Some time ago I wrote a piece about "piracy" which caused a bit of a stir and much against my original intentions I want to follow that up. Pete Rollins and Kester Brewin (who inspired the earlier discussion) have been reading a lot of the Slovenian philosopher Zizek's work and, in the absence of any other dissenting voices, I'd like to weigh in with my reasons for being suspicious. I do this hesitantly because a big drawback to the original debate was its exclusivity: there are some powerful and complex ideas swirling around and a language that is quite intimidating. One one level, this is what is urging me to write because there is a danger that one-sided complexity gives the aura of unchallenged authority...So that's by way of excuse/apology.
To give a brief intro to Zizek: first of all, he is wonderfully entertaining and fascinating. An appearance on last week's BBC Culture Show was brilliant and engaging. He's a man immersed in Hegal and Lacan but equally conversant in Star Wars and Kung-Fu Panda. One anecdote which epitomises him is that, growing up in communist Slovenia, his favourite film was The Sound of Music. The excised and edited version of the film that they were permitted to watch omitted the scene where Maria is encouraged to leave the convent by the sisters because she is clearly in love. For communist Slovenia, that demonstrated the life-affirming nature of the Catholic Church: and that was an unacceptable truth. In a post-Berlin wall world, Marx has lost his sheen and totems that reroot the world order and invert the status quo are being searched for. So far, so good. In Zizek's mischievous perversity, Jesus is the answer, Paul a radical revolutionary. If the twentieth century's moral scandal was Auschwitz, this century's symbol of crisis is Guantanemo Bay: the place that admits that the law fails... and thus the language of law, the cross, kenosis comes into play with post-Marxist cultural criticism.
It's all great stuff to engage with: big questions, wonderful shared allusions to the Christian story and faith. It's philosophy wrestling with theology...but it's still philosophy in dominance. What i mean by that is that it is a philosophy devoid of God because in this reading kenosis is not any more special when exhibited by Jesus than when it is demanded of a Western capitalist (this piece by Kester is indicative of the casual relativising of kenosis. This by pete argues that it is the laying down of distinctions that is paramount: so Jesus' distinction from us as Son of God is less important to us than his going to the cross. Thus, any number of self-sacrificing "martyrs" are redemptive for creation!). It's a reading of the Christian faith that writes out the redemptive purposes of the creator. If there is a revolution "out there", an insurrection only made possible when we give up the pretensions of our belief systems, authorities, churches, legal systems...we are actually colluding in armchair practice. It's great philosophy: but it's not the revolution of the people of God.
Here's what Rowan Williams says:
"definition matters, ultimately, so that resistance is possible to the idolatrous claims of total power that may be made from time to time in the world. Definition matters so that the Christian is free to say with conviction that the truth of the world and of humanity is not at the disposal of this or that system of political management."
Rowan's words are very similar to Zizek's. The difference (and this is my challenge to Pete and Kester) is in the very political and spiritual import of our definition: our story and the absolute and unequivocal place of Christ as the decisive point of history that frames our story. This loss of definition merely fuels armchair radicalism and iconoclism.
Thanks for this Richard. I'd seriously refute that the post you link to is 'indicative of the casual relativising of kenosis.'
I also have a big problem with the quote from Williams at the end. If we are saying that 'Definition matters so that the Christian is free to say with conviction that the truth of the world and of humanity is not at the disposal of this or that system of political management' then we are saying that Christianity is the super-power, the evident truth that is above all political systems.
I think history shows clearly that this, or any other absolute truth claim, leads to serious danger. This is not to say that absolute truth does not exist, but that it is unavailable for any one group to have control over. (It is also clear that the religion of Christianity as a force for good has seen as many failures as it has successes - just has Marxism, capitalism and every other system.)
As for collusion in armchair practice... this is tricky because I know nothing about your day-to-day practice, and I deliberately don't really blog about mine. It's actually something I'm writing quite a lot about at the moment, but that'll be for the future.
Posted by: KB | February 03, 2010 at 10:05 AM
Thanks for your comments Kester. I read Rowan Williams'quote not as a claim to the absolute truths of Christianity but (and this is the context of the quote) as the absolute claims of Christ. If Jesus is not Lord, we have no genuine resistance to the powers that be. Our trinitarian definition is a wholly political and spiritual act.
It is the Zizekian reading of kenosis that you seem to advocate that then collapses everything into a dialectic of power/powerlessness. You cannot say that the primary gift of the incarnation is that God then understood what God was like without undermining the crucial definition of the Trinity.... as if God the Father had never "engaged the other" prior to "Jesus". Zizek's writings, and your commentary, do not make any distinction between the kenosis of Christ and the self-emptying we are called to. There is an atheistic logic there that, to my understanding, relativitises Christ on the cross.
In such an economy, what's the point of situating oneself in the church community and in ongoing political mass-movements until the real revolution has occurred. It's no indictment of yours, or Pete's local and practical involvement (I don't know it and that's not relevant to this particular argument; in fact, I'm sure your practice is better than your theology!). I am challenging the logic of the Zizek position in the context of genuine Christian theology: the logic leads to an individualised rejection of history and communities of character (par excellence the church). In essence, I'm saying that an insurrectionist philosophy/theology renders Christ and church redundant....and thus becomes an armchair radicalism.
Posted by: Richard Sudworth | February 03, 2010 at 11:04 AM
Just want to weigh in by questioning what I think is a mistaken view regarding the status of Zizek's work.
It is hard to show that Zizek's work is anything but fundamentally theological (as he himself argues) and indeed deeply Christological. Can you really claim that 'The Monstrosity of Christ' is not among the most important theological dialogues of recent years (whether or not you agree with Milbank or Zizek)?
I can freely accept that up until this book Zizek's more Christological reflections were not centre stage. But I can't see how his Pauline materialism can be understood as anything but theological in a thick sense. Not to mention his superbly nuanced reading of the Crucifixion which I would say that is even more penetrating than someone like Girard.
It is funny to me that some of us like to argue that the New Atheism is a theological position (rather than a strictly scientific one), but when some heathen like Zizek embraces his goddless position as theological we won't let him. It is as if we like to use that as a weapon to bash people with, but we don't like it when they freely accept the title and then point out that they may even be doing better theology than we are.
Also, if anything, Zizek comes across as too Christian, privileging Christianity as the supreme religion.
This argument, which I have seen elsewhere fails to take Zizek seriously (which, because of his insight of course should make us very suspicious). While I am not a huge fan of Milbank I must applaud him for taking Zizek seriously as a theological interlocutor.
Posted by: Peter Rollins | February 03, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Pete: I'm not questioning the seriousness of Zizek's theology nor the significance of his voice in contemporary terms. What I am wanting to do is highlight that his voice is not a "thick" voice as properly understood, and thus is beholden to prior non-theological claims. As Milbank highlights in The Monstrosity of Christ (which is a wonderfully important book!), Zizek's version of the Christian faith (instrumentalising Christianity for his own ends?) is not from within the Christian tradition (after all, he is an atheist and communist: this is not intended as an accusatory label buta fact of his own self-"definition").
My point of contention is the uncritical wholesale usage of Zizek by those within the Christian tradition. I am contending with the "Christianising" of some very unChristian objectives: chief among them, the deconstruction of church and inherited tradition. The "theological" implications of his ideas, and their recycling by you and Kester, in the "thick" tradition, include the denial of the trinity. The practical implications include the denial of the catholicity of the church and the withdrawal of Christians from any shared common good in the public square: a new sectarianism.
So keep on reading Zizek, but please don't tell me the insurrection of the kingdom of God has been outlined by him....As you say, he is a great interlocutor; I'm just uncomfortable when Christians treat him (or anyone else heralding a new movement) as the prophet.
Posted by: Richard Sudworth | February 03, 2010 at 01:36 PM
I think this touches on some very important issues, ones that as Richard says are complex and fairly difficult to communicate at the best of times. I would love to see a discussion between some of the leading thinkers in this new radical form of Christianity and some of the deeper thinkers.
I am sure I could persuade Milbank and Ward to come along to something - Rich, Kester, Pete would you be up for some kind of discussion around the person of Jesus Christ, the nature of truth claims and the role (or otherwise) of Zizek and other continental philosophers in contemporary theological discourse and Christian practise?
A small conference to get at the root of these issues might be a way forward rather than this constant banter across the internet. It's also a good bluff call for Pete and Kester to see whether they think this stuff really stands up to serious scrutiny.
Posted by: gareth | February 03, 2010 at 01:40 PM
Hey Richard
I am not exactly sure where you are seeing this uncritical, wholesale usage of Zizek. I see lots of academic engagement but I assume you are not talking about that level as it is obvious that the work being carried out by people like Davis, Crockett, Kotsko, Milbank and Depoortere (among others) is nuanced and serious.
Hence I think you mean those working on the ground as it were. Here I think you start to dry up pretty quick after me, Brewin and Taylor! Although I admit I could be wrong here (let me know of others if I am).
Also I would hate to think that, if I am one of the ones you are referring to, I am engaging Zizek in an uncritical manner. It is true that I enjoy his work and I freely admit to finding it deeply engaging and insightful, however I have different views on ontology for instance, views that are closer to Derrida.
I think that perhaps one of the concerns you have is my lack of interest in being within the 'thick' tradition of Christianity. Firstly because I think it is an illusion and that the 'tradition' is really a mix of traditions that jostle together, being constantly being wrestled with, reformulated and overturned. Being part of the warp and woof of the conversation is what interests me.
Also I am not sure about this 'new sectarianism' idea you mention. A big subject, but I find the type of universalism which sees a concrete community as the new Israel to be sectarian in a problematic way that I attempt to resist.
Also is disagreeing with and deconstructing the tradition really 'unchristian'? Call me old fashioned, but I prefer that we say what we think is intellectually cogent, persuasive, unpersuasive etc. rather than 'Christian' and 'unchristian'. These terms seem to close discussion down.
In terms of your last statement, if I think that he is one of the prime individuals outlining a productive framework within which to understand the kingdom why I can't I put my case across? I would have preferred you ask me to defend my position rather than tell me that you don't want to listen to it.
And Gareth I like the idea you are talking about. Of course the people you mention all have different skill sets so the conference would have to set up in a way where we get to play to our strengths. The idea of me, for instance, debating Milbank on the fine points of Jesus Christ is (as you know you cheeky monkey) laughable!
Posted by: Peter Rollins | February 03, 2010 at 02:23 PM
Peter: "The idea of me, for instance, debating Milbank on the fine points of Jesus Christ is (as you know you cheeky monkey) laughable!"
Yes but it would make a good youtube clip!
But seriously, I think that the stuff that you and Kester (and Taylor) are engaging with (Zizek as well as Caputo and some of your other interlocutors) has some deeply problematic secular philosophical roots that Milbank would (in my opinion) rightly take issue with.
At the moment I see that many people in the emerging church (and fresh expressions) are captivated by the external form of the arguments, the poetic nature of the discourse, its allure in the beauty of its form so to speak, but many simply do not see the seismic shifts that have/are taking place theologically and philosophically.
I'm not accusing you guys of sophistry, as I think you are committed to some of these new moves, however I think that Milbank and Ward (as well as Sarah Coakley) are providing a very different (and more conservatively Orthodox) perspective and its vital that people at least hear out the two sides of the debate (or some of the sides).
At some point there does need to be a really critical examination of both the theological integrity and potential heterodoxy of these new moves, and it strikes me that these guys would some of the best to do that.
Yet this would obviously need to be framed not as a rhetorical boxing match but rather a genuine enquiry as to the nature of the Church and Christian belief in today's increasingly a/theistic world with the explicit caveat that we are all part of the Body of Christ and as such we do all we can to build up that body.
Posted by: gareth | February 03, 2010 at 03:05 PM
OK, I'm going to add here.
Setting the context slightly, I'd like to suggest that there are may people like myself who have a (slightly more than) passing interest in what Zizek, Kester and Pete have to say.
Also, in my judgement, like most people, I'm not able to locate myself in any philosophical timeline, history or tradition, but do tend to work things out from a mixture of philosophy, theology, logic, intuition (not intuitionistic logic!), experience, sociology, prayer, history, tradition, and all of this within a framework of a communal experience which in my case is moot.
My first point is that I'm not surprised that Zizek is " "Christianising" of some very unChristian objectives" as you put it, Richard. But quite honestly I not bothered by it either!
Why does it matter? It's quite normal to see that there are certain things that can be very helpful that may come from a completely different space, and actually this is ok, whether it be Zizek, Caputo, Derrida, or anyone else. I don't assume that they necessarily come from the same place as I do, but that's not important to me. What is important is the profound insight that can happen amongst and from anyone - even the most unlikely sources. And by profound insight, I mean deeply Christian stuff that is challenging and motivating to positive and life changing thought and action.
However my second point is that by contrast being a layman, I do tend to read people like Pete and Kester as a sort of "bluffers guide" to enable me to keep up with some of this stuff, as it does stretch me in a way that is helpful. If you'll forgive me for the phrase "bluffer's guide".
Where I would agree with you Richard is that I do see very little critique of Zizek from Pete or Kester, and I would love to hear what both of you would have to say in critique. More to the point I hear Zizek mentioned more and more amongst "laity" for want of a better term. And that is where, in my experience, people are seemingly accepting him wholesale.
Pete, I accept when you say that "I am not exactly sure where you are seeing this uncritical, wholesale usage of Zizek. I see lots of academic engagement but I assume you are not talking about that level as it is obvious that the work being carried out by people like Davis, Crockett, Kotsko, Milbank and Depoortere (among others) is nuanced and serious."
But that for me is not the same as critique, or even rightfully disagreeing with Zizek, especially where you feel that to rightfully disagree with him could make good food for thought for the rest of us.
And so it was that I decided to part with some shekel and buy one of Zizek's books (and I do intend to read more), and spent some time reading articles and watching lectures by him online and so forth just to see what all the fuss was about, which leads me to two points that I would like to see addressed:
i) I have to say that I'm horrified by the level of sexism going on with him! Seriously! I may just be massively misunderstanding some deep Lacanian interpretive elements here, but the number of sexually offensive metaphors, rape gags and so forth that he uses to illustrate points where he could just have easily chosen any other story to illustrate his point beggars belief! I can't believe I'm the only one who's noticed this!
ii) And this is where I really need help. I'll concede that some of the thoughts and implications of what he says are eye-poppingly exciting, revolutionary, helpful, even, yes, deeply Christian, but his ability to get there by stating and then skating over some very woolly propositions that are not in anyway logically or demonstrably true (in my opinion) is equally eye-popping.
Now clearly there isn't the space to debate my second point in the comments section of Richard's blog, but what I would plead is that you make more of an effort to expand and/or expound on what you see are some of Zizek's failings, if not for my sake, or for the sake of "laity" as it were, then at least for the sake of credibility.
Pretty please.
Posted by: Mike R | February 05, 2010 at 07:10 PM
Richard - thought you might like what Nathan, my editor at Killing the Buddha said here on this topic.
http://www.therowboat.com/2010/01/theology-for-atheists/
Posted by: becky | February 07, 2010 at 04:28 AM
Mike: thanks for your comments and query....My accusation of "failings" on Zizek's part come from two quarters:
1. that in utilising Christian language he uses it selectively (exploitatively? colonially?). And hence my gripe about the the "non-traditional" resource. It's great that we grapple with philosophy and sociology and find resonances there. When these resources use Christian language then we need to be assessing critically how "authoritative" that language is. Thus when Zizek talks about kenosis (see my comment above linking to Kester's reference of Zizek) it is NOT as understood in the Christian tradition ie it is a logic that relativises Jesus' incarnation and passion. The whole logic of Zizek's christology is based on Jesus not being encountered as a revelation of the Trinitarian God. That's ok if you're a Lacanian post-Marxist but if you're advocating matters of church and society from a Christian prism then i want to draw attention to this important matter.
2. Zizek's Hegelian, Marxist worldview advocates that the law and authority is entirely corrupt and any collusion with the powers that be perpetuates a capitalist hegemony. It's a critique we need to take seriously and engage with (as Milbank, Rowan Williams, Creston Davies etc do). But it's a worldview that is philosophically challenging and pertinent but practically redundant. In the "real world" of communities (like churches, ngo's, schools, local authorities, housing estates)...people engage for the common good, do small and bigger things to transform the lives of the most vulnerable. Zizek is an academic: the danger of taking his philosophy uncritically is that the APPLICATION for middle class disillusioned evangelicals burnt by authority (genuinely and with real cause for grievance) see their radicalism in the rejection of involvement and authoritative communities of character and tradition: a grand licence for apathy and individualism. That is the essence of the "sectarian" critique. I'd like to push Pete on what the practical application of Zizekian philosophy is for Christians? Burning churches?
Posted by: Richard Sudworth | February 07, 2010 at 05:35 PM
The limitations of a comment section mean that critiques like Richards one above need to be taken with a big pinch of salt. As it stands this is a caricature which does not do anything to engage critically with Zizek.Apart from the little jibes that I find on this site which have no place in academic discourse (such as 'Zizek is an academic') it fails to see that,
1) Zizek does have a place for quantitive changes within the system culminating in qualitative transformation
2. That his work does have application, and that we may well see the application more and more as time goes on
It is the same short sightedness as one who does not see the point of advanced scientific research because practical applications are currently impossible to imagine. I heard the same stuff said about Derrida's work. But personally I started applying it in a pub in Belfast without too much difficulty.
It is ridiculous to say that Zizek's critique has no value because it questions certain dominent forms of charitable giving. It is completely missing the point to claim that if we listen to Zizek then many individuals will suffer. That is an abstract critque that does not understand how Zizek is showing that certain forms of giving, while helping a few, continue to perpetrate a system that ensures continued oppression.
One might disagree with Zizek's analysis, but it is bizarre to simply state that advocating his position will hurt people in the short term. Of course it will, this is something he talks about constantly. It is not enough to point out that reality, one must point out why it is incorrect.
In terms of the 'theology' discussion, it is just weird to me the implicit idea that there is some 'christian tradition' that engages with secular philosophy etc. Christian theologies are themselves the products of various biblical and philosophical debates and will continue to be. The theology of the church in 5,000 years (if we or it are still around) will likely look markedly different than now. And I guess there will be people then trying to defend it as the way it has always been
Posted by: Peter Rollins | February 10, 2010 at 12:23 AM
Yes, the comments section has its limitations...But it would be nice to see a response to my ACTUAL critique rather than your distortion of it, (i never said Zizek has no value, stating that Zizek is "an academic" is not a jibe but a reminder of the different contexts with which we frame our philosophies, i never said that the Christian tradition does not change or is somehow pristine.... I am saying there is such a thing to be engaged with explicitly, though, when presenting a "Christian" theology. I never said that his work has no application: my agitation is the uncritical logic of his application to the church.)
...I'm not entirely convinced this is an academic discourse. This is a blog exchange which bridges academic thinking, church life and culture. People reading our stuff are not necessarily in the academic world and we need to bear that in mind. Otherwise, it would be good to see some peer-review material from you and Kester on this matter!
Posted by: Richard Sudworth | February 10, 2010 at 07:15 AM
"...I'm not entirely convinced this is an academic discourse."
I've got to agree - That was exactly the point I was trying to make earlier about not being an academic/within a philosophical tradition.
I said that I tend to work things out "from a mixture of philosophy, theology, logic, intuition (not intuitionistic logic!), experience, sociology, prayer, history, tradition, and all of this within a framework of a communal experience". In fact I'd go so far as to say that I think most people work things out this way to a greater or lesser degree.
I'm trying to engage with the discourse as a layman, and I would suggest that laymen form the greater part of the readership of Kester & Peter's body of work and probably this blog. As such I would also like to read some peer-review material.
Still waiting...
Posted by: Mike R | February 10, 2010 at 09:38 PM
Well comrades :-)- I think we should be careful of getting too excited about Zizek. A very good article from Marxist Paul Kellogg critiquing Zizek for flirting with mysogyny and with 'redemptive violence' that positively draws upon theologian Walter Wink can be found at the link below. Kelloggs wider point is that Zizek is largley an apologist for the reactionary Stalinist tradition of Marxism.
For those who don't want to plough through a long article on internal Marxist debates on the resurrection or otherwise of Leninism, can read the relevant bits below. Otherwise the link is
http://links.org.au/node/1500
"žižek quite likes this term “redemptive violence” – as do the Verso editors who feature the words on the back cover of the book, saying that with “the forthcoming crisis of capitalism, the possibility of a redemptive violence, the falsity of liberal tolerance – Lenin’s time has come again” (žižek 2002b: back cover). But it’s just a phrase, and a misused phrase at that.
The term “redemptive violence” is associated with the theological writings of Walter Wink (1999). But his object was not to romanticise, but to criticise “redemptive violence” as a foundation myth for what he calls “a dominator society” (Wink, 1999: 53). He looks at the violence inscribed in children’s cartoons, and traces them to an archetype rooted in ancient Bablyonian mythology. “Typically, a male war god residing in the sky fights a decisive battle with a female divine being, usually depicted as a monster or dragon, residing in the sea or abyss (the feminine element)” (Wink, 1999: 46). The recreation of this myth in the modern era, in part through children’s culture, has a definite social role. “The myth of redemptive violence is the simplest, laziest, most exciting, uncomplicated, irrational, and primitive depiction of evil the world has ever known. ... Children select this mythic structure because they have already been led, by culturally reinforced cues and role models, to resonate with its simplistic view of reality. Its presence everywhere is ... a function of values endlessly reinforced by the Domination System. By making violence pleasurable, fascinating, and entertaining, the Powers are able to delude people into compliance with a system that is cheating them of their very lives” (Wink, 1999: 53).
Wink is a theologian not a Marxist. But a Gramsican would recognise his analysis, a critique of an aspect of the ideological superstructure through which capitalism exercises hegemony. But žižek ignores all this. He likes Wink’s phrase (once the word “myth” is removed), and develops his notion of “redemptive violence” as a counter-hegemonic, not a hegemonic project. A scene which involves “self-beating” is designed to “reach out and re-establish the connection with the real Other – to suspend the fundamental abstraction and coldness of capitalist subjectivity, best exemplified by the figure of the lone monadic individual who, alone in front of the PC screen, communicates with the entire world ... the very violence of the fight signals the abolition of this distance” (Žižek 2002b: 251-2).
Žižek’s account is misleading and distasteful on several fronts. Wink the theologian emphasises that in version after version of this creation myth, misogyny is a recurring theme. “Having vanquished the original enemy by war and murder, the victor fashions a cosmos from the monster’s corpse. Cosmic order requires the violent suppression of the feminine, and is mirrored in the social order by the subjection of women to men and people to ruler” (Wink, 1999: 46). But Žižek the radical cultural theorist completely ignores this aspect of Fight Club. “We’re a generation of men raised by women. I’m wondering if another woman is really the answer we need” says Tyler at one point. And the fat used in the making of their soap? It comes from a liposuction clinic, allowing for the following, horrifying, line: “It was beautiful. We were selling rich women their fat asses back to them” (Fincher, 1999). The theologian Wink would recognise the reactionary nature of this imagery and dialogue. The radical cultural theorist Žižek has nothing to say"
Posted by: Ray Gaston | February 15, 2010 at 04:26 PM
Hey Ray
Just a quick point. I doubt Zizek has ever read Wink. This will sound bad, but I don't mean it in a negative way, but Wink is not a significant thinker, at least philosophically speaking. Let me qualify that by saying that are very few significant thinkers philosophically speaking (like there are few truly great scientists etc.). The point is that Zizek mostly only deals with significant thinkers (in his case Kant, Schelling, Hegel, Lacan, Marx etc.) I would think that he is working with Walter Benjamin in the idea of redemtive violence and that has a different meaning to Wink. Wink's 'redemptive violence' sounds more like what Zizek would call 'abstract violence'.
Posted by: Peter Rollins | February 15, 2010 at 11:48 PM
Also, last point. This is a misunderstanding of Zizek's use of cinema. The cinema is, for him, a lens through which we can see the ideological presuppositions of the the system that constructs it. Both the antagonisms that operate within it and its modes of attempted resolution. For a serious engagement with Zizek's work I would recommend Adrian Johnson's Zizek's Ontology: A Transcendental Materialist Theory of Subjectivity.
Posted by: Peter Rollins | February 16, 2010 at 12:04 AM
Sorry for lowering the tone of the discussion Peter with my insignificant contribution! By the way are 'significant' philosophers a kind of philisophical equivalent of the magisterium of the church? :-)
I am sure Kellogg as a Marxist therotician is well aware of WB as i am
Check out http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/overrated-november
For a critique of Zizek which shows how Kelloggs use of Wink is appropriate to critique Zizek even though Wink may be a lesser philisophical being!
Posted by: Ray Gaston | February 16, 2010 at 08:30 AM
Or for a more sophisticated critque with a less right wing flavour try
http://www.equinoxjournals.com.ezproxye.bham.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/CR/article/view/7950/5376
Posted by: Ray Gaston | February 16, 2010 at 11:46 AM
Ray - the later URL requires a password in order to access this document.
Posted by: becky | February 16, 2010 at 03:46 PM