Anglicanism, Homosexuality

>Lambeth Aftermath: The problem with Anglicanism


Lambeth (a meeting of Anglican bishops once every 10 years) concluded this week. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams issued a statement pleading for the American Episcopals to put a moratorium on ordaining gay bishops (as they did in 2003 with Gene Robinson). The statement was mildly remarkable compared to the lack of any calls for restraint in the past from Williams. The statement however, is unremarkable in resembling anything like a functioning church’s government. This is because the Anglicanism suffers from two major areas of impotence in dealing with this crisis.

The first is a lack of ecclesiology the Reformers thought was a vital sign of a true church. Most have heard of two marks of the true church in Reformation theology: Word and Sacrament, I.e. the preaching of the word/gospel and the right administration of the sacraments. Few realize both Lutherans and Reformed also have a third mark, namely church discipline.

This doctrine can be seen in passages such as Matt 18:17 and Rom 16:17-18, yet the glaring deficiency is clearly seen in this situation in the Anglican Church in 1 Tim 5:19-20:

“Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.”

The problem with the Anglican Church is either the lack of will or lack of structure to enforce church discipline. Until Robinson and those who ordained him are disciplined, I fear we must consider the Anglican Church at the least, cripplingly defective, and at most not a true manifestation of the church on earth.

The other major defect in Anglican theory and practice that has become evident in this process lies in the ecclesiology introduced by Anglo-Catholics. Many Anglo-Catholics are the ones most upset by this situation, yet the Oxford movement led many Anglicans to the conclusion that the church is defined principally by apostolic succession of bishops and thereby, the church was kept from error. Yet, this situation has revealed the defectiveness of such an ecclesiology. If an apostolic bishop contradicts Scripture and tradition, what becomes of the church?

The Anglican Church turned to the Catholic tradition to right itself in the 1800s. Today, those wishing to remain true to the catholic faith of the Church of England would be better served by turning back to Reformation principles. Namely, the Anglicans should heed the principles Luther held to when he stood his ground declaring that the church is defined by the word of God and the Gospel, and not that the church defines the gospel – it has not been given any editorial authority to change the faith “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3)

God save what is left of the church in the Church of England…



12 thoughts on “>Lambeth Aftermath: The problem with Anglicanism

  1. >First, I cannot believe Mark would make such an offensive comment as calling me an evangelical. :)If my comments were construed as saying an individual Anglican worshiper, parish, diocese or even national church cannot be properly seen as a church I do apologize. The post was meant to raise the issue of church discipline as a mark of the church and ask the question: if it is lacking what does that say about the church? I do not choose between the lesser (defective) or greater (not a true church) in my post, but offer the possibilities. My focus was on the Anglican communion as a functioning (or nonfunctioning) Global unit, not national church members. I have been posting on the developments in the Anglican Church mainly because I love the Anglican tradition so much, as I said in my previous post. I use the Book of Common Prayer (1928) for personal prayer, I love their great men (whether Reformed like John Newton or less so like John Donne) and truly I watch what happens in Anglicanism with a sense of mourning. I emailed Wesley to comment because he is Anglican and I wanted his perspective. I think he knows the structures better than I do and so may have helped clarify some things. I offered two possibilities, lack of will which would be immoral or lack of structure, which I meant as theoretical, which is defect in the tradition of Anglicanism. I think Wesley raised a third option, that church discipline exists in Anglican theory, but not physical bureaucracy on the Global level which would make it a bureaucratic defect that could be remedied.Though I stand by what I wrote, I think I should have added more, emphasizing that I meant to say this about the global structure of the church, while nationally the Church of Nigeria, Uganda or Peru certainly seem to function nationally as true churches and local dioceses and local churches do as well.Mark is right that the biggest problem is the American Episcopal Church (ECUSA). On the national level, where it is a matter of a lack of will since the structures exist for discipline, suspension, defrocking and excommunication, the lack of action on everyone from Bishop Pike in the 60s who denied everything from the Virgin Birth to the Trinity to now Bishop Robinson, shows the immorality on the national level with the ECUSA. I do not think England escapes the charge of impotence in administering church discipline though. I may eat my words if they do something, but as of yet, the Church of England has yet to do anything about the two male priests that married each other.Yet, this leaves an open question on the local level. I was on vacation and the church we decided to worship at, since no Presbyterian churches were close, was an Episcopal Church. I find this closest to a Presby Church when one is not available. I heard a great sermon and took the Eucharist, even though this was a liberal church with weird liturgical elements talking about the journey of the Hindus and Muslims as equal to Christianity. Other than that, I thoroughly loved the liturgy too (with the Nicene Creed and confession of sin). So no, I do not think that means the worshipper in an Anglican church is not actually worshipping on Sunday morning.Also I was not specific on Luther: Luther originally had 2 marks of the church (in his catechism and the book of Concord), but grew his list to 7 in On the Councils and Churches, one of which included church discipline.

    Posted by Jared Nelson | August 17, 2008, 6:22 pm
  2. >Wesley,I would caution against trying to flatten out the severity of individual sins by appealing to the general concept of sin. The Bible clearly does not treat all sins equally. And among the particular sins it considers especially egregious, sexual immorality is second to none. Notice how Paul’s treatment of God’s wrath against sin crescendos in Romans 1 with sexual immorality, particularly homosexuality. Again, it is important to maintain a distinction between being a sinner, committing a sin, and officially sanctioning sin as an acceptable lifestyle. There is a big difference. Thinking broadly, I believe the sexual immorality is treated with such contempt because of the importance of marriage in the created order. We might sum up all of redemptive history as God’s gathering a bride for his Son. Just as the supreme gift God gives the first Adam is a wife, so also at the second coming we see everything consummated as God gives his one and only Son (the last Adam) a wife.So is the sanctioning of sexual immorality equivalent to denying the gospel? If the gospel communicates any interest in the salvation of souls and the overarching redemptive plan of God, then yes, I think it is.You are right to point out that the basis for Christian unity according to Anglicanism is the apostolic office rather than doctrinal purity. This is a characteristic that distinguished Anglicanism from the rest of the historic Protestant church. In this respect, Canterbury has more in common with Rome than Wittenberg, Zurich, or Geneva.

    Posted by M. Jay Bennett | August 15, 2008, 5:37 am
  3. >Hey Jay, the problem with Packer’s argument is that it is too inclusive. He says “First, it entails deviation from the biblical gospel and the historic Christian creed. It distorts the doctrines of creation and sin, claiming that homosexual orientation is good since gay people are made that way, and rejecting the idea that homosexual inclinations are a spiritual disorder, one more sign and fruit of original sin in some people’s moral system. It distorts the doctrines of regeneration and sanctification, calling same-sex union a Christian relationship and so affirming what the Bible would call salvation in sin rather than from it.”But the Gospel only includes sin in general, and only as a side point for what we are saved from, and the Creeds only affirm God made creation and made it good. As evil as homosexuality is, it doesn’t deny the doctrine of sin anymore then any other sin does, and doesn’t deny the core doctrines of creation. In fact the doctrine of creation is not part of the “gospel” proper, other then in a minimal, “God did it” Sort of way. Any time anyone claims an evil s good they deny these in this sense, which seems to be his second point about regeneration and sanctification. If this is true, I see few Church bodies he could join.In other words, his idea is that anytime a sin is not recognized as such it is denial of not just Scripture, or Divine Command, or Orthodox Christianity (all three of which I would say is true), but the Gospel itself. I fail to be convinced by this very broad definition of “gospel” (and not just 1 Cor 15 or Nicea) and/or the doctrinal mindset that would make any sin or endorsement of sin a “denial of the Gospel”. (which in my opinion has become crying wolf in some circles, as it seems everything is a “denial of the gospel”.)ECUSA/TEC is in sin for not disciplining the Bishops yes, and the Bishops are in sin for this, it is even rebellion against God, but it is not a denial of the Gospel.Second I would also argue that it is very Anglican to continue to affirm that even ECUSA is a true manifestation of the Church. On an objective, creedal level they still have the Gospel, they also still have the sacraments and use them rightly. (cf Article XIX, as discipline is not listed as a mark) But also in Article XXVI it is affirmed that evil people who are ordained (such as those who continue to endorse homosexual marriage/ordination) are still legitimate ministers of God’s word and sacrament, and must therefore still be validly ordained, if this is true then according to Article XIX even Bp. Robinson’s diocese contains both valid sacraments and officially the true Gospel and is a valid expression of the True Church.To answer the last question, I would say affiliation in the Anglican Communion is a problem, but is that the Lambeth meetings are about. What does it mean to be Anglican? What does it mean to be part of the communion? What is our identity? Now to be a member of the Episcopal Church, if you look at the Baptismal Liturgies of both the old Prayer Books of the Reformation and the current 1979 book, you will see Anglicanism is still going to answer in a sacramental manner, and say those who are Baptized into it (or confirmed). See also the Catechism. This entails a pledge to submit to the authority of the Church along with it as the Bishop is to “represent Christ and his Church, particularly as apostle, chief priest, and pastor of a diocese; to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the whole Church” (cf. Catechism 1979BCP)

    Posted by Wesley | August 15, 2008, 3:21 am
  4. >Mark,What exactly does affiliation in the Anglican communion entail? Official confession? Submission to governing authorities? Financial contribution? Historical connection to a particular tradition?I don’t think any sinful creature has ever been right comprehensively (the writing of Scripture excepted), but that’s beside the point. I do think God has been gracious to gift his church with teachers who have gotten particular doctrines right. With regard to preaching the gospel as a mark of the church, I believe Luther and Calvin were right. Of course, they weren’t the first to acknowledge it.As you know there was a debate within the late medieval pre-reformation church over the basis for unity. At the time many believed doctrinal purity was the basis. Others did not. Ultimately the Reformers believed doctrinal purity was the basis for unity.

    Posted by M. Jay Bennett | August 15, 2008, 1:19 am
  5. >”If the ordination of gay bishops is something that took Williams by surprise, then he is incompetent. If it is something he knew about but has no real authority to stop, then he is impotent. If it is something he knew about and allowed to happen just to wait and see what the reaction might be, then he is insincere. As this unfolds, it looks more and more like the last option.”Agreed, and perhaps it is all three! My point is that the families and individuals I know who are sitting in the pews worshipping with me and observing the sacraments every Sunday are representative of a very true manifestation of the church on earth, regardless of what Rowan Williams does or does not do. Whether he speaks out against it or remains quiet has no bearing on our local congregation. Whether we “officially” separate from him or nor not as far as denominational affiliation, or communion, or association, does not have any affect on this group of people. These affiliations are all non-biblical developments that can hardly be substantiated in the Scriptures. And please remember, as I know very well you do, the church is much older than Luther and Calvin. Moreover, they did not get everything right as you also well know. Thus, I am not as inclined to look to them for answers as I am the text itself. (probably my bent toward biblical theology and not systematics)That said, let me make my position very clear. I am adamantly opposed to the ordination of gay bishops.

    Posted by Mark Mathews | August 14, 2008, 11:07 pm
  6. >Mark, I think we have to be careful not to forget the visible/invisible church distinction. I don’t think anyone is saying that there are no truly faithful Anglicans. But we may evaluate the visible expression of the church among Anglicanism using the “marks” of the church. There is debate over whether Luther and Calvin held to two or three. Of course the third, disputed mark, is church discipline. But there is no debate over the first two: (1) preaching the gospel and (2) observing the sacraments.With respect to sanctioning gay marriage and ordaining gay bishops, a strong case could be made that the gospel itself has been violated. This is the case J.I. Packer made this past January in a Christianity Today article entitled “Why I Walked.” Packer wrote:”Why did I walk out with the others? Because this decision, taken in its context, falsifies the gospel of Christ, abandons the authority of Scripture, jeopardizes the salvation of fellow human beings, and betrays the church in its God-appointed role as the bastion and bulwark of divine truth.” If the ordination of gay bishops is something that took Williams by surprise, then he is incompetent. If it is something he knew about but has no real authority to stop, then he is impotent. If it is something he knew about and allowed to happen just to wait and see what the reaction might be, then he is insincere. As this unfolds, it looks more and more like the last option.

    Posted by M. Jay Bennett | August 14, 2008, 7:42 pm
  7. >Jay,I agree with what you are saying and to be honest I am not trying to come down personally on Jared since I am sensitive to the desire to proclaim the Scriptures and what they teach. In this, I must say I apologize if my words came across as too course. However, my point stands that this post would, especially the last remark, come across as typical American spiritual elitism and most would point out that Rowan Williams did not ordain Robinson, this was done in the U.S. So the remark should be, “God save the American Episcopal Church whatever is left of it.” It was only after Robinson’s “in your face” display of gay rights that this surfaced in the UK. Williams made his position clear by not inviting Robinson to Lambeth. Does he not get any credit for that? Moreover, he has made it a point of discussion and has voiced his concern.So to answer the question, “What is there to discuss,” falls into whether Rowan Williams has the right or authority to discipline these people with the current structure of the Anglican Church. Like Wesley has correctly remarked, this is not a denominational body as we know in the U.S. Thus, to categorize it as such calls for Rowan to assert more authority than he actually has over those who have ordained these gay clergy.As I stated in my previous remark, Williams actually thinks gay marriage/relationships are okay yet he recognizes the historical position of the church. In fact, he sides with the historical position of the church. I think that is in his favor for holding up what he has been called to proclaim. Moreover, by asking that a moratorium be placed on this activity while discussions are had, and even having the discussions at all, also argues in his favor to make an attempt to handle the situation. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a big Rowan Williams fan and the Anglican Church has its problems as does everyone else. But I appreciate his willingness to handle it without a knee-jerk reaction. That said, if something doesn’t come out of this in the near future, then he would be guilty of neglecting the issue.Finally, the reason why the post would come across as offensive to most Anglicans in the UK is that WIlliams’ position on this matter is being reflected on the individual churches in the UK that may or may not agree with what is going on. Thus, to say that the Anglican Church should not be recognized as “a true manifestation of the true church on earth” indicates somebody is assuming more authority than they have to make such declarations. Perhaps we should refrain from such statements. Does this mean, for example, that churches that still belong to the PCUSA, who decry the recent decisions within that denomination, yet still remain in it are not a true manifestation of the true church on earth? Was Highland Park Presbyterian Church “not” a true manifestation until they decided to pull out and then all of a sudden they became a true manifestation? Am I to assume that these believers in Christ who gather to worship the risen Christ each Sunday and who have genuine saving faith are not a manifestation of the true church on earth because they don’t break off from every group that doesn’t do something they like? Of course, none of these statements are true. That is why the statement is ridiculous. I think the tie to denominational activity and what represents a manifestation of the true church on earth might be getting misconstrued. What about churches in Africa where men have multiple wives, some of them leaders i the church where the church is thriving and growing? Are they not a true manifestation of the church on earth. Just because churches in other parts of the world who are dealing with cultural issues that are difficult to reconcile don’t come down on where we want them to, I’m not sure we can write them off completely.So I say, if someone has a problem with the Anglican Church, and I certainly have a problem with this issue, then state the facts and denounce their activity. I have no problem with that. But to castigate the entirety of Anglicanism as “not a true manifestation of the church on earth” is ridiculous and over the top. Again, I apologize if I have offended anyone with my position on this matter. And I will make it clear that Williams should, if nothing else, come out soon and denounce the activity, whether or not he has the authority to discipline the parties involved.

    Posted by Mark Mathews | August 14, 2008, 9:59 am
  8. >Williams need not have the equivalent of papal power to speak. Why has he not spoken out with the authority of the truth he has been called to proclaim?

    Posted by M. Jay Bennett | August 14, 2008, 2:00 am
  9. >In my (admittedly long) post at the end I pointed out it is not that simple. What there is to discuss is if ++Williams has the functional authority to do anything right or wrong in the manner that that question implies. He is not the equivalent of the Pope by any means. And cannot write an encyclical condemning anything and have it enforceable. Anglicanism is the idea of medieval conciliarism. But it is in process. What Lambeth is doing is forming a Church government that can discipline bishops.

    Posted by Wesley | August 14, 2008, 1:37 am
  10. >I wonder, what is the difference between godly discernment and spiritual arrogance?I think its humility.If that’s true then the question becomes: How does one go about criticizing ungodly practices (i.e. sin) with humility?One might argue that it means taking a lot of time to mortify the sin, whether individual or corporate. But what do we then make of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple or Paul’s and John’s quick and harsh words with regard to false teachers?One might also argue that such criticism is impossible, since we are all sinners. What sinner has the right to point out another person’s or group’s sin?I don’t think either of those arguments works. So how does one go about criticizing ungodly practices (i.e. sin) with humility? Fundamentally, I think it is simply a matter of being genuinely motivated by love for God and others and expressing that love in our rhetoric. Given this medium, that is a TALL order. It is very easy to come across as arrogant here. I know I’ve done it often in the blogosphere. Therefore, I think we have to work overtime to write, then read and re-read and re-re-read our words before posting them. Ultimately we will not be able to completely avoid any semblance of arrogance, but we should try. And when we fail, we should apologize.I was neither particularly offended by Jared’s post nor did I sense any overt arrogance. But then again, I have no ties to the group he is criticizing. Thanks for alerting us to the way an Anglican might read this post Mark.However, I do think the substance of the post is right. Williams has the responsibility to do what is right, and he is not doing it, therefore he is wrong. What is there to discuss?

    Posted by M. Jay Bennett | August 13, 2008, 10:25 pm
  11. >”Until Robinson and those who ordained him are disciplined, I fear we must consider the Anglican Church at the least, cripplingly defective, and at most not a true manifestation of the church on earth.”I find this statement way over the top! Do the actions of the American Episcopal Church mark the ruin of the Anglican Church in England? I think Williams showed his dislike for Gene Robinson’s appointment by not inviting him to Lambeth. There are recent documents that have surfaced here in the UK that Williams wrote back in the 80’s where he clearly spells out that he feels like gay marriage/relationships are okay, yet he also comments that historically the church disagrees. Consequently, he feels obligated to hold to the teachings of the church. This speaks loudly of Williams’ commitment to the Scriptures and the historical positions of the church.I think his careful handling of the present situations can be an effective form of discipline as opposed to the “cowboy” church discipline that operates off of knee-jerk reactions. The evangelical church in America has done an abysmal job at handling homosexuality in the church either by casting them out and shunning them wholesale, or appointing them to leadership positions (which I am opposed to).Perhaps through prayer and counsel the people of God who comprise the Anglican Communion can come with a proper course of action. Maybe not. But to make the wholesale statement you are making is a failure to see the plank in the eye of many American evangelical denominations who are guilty of pride, arrogance, hoarding wealth, an outright turning their heads to poverty and homelessness, secret affairs and pornography addictions among leadership. Dear friend, the church is made up of a motley crew and we need not cast stones at the Anglican Church.It just so happens that I worship at an Anglican Church here in England, though I maintain my membership at PCPC in Dallas. And I can say I have experienced a very warm, caring, vibrant, and community oriented group of people with which to worship. These people also grieve over the present state of affairs in the Anglican Church, but are not yet ready to write it off. They are willing to pray for their leaders and work through the problems. The American idea seems to be “jump ship” and separate from the sinners! These are sensitive issues that must be addressed. Your statements come across as spiritual arrogance to worshippers here in England. In fact, the comment at the end of your post, “God save what is left of the Church of England” could rightly be applied, and to some here is applied to the American evangelical church. Is there no sinful activity in the PCA, SBC, UMC? Are their leaders currently practicing sinful behavior? I don’t mean necessarily adultery or homosexuality, but rather pride, arrogance, an insensitivity to the poor, poor stewardship. Certainly there are. Why does nobody discipline this behavior? I’ll finish rambling now. My main point is, the people who worship in the Anglican Church (at east where I worship) know we have plank in our eye. Do the American Evangelical denominations recognize their own, or do they simply point out everyone else’s? Finally I would ask who “we” are in relation to your statement, “we must not consider them a true manifestation of the church on earth?” Not to be smart, but who is “we” and who made “we” the authority? Perhaps minding one’s own affairs is the best option when others are trying to work their current problems out.

    Posted by Mark Mathews | August 13, 2008, 2:17 pm
  12. >You state:“The statement however, is unremarkable in resembling anything like a functioning church’s government.”This is true however your two conclusions from this (1) it is due to a lack of a doctrine that the true church is one of discipline and (2) problems with apostolic succession.(1) First with number one, it is a Reformed doctrine yes, but not Lutheran or Anglican. In Luther’s small catechism the “true visible Church” is any denomination that “has, teaches, and confesses the entire doctrine of the Word of God and administers the Sacraments according to Christ institution” (cf Q184) and so as to understand how he did not mean it we have Luther saying: “in the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the creed.” And “I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints.”If Church discipline was a mark of the true Church for Luther, then it seems really surprising that he would say this about Rome (can a totally false Church have true sacraments for Luther?) and that he would leave it out of his catechism.There are also scriptural problems with this mark. First off, in 1 Corinthians 5 we have a case where a Church is in process of not disciplining one of its members, and considering Paul’s critique they likely don’t discipline much of anyone. Yet Paul never claims they have lost their “Church status”, but argues they just need to purify themselves, in fact he still considers them to be on the “inside” and sees the world as “outside”, odd language if they re no longer a true Church. In fact show me one place where a Church gets it true Church status removed due to sin. People are condemned yes, and Churches in the passages you cite are commanded to discipline, but they are never told it is a mark of being a True Church by any means. This doctrine leads to a very subjective ecclesiology, a Church can conceivably go in and out of being true every month depending on how well it disciplines its members. (2) The idea that Apostolic Succession inherently preserves true doctrine has not to my knowledge been taught by anyone except maybe Rome (and even then it is ex cathedra statements from the “megisterium”). If fact, many would point out that the catholic Church went through a period where most of her Bishops were heretics after Nicea due to Arianism. Francis J Hall (Anglo-Catholic theologian) says: “The Church’s Prophetic Office was committed in the beginning to the Apostles and their successors (Q. 131, 132. 3). Therefore, the dogmatic authority of the Church resides primarily in the universal Episcopate, in which all the Ministerial powers of the Apostles are lodged.” (Theological outlines chXXIV. Q133.6) Note first succession is the primary aspect of the Church’s teaching (prophetic) office, not the only one, and second it is found in the universality of the episcopate, not in any individual, or even national level of Bishops. This provides objective stability for the Church and follows the early Fathers such as Ignatius.(3) third, you were right in the beginning, because the Anglican Communion is not right now a functioning Church government. It is a mistake to treat the Communion t this point in history on the same level as Rome or the PCA or even the SBC. Historically the Communion developed after the days of colonialism. All the national Churches who were suddenly free still felt a sense of connection with Canterbury. One exception was the USA, which only joined the Communion voluntarily in the 1970’s. The communion was formed as a meeting to discuss and talk and provide mutual support, not as a government. It was not initially seen as a “Church body” in any technical sense. It was and sort of is closer to what the SBC looked like before the ‘conservative resurgence” made it more of a denominational body. It has taken time for it to develop this far. What Lambeth did and is doing is working on forming said government so it can discipline its members. But Lambeth only meets 7 days every 10 years, that is not allot of time to work on this. Which is why on this past one the Archbishop called for more frequent meetings and a new “instrument of unity” that would provide some sort of oversight pastorally (one blog called it his inquisition, so who knows?) The Windsor process is the same, and attempt ot move the Communion in the direction of a government. Many (such the US church) want to be decently independent though, which is making it more difficult. The fact that the Communion feels it can call for a moratorium on same-sex blessings/ordinations is a step forward for governmental actions. It cannot be an all or nothing idea. Either discipline now or schism (something the Catholic tradition holds to be almost as bad as apostasy). Government can’t happen overnight, or even in a couple of years, it will take time to form, and until then a church that breaks off may just be being impatient, and if under a Orthodox Bishop (such as in Dallas) possibly sinful schismatics.

    Posted by Wesley | August 13, 2008, 2:57 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

From the Vault

Friend of Grace

All articles © 2007-2011 by the respective authors of the Conservative Reformed Mafia. All Rights Reserved.
%d bloggers like this: