ECUSA will have to answer it.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I do need to clarify that last post a little. It has never been the case that everybody is assumed to know, understand, and believe everything. Very many people have gone through life, struggling at some stage to understand some aspect or other of the faith. Sometimes its a transitory thing, sometimes they take their puzzlement with them to the grave.
But if you want to be a bishop, you accept a role in the church that has teaching and ligative (binding together) roles. There always have been clerics who have struggled with one aspect or another of the faith.
If you want to see how this should be handled, check out the example of Synesius of Cyrene. He was a neo-platonist who believed in the pre-existence of souls, and had problems with the physical resurrection. Yet he rose to become a metropolitan. He was a far brighter man then Jack Spong - he was also a first-rate mathematician and natural scientist. Along with Hypatia, he was responsible for developing the theory of conic sections, so you could say that the design of satellite dishes is down to the original mathematical work done by an Orthodox bishop.
Where he differed was that he accepted that his view differed from that of the church, and that it was his job to uphold the teaching passed down to him, because he trusted that was right. Not his own personal views, with which he wrestled for much of his life.
A word frequently used here is "integrity". I won't quibble with it. But it's worth reflecting what the context of that integrity is - is it to be just to the other things I think, or is it to include what other people think too? And will those people just be people who have similar views to me, or perhaps include other cultures and other ages, who might be able to shed some light on my own unexamined presuppositions that come with my cultural conditioning - ?
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Mad Geo, your continued beating of the decaying equine is tedious in the extreme. The members of the ECUSA who post here ALREADY told you why he should step down. Since you are not an Episcopalian, MOVE ON. I don't even know why you care about another church's internal politics anyway, it's not really any of your concern.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I care because I am getting answers that do not hang together, number 1. One person says the church didn't have the stones to throw him out, then someone said they did, and so on.
Number 2, I care because the person in question, specifically, Spong, I feel has a point for general Christianity, and that point happens to originate from ECUSA. So while I might not normally "concern" myself with their internal politics, it is very relevant here, since many here appear to be amongst his opponents.
Having read Spong, I am seeing where he is very concerned with what he is doing. He seems to be very concerned about Christianity, very concerned about what Christians are doing, and what Christians are saying that appears to be questionable.
I see him as leading.
The fact that ECUSA did not eject him, I find intriguing. In my book, that speaks well of them as an organization.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I care because I am getting answers that do not hang together, number 1.
But many of us in the ECUSA think that they do hang together.
Some of it may depend on one's perspective. Those of us who think Spong is an 'Orrible 'Eretic seem to see it as the church not disciplining itself; those of us who think Spong is a Great Reformer seem to see it differently.
Not sure what else to say, really. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
With respect to the latest posts, I’d like to touch on the willingness of the Episcopal church to try leaders for heresy and modern calls for re-examining the creeds. Ruth is 100% correct that there was a recent heresy trial in the Episcopal Church: it was Spong’s assistant, Rt. Rev. Walter Righter. Spong describes this a great deal in the last chapter of his autobiography. This is the best link I can find to the actual trial documents.
From what I can gather, conservatives who were smarting over the ordination of women and white hot over the ordination of openly gay priests scraped up just enough votes to start a heresy trial, not against Spong who ordained Robert Williams as a priest, but against Spong’s assistant for ordaining Righter to the diaconate. Spong’s ordination of Williams is specifically mentioned in Righter’s heresy of ordaining a homosexual deacon:
quote:
On December 16, 1989, The Rt. Rev. John S. Spong, Bishop of Newark, ordained to the priesthood The Rev. Robert Williams in the Diocese of Newark, knowing him to be a practicing homosexual, living in a partnership with one James Skelly… Not all members of the Church agree with this position, as they did not when the resolution was adopted in 1979. Nevertheless, short of action by the General Convention, it is the stated and authoritative position of the church at this time.
This certainly smacks of “vehement suspicion of heresy” for Spong, while excusing him for perhaps sinning in ignorance at the time he ordained a priest because nothing “definitive” had been said. However, it became quite clear that the conservatives were testing the waters for going after every cleric who had signed Spong’s Statement of Koinonia, by calling Righter’s signing of this a public profession against church doctrine:
quote:
On August 25, 1994, Respondent (who was then a retired bishop) was present in the House of Bishops at General Convention meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, and joined in the signing of ``A Statement of Koinonia'', made by The Rt. Rev. John S. Spong, in which Respondent acceded to the following statement:
We pledge ourselves to ordain only those persons whom the testing and screening process reveals to be wholesome examples to the flock. But let there be no misunderstanding, our lives and our experience and bishops have convinced us that a wholesome example to the flock of Christ does not exclude a person of homosexual orientation nor does it exclude those homosexual persons who choose to live out their sexual orientation in a partnership that is marked by faithfulness and life-giving holiness.
The public action and public teaching of Respondent is therefore:
(a) A practicing homosexual can be properly ordained to the ministry of The Episcopal Church.
(b) Respondent will not be bound by teaching statements of The Episcopal Church declaring it impermissible to ordain practicing homosexuals.
As Ruth said, this ploy was crushed in a unanimous decision with one judge recusing himself for having ordained a homosexual during the trial.
With respect to “who says the creeds should be changed” try and guess who responded to this question is this way:
Question - It has been said that you do not pay close enough attention to the confessions and creeds of the historic church and thus your interpretations, which sometimes break new ground in hermeneutics, are unsafe.
??????? - I find this to be a defensive attitude. It is one I've met in all sorts of people, and is actually a Roman Catholic attitude. It's funny really, because it occurs in all sorts of conservative, Protestant circles. It says, "If something in the Bible really was that important then the church from earliest times must have understood that. Therefore, if we can't find the understanding that you're proposing in the great swathe of Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, or whoever, then we are going to be deeply suspicious." I know what Calvin would have said to that, "God's word is God's word. Come on." The seventeenth century writer John Robinson said, "God has more light yet to break out of his holy Word." I believe this is what I am saying.
???? = NT Wright, not Spong!
[ 20. August 2003, 16:52: Message edited by: JimT ]
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I care because I am getting answers that do not hang together, number 1. One person says the church didn't have the stones to throw him out, then someone said they did, and so on.
Number 2, I care because the person in question, specifically, Spong, I feel has a point for general Christianity, and that point happens to originate from ECUSA. So while I might not normally "concern" myself with their internal politics, it is very relevant here, since many here appear to be amongst his opponents.
Having read Spong, I am seeing where he is very concerned with what he is doing. He seems to be very concerned about Christianity, very concerned about what Christians are doing, and what Christians are saying that appears to be questionable.
I see him as leading.
The fact that ECUSA did not eject him, I find intriguing. In my book, that speaks well of them as an organization.
So he's a Bold Prophetic Voice, and the fact that he wasn't tried for heresy either confirms that or results from that? Is that your point, then?
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I should add that just because someone may be guilty of heresy, and even deserving of a heresy trial, it doesn't make the motives of those bringing them to trial right or good, and a technical victory over anti-Creedal heresy may be an ultimate spiritual loss due to the attitudes of the participants and observers and to the setting of dangerous precedents. I'm a Tedious Traditionalist in many respects, but I'm often embarrassed and saddened by much of the behaviour, statements, and actions of those who speak, or claim to speak, for Tradition.
[ 20. August 2003, 17:05: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rebekah
Shipmate
# 2748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I should add that just because someone may be guilty of heresy, and even deserving of a heresy trial, it doesn't make the motives of those bringing them to trial right or good, and a technical victory over anti-Creedal heresy may be an ultimate spiritual loss due to the attitudes of the participants and observers and to the setting of dangerous precedents. I'm a Tedious Traditionalist in many respects, but I'm often embarrassed and saddened by much of the behaviour, statements, and actions of those who speak, or claim to speak, for Tradition.
A wise and discerning comment, ChastMastr, thankyou!!
--------------------
grow in grace
Posts: 117 | From: rural Western Australia | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
JimT
I'm not at all surprised that the Righter trial fell through if he was being charged with heresy. No doubt he could have been charged with many things (violating the canons?) but surely not heresy. That must have had "failure" running through it like a stick of seaside rock.
But I'm a bit mystified by your comments on N.T. Wright. I read the article in which he made them (thanks for the link BTW) and didn't pick up that meaning at all. What I thought he was laying into was the sterile, historically-frozen form of traditionalism that will restrict you to saying nothing new. But that in itself would (arguably) itself be a modernist position.
Having read a reasonable amount of NTW, I would be very surprised to learn that he had ever said anything creedally dubious, let alone unsound. He has certainly caused some fluttering in the protestant dovecots over his Pauline work on justification, but I'm sure his response to that would be to point out that the early church didn't seem to take the reformation view of what this meant, and since the early church was primarily second-temple Jews, then maybe - just maybe - if we try to see it from their perspective, we might just understand it as they did.
In fact, the usual charge levelled at NTW in the academy is that he is simply beholden to the Tradition of the church. If you read the introduction to his "Resurrection...", he states quite simply that he sees his task as clearing away the weeds and stones that have come to clutter up our understanding thereof, especially the imported presuppositions post-enlightenment.
Which brings us full circle to Spong, where "imported presuppositions of the enlightenment" flash like gaudy neon signs. That would be tolerable were it not for the unending stream of invective about those who disagree with him. His acidulous put-down of poor John Stott was deplorable. And, I might add, for the last couple of years, theological liberals have been high on his list of targets. If he is genuinely concerned about how Christians treat each other, perhaps we could start here. Hell, you yourself are able to conduct a vigorous, reasoned debate without descending into this stuff - why can't he?
I'm aware this has strayed a little off topic. Sorry about that, but I thought it worth saying. When he lays into opposing viewpoints with epithets such as "bigoted", it really is time to pull the dictionary from the shelf, blow the dust off, and discover that it means someone who obstinately and intolerantly believes something. Oh dear!
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
JimT, I am puzzled that you call Walter Righter Spong's assistant. Righter was the retired bishop of Iowa; Spong was the retired bishop of Newark (New Jersey).
Walter Righter should not have ordained anyone unless asked to do so by a bishop who was currently running a diocese. A candidate for ordination is supposed to go through a step-by-step process which takes several years. AFAIK the man Righter ordained had never been through that process.
I don't know what diocese that man belonged to after Righter had ordained him.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
JimT, I am puzzled that you call Walter Righter Spong's assistant. Righter was the retired bishop of Iowa; Spong was the retired bishop of Newark (New Jersey).
Moo, I was going by the full text of the presentment against Righter, reachable through the second link in my last post.
quote:
On January 12, 1972, Respondent was consecrated as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Iowa...[took a vow to uphold church teaching]
On September 30, 1990, Respondent (who was then Assistant Bishop of Newark) ordained to the diaconate one Barry L. Stopfel, in the Diocese of Newark...[who was homosexual, thus committing heresy count one by defying church teaching]
On August 25, 1994, Respondent (who was then a retired bishop) was present in the House of Bishops at General Convention meeting in Indianapolis...[signed the Koinonia Statement, thus committing heresy count two by defying church teaching]
I was also going from recollections of my reading of Spong's autobiography, which could be faulty. I'm no lawyer or church historian and would be interested in knowing any contrary facts people might have about this trial.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
I didn't realize Bishop Righter had gone to Newark as an assistant bishop after he retired as diocesan bishop of Iowa.
I also did not know that the term 'assistant bishop' had any meaning in the ECUSA. I have only heard of suffragan bishops and bishop coadjutors.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I care because I am getting answers that do not hang together, number 1. One person says the church didn't have the stones to throw him out, then someone said they did, and so on.
Look, it's not like we've got heresy police running around looking for people to put on trial in ecclesiastical court. The trial of Bishop Righter was only the second in the entire history of the ECUSA (officially split from CofE in 1789). The only other trial was in 1924; a bishop was tried for heresy and deposed when he publicly stated his preference for communism over Christianity.
It's not a matter of having the "stones" to put someone on trial, as you so elegantly put it. It's a matter of whether enough bishops - as it's bishops who present heresy charges - want to put the church through the painful controversy and division that a heresy trial would bring.
Personally, I think it would have made a lot more sense to try Spong for heresy instead of Righter. Spong's publication of his opinions most likely does violate the canons of the church, whereas homosexuality is actually not covered in the canons, which is why Righter was acquitted.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Look, it's not like we've got heresy police running around looking for people to put on trial in ecclesiastical court.
Which, if we wound up with such a thing, could be one ghastly precedent to set in the ECUSA.
I've often wondered about the predicament we're in. On the one hand we don't really do anything to stop bishops from straying from, and encouraging others to stray from, the Creeds; on the other hand, thank God, we don't have heresy police as such. And we know exactly what it can be like to have them because we saw that some centuries ago. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) Though I do admit that, without the secular power it later gained, the Inquisition was a quite different matter, I still wonder if the passage about the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30) applies here -- that it's better to let God sort the wheat from the tares in the end than to try to do it ourselves and risk becoming spiritual McCarthyites in the process.
Even if one grants the full weight of the position I and others hold -- that Spong is guilty of grave heresy -- the question of how to handle it without risking doctrinal paranoia in a church structure such as the ECUSA is by no means resolved. Or so I suspect...
David
[ 20. August 2003, 19:29: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW
The trial of Bishop Righter was only the second in the entire history of the ECUSA (officially split from CofE in 1789). The only other trial was in 1924; a bishop was tried for heresy and deposed when he publicly stated his preference for communism over Christianity.
Aren't you oversimplifying the trial of the Rt. Rev. William Montgomery Brown, and thereby overlooking obvious parallels to Spong?
I was asked if I believed the Creeds, and I said I did...
[ 20. August 2003, 20:27: Message edited by: Ley Druid ]
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Aren't you oversimplifying the trial of the Rt. Rev. William Montgomery Brown,
Probably. I don't know all that much about Bishop Brown. The oversimplification I used is the one I found again and again on a quick Google search.
quote:
and thereby overlooking obvious parallels to Spong?
Care to elaborate? As I can't see Spong joining up with the Old Catholics if he were deposed!
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
I think someone mentioned the possible sources of Spong's thinking above. quote:
You can not imprison God within a literal creed, not mine, nor yours -- Brown
He advocated for less literal, more metaphorical approach to scripture, which apparently didn't cause him as much problems in ECUSA as his association with communism.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Actually, there is an interesting sidenote on this bit. Spong himself ordained an openly gay guy, who within 1 month of being ordained priest publicly decried monogamy or faithfulness of any sort. He then went on to suggest that Mother Theresa "ought to get laid".
Spong's reaction? - He sacked him.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IanB:
Which brings us full circle to Spong, where "imported presuppositions of the enlightenment" flash like gaudy neon signs. That would be tolerable were it not for the unending stream of invective about those who disagree with him. His acidulous put-down of poor John Stott was deplorable. And, I might add, for the last couple of years, theological liberals have been high on his list of targets. If he is genuinely concerned about how Christians treat each other, perhaps we could start here. Hell, you yourself are able to conduct a vigorous, reasoned debate without descending into this stuff - why can't he?
I am just checking in during a busy day at work, but I want to acknowledge Ian's post and to thank him very much for it. I also want to agree in the strongest terms with my disgust at Spong's tirade against a kind,and gentle figure like John Stott. To call him a fundamentalist in sheep's clothing is inaccurate and completely counter-productive. I'd also say that it is Spong not living by the words he preaches about willingness to die for another.
But we all fall short of meeting our own standards. Spong's beliefs, which he does not always live by, are of interest to me and I have wanted a discussion like this for quite some time. I'm hoping to convince people that perhaps Spong might be some sort of sheep in wolf's clothing, if they can get past the yellow fangs and eyes.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I care because I am getting answers that do not hang together, number 1. One person says the church didn't have the stones to throw him out, then someone said they did, and so on.
Look, it's not like we've got heresy police running around looking for people to put on trial in ecclesiastical court. The trial of Bishop Righter was only the second in the entire history of the ECUSA (officially split from CofE in 1789). The only other trial was in 1924; a bishop was tried for heresy and deposed when he publicly stated his preference for communism over Christianity.
It's not a matter of having the "stones" to put someone on trial, as you so elegantly put it. It's a matter of whether enough bishops - as it's bishops who present heresy charges - want to put the church through the painful controversy and division that a heresy trial would bring.
Personally, I think it would have made a lot more sense to try Spong for heresy instead of Righter. Spong's publication of his opinions most likely does violate the canons of the church, whereas homosexuality is actually not covered in the canons, which is why Righter was acquitted.
If the Bishops actually did not want to put "the church through the painful controversy and division that a heresy trial would bring". Well I guess that is THEIR leadership perogative to decide that for the congregations. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Kyralessa said:
quote:
So he's a Bold Prophetic Voice, and the fact that he wasn't tried for heresy either confirms that or results from that? Is that your point, then?
Bold prophetic voice? Quite possibly, although I don't trust the word "prophet" when my own mother says it.
Does the fact that he wasn't tried for heresy confirm or result from that? No, the fact that he wasn't tried for heresy makes me wonder if he had a point (or a number of them) and the church/Bishops could not bring themselves, or more importantly their congregations, to disagree with him enough to try him.
That is possibly a very mild form of validation. If he was patently wrong, I am quite sure even a church that was not in "the habit of actually using its testicles" (Erin (c) 2003) woulda ran his ass up the flagpole.
And as for MY point:
JimT said: quote:
.....Spong's beliefs, which he does not always live by, are of interest to me and I have wanted a discussion like this for quite some time. I'm hoping to convince people that perhaps Spong might be some sort of sheep in wolf's clothing, if they can get past the yellow fangs and eyes.
Yeah, what JimT said.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
You are right of course, Jim. We all fall far short. I'll try to get back to respond to your main interest tomorrow.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IanB:
Actually, there is an interesting sidenote on this bit. Spong himself ordained an openly gay guy, who within 1 month of being ordained priest publicly decried monogamy or faithfulness of any sort. He then went on to suggest that Mother Theresa "ought to get laid".
Spong's reaction? - He sacked him.
Ian
Forced his resignation, actually, but same diff.
This was a fascinating story related in Spong's biography. He started by confessing to being a typical "homophobe" until two gay divinity students struck up residence in one of the buildings Spong had charge of. He confronted them and said that no unmarried couples of any kind were allowed and they responded that they could not get married even if they wanted to. Spong said that he felt guilty of prejudice immediately and began to study the issue. It didn't take long before he realized that most gay people claim that they were born that way and some science seems to point in that direction. Never one to need tons of scriptural redefinition, Spong simply became convinced that it was a normal mode of Biblically-sanctioned fidelity and began to support gay candidates for the priesthood and diaconate.
Spong confesses that he was concerned about Williams' tendency toward anger, but considered it normal given his lifelong oppression. Spong warned Williams that he would have to be like "Jackie Robinson" the first black baseball player in the US major leagues, who had to absorb terrible insults from racists in his first year. Williams claimed that he was ready and eager, then folded in the withering fire from aggressive reporters. Despite having agreed to the precondition of supporting only monogamous sex or celibacy, he lashed out in anger at reporters that heterosexual standards of fidelity were not to be imposed on gay people. Ian's quote is exactly correct and it was made in the context of saying that sex was healthy for everyone and no one should be forced into celibacy. When the cocky reporter asked if that included Mother Theresa, Mr. Williams did in fact suggest that she get laid.
All of Williams supporters called for his immediate resignation, which he offered and Spong eagerly accepted. Spong does not disguise his misreading of Williams nor his judgement of Williams as someone who went back on his word when pressured, and had to be disciplined for his lack of integrity, no excuses.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If the Bishops actually did not want to put "the church through the painful controversy and division that a heresy trial would bring". Well I guess that is THEIR leadership perogative to decide that for the congregations.
It sure is. That's the way the episcopal system works. And no need to be about it, unless of course you don't think God ever says "yes" when we ask him to work in our system of church government.
quote:
No, the fact that he wasn't tried for heresy makes me wonder if he had a point (or a number of them) and the church/Bishops could not bring themselves, or more importantly their congregations, to disagree with him enough to try him.
Do you have any actual evidence to support this idea? Because I don't know of any. There are plenty of people in the ECUSA, some of whom are bishops, who disagree plenty with Spong. But just because we have provisions for heresy trials in the canons doesn't mean we're going to use them. Remember, there have been exactly TWO heresy trials in the 200+ years of the ECUSA's history, though there have certainly been more than two heretics drawing paychecks from ECUSA churches. I'd bet the rent there have been more than two heretical bishops.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I stated:
quote:
...makes me wonder...
Like you stated:
quote:
I'd bet the rent...
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
But you keep posting what sounds like pretty much the same speculation / suspicion again and again, Geo - that the ECUSA doesn't disagree with Spong enough to put him on trial. And we keep telling you, that's not how the ECUSA works.
Here's a bishop they thought about trying and didn't - just censured him: Bishop Pike: "His radical theology rejected dogmatic interpretations of the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation, questioned the basis of theological concepts such as Original Sin and the Trinity, and challenged the infallibility of scripture."
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
But you keep posting what sounds like pretty much the same speculation / suspicion again and again, Geo - that the ECUSA doesn't disagree with Spong enough to put him on trial. And we keep telling you, that's not how the ECUSA works.
Here's a bishop they thought about trying and didn't - just censured him: Bishop Pike: "His radical theology rejected dogmatic interpretations of the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation, questioned the basis of theological concepts such as Original Sin and the Trinity, and challenged the infallibility of scripture."
I keep posting similar speculations because I keep getting handed more information, just like what you just posted.
Now I know they don't always try Bishops to throw them out, there is a lesser option of censure. And how interesting that there was another Bishop that questioned similar if not identical things to Spong!
What an interesting church with interesting leadership! (Sincerely!)
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I keep posting similar speculations because I keep getting handed more information, just like what you just posted.
But that's not what you're supposed to do! You're supposed to say, "Ah, yes, you've been right all along." ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:
What an interesting church with interesting leadership!
And on this we are in complete agreement.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I keep posting similar speculations because I keep getting handed more information, just like what you just posted.
But that's not what you're supposed to do! You're supposed to say, "Ah, yes, you've been right all along."
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Oh come now, Ruth, you should know me better than that by now! Although I will admit, <looks both ways for Erin> you and Presleyterian are the two that might squeeze those words outta me.
P.S. Are we night owls or what? We've been tag teaming the boards tonite big time!
[fixed code]
[ 21. August 2003, 14:09: Message edited by: Scot ]
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Just trying to return to JimT's OP here. Is Spong dishonest or wrong?
I won't belabour the business of him remaining within a creedal confession - it's been done to death already. Rather, I suggest a look at his thinking.
Some years ago, I remember trying to get to grips with what he actually meant by some of the things he says. I confess to a personal difficulty with phrases like "ground of all being" - they are so vague they could mean almost anything. I came to the conclusion that in one area at least, he was using words in a way that nobody else does. Specifically, he uses the terms "transcendence" and "immanence" like nobody else. In effect, what he has done is to limit the meaning of immanence, and redefine transcendence so it now means the part of immanence that was taken away.
I remember quite a long exchange on the old boards about this. Subsequently, I was told that this redefinition was not his, but Tillich's. Be that as it may, it raises enormous problems for me - how do I know that what he says means what I think he says? Heaven knows that's a difficult one at any time, without hidden redefinitions going on. Of course, what it does is enable him to use these ideas and related ones in an orthodox-sounding way.
So why the problem with transcendence? In the real world, both things and ideas transcend other things/ideas all the time. If it wasn't for transcendence, there would be no advances in human knowledge, as there could be no paradigm-shifts. What it does is to make his concept of God contingent entirely upon creation. If the universe were to explode tomorrow, God would explode with it (if you see what I mean). It's a form of pantheism. I know he has been tackled on this, and his reply is that he is a panentheist, not a pantheist, but as I say, his idea of transcendence is radically different to what is generally understood.
So in this matter at least, I suggest that he is dishonest, though I fully grant that he did not start this. He has made it his own however.
On a second point, what is all this stuff about the bankruptcy or limitations of theism? If he means that western theology has been over-reliant on the cataphatic method, he has a point. This does try to define and limit God. But that's not theism. From the earliest days, the church has insisted that concerning the nature of God, there is nothing whatever we can say. He is simply beyond affirmation and negation. Excepting, of course, in how He reveals himself to us. I seriously doubt whether Jack Spong could take this on board, however, as it would need a firm understanding of God's transcendence, and that has been ruled out a priori .
This leads into a much broader area, which covers presuppositions, worldviews and frames of reference. I'm reminded by Rudolf Bultmann's oft-repeated question "How can we believe in a physical resurrection in an age that has (insert domestic appliance of choice - the original was electric razors, I think)…". But this sort of thing relies unquestioningly on a buy-in to an enlightenment natural/supernatural dualism. Surely the entire gospel story causes us to question what "natural" should mean, and suggests very strongly that what is at fault is our limited experience and expectation of what is natural. What I think caused the fatal blow to this way of thinking is not (sadly) theology itself, but the philosophy of science, as it tried to grapple with issues such as wave/particle dualism, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics in general. The concepts of pure facts, the detached observer, and strong realism (philosophically referred to as naïve realism, but I don't want to upset anyone) simply could not be sustained any longer. Miracle stories may or may not be incredible in a post-Newtonian world, but he hasn't yet spotted we are no longer in a post-Newtonian world.
The point here is that much of Spong's rhetoric relies on the "no longer can we believe…" principle. In actual fact, the tide is running the other way. No longer should we assume that the restrictions we have placed on our terms of enquiry, on the limits of acceptable questions and answers can be regarded as valid, let alone normative. The dishonesty is in claiming the restrictiveness as being with us (classical theists) - rather it is with him.
One final point for the time being. He weighs in against "literalist" readings of scripture, as per his comment about the creation narratives: quote:
The biblical Creation story is mythology and is nonsensical in a post-Darwinian world.
As you will have spotted, this is a complete non-sequitur. It only makes sense if you smuggle into it the understanding that the only way to read it is in hyper-literalist mode. Of course this is another modernist assumption - the Jews never read their sacred scriptures univocally. You only have to look at the Mishnah, and the Genesis Rabbah in particular to see all the nuances they read into these texts. And herein lies the final point. Spong tells us himself that he comes from a fundamentalist background. He has never changed his mindset - just changed the objects of it. People are either "in" or "out"; there is only one way of understanding things, and I am telling you what it is- and all the other giveaway signs. Add to that the zeal of the convert and - well, you get Spong. Certainly, this understanding of the scriptures is demonstrably wrong.
This is far too long already so I'll stop now. But my answer to Mad Geo's Q as to whether he might not have something to say, would be "Sure - he has lots to say. The bits we are complaining about are because he is wrong"
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And we keep telling you, that's not how the ECUSA works.
So how does it work then? Is each bishop responsible for removing himself when his beliefs become unorthodox? What standard do they use for making that self-assessment? Do they poll the other bishops? Since Spong wasn't even censured, there must be some other mechanism, possibly an informal one.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And we keep telling you, that's not how the ECUSA works.
So how does it work then? Is each bishop responsible for removing himself when his beliefs become unorthodox? What standard do they use for making that self-assessment? Do they poll the other bishops? Since Spong wasn't even censured, there must be some other mechanism, possibly an informal one.
I'm beginning to suspect that the governance of the ECUSA can only be comprehended through apophatic theology.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
I'm beginning to suspect that the governance of the ECUSA can only be comprehended through apophatic theology.
ROTFL!
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I remember now-Bishop Michael Marshall, when he came to Florida during the early 90s to promote the Anglican "Decade of Evangelism" (what the heck happened to that, anyway?). He said -- and I remember it because I have a tape of it I got at the church he appeared at -- that when he was in a hotel some time back, the fire alarm went off at about 3 or 4 in the morning. And many Anglicans came, bleary-eyed, staggering out of their rooms. "In five minutes," he said, "we'd reverted to type. We'd started a committee to investigate the possibility of the existence of fire in the hotel..."
I submit that, for good or ill, a church about which that can be said is not a church which is likely to push through heresy trials or censure. It doesn't make the promise, made before God, to uphold the Creeds non-binding.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
