Sunday, July 17, 2016

Sermon: The Wrong Lesson

“The Wrong Lesson” Delivered Sunday, July 17 at Westminster Presbyterian Church, Charlottesville, VA.

Invocation:
Almighty God, grant that the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts bring clarity to your word and glory to your presence.

Isaiah 10:1-6:
Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away? To whom will you flee for help, and where will you leave your wealth, so as not to crouch among the prisoners or fall among the slain? For all this his anger has not turned away; his hand is stretched out still.

Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger— the club in their hands is my fury! Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him, to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.

I’d like to begin by apologizing to my mother.
I grew up in a family that loved (still loves) to read. This has, in many ways, benefited me greatly over the years. It was impossible to grow up in that house without also learning great appreciation for the written word. I like to think that this has made be a better writer, and, perhaps, a better preacher (if not, be gentle with me). It is, after all, said that good writers borrow from other writers, while great writers steal outright.

Whether I am good or great… (or neither), in order to borrow and/or steal from other writers, one must first READ. This is one of the best lessons I learned.

When I was (much) younger, however, I learned a number of different lessons.

One thing I discovered fairly early was that, if my mother was particularly engrossed in a book, she would only APPEAR to respond to what I was saying. Now, those of you who are parents, or who are sufficiently able to recall your own childhood, however, close or distant that might be, will likely know that children ask a LOT of questions. Many are relatively mundane (may I go play outside?…can John come over for dinner?…what are we having for dinner?...(hey John, what are your parent’s making for dinner?)…can I go over to John’s house for dinner?). My mother could, without breaking concentration on her book, answer these questions on a sort of auto-pilot.

As a result, I learned that, if there was something I wanted to do that was probably (ok, definitely) out of bounds, the time to ask was when she was engrossed in a book.

Despite my attempted cleverness (but Mom, you said it was ok), it NEVER worked out for me.

I had learned the wrong lesson.

It’s something we, as humans, are very good at doing.

Some twenty-eight hundred years ago, the Kingdom of Israel (also called the Northern Kingdom), and the Kingdom of Judah (the Southern Kingdom) had been divided for some time. Although both kingdoms were united in their worship of the One God, they were also in economic and political relationship with their neighbors, and were, occasionally in conflict with each other.

The book of Isaiah begins in such a time of conflict. The Assyrian Empire was entering a new age of expansion, had developed a professional standing army, and achieved technological advancements that allowed the capture of even walled cities. Israel and Judah were both relatively prosperous kingdoms, but both were too small to resist the military power of the growing Assyrian Empire. Israel (well, not so much Israel as her king) decided to join a military alliance with the Arameans to resist Assyria. They tried to recruit Judah, but the King of Judah was unconvinced. As a result, Israel and the Arameans decided to attack Judah in the hope of placing a friendlier king upon the throne.

As the Israelite and Aramean armies advanced towards Jerusalem, the Judean king decided to consult with the prophets, including Isaiah. Isaiah, as we heard a few minutes ago, is not particularly concerned about the threat from Israel and the Arameans. Isaiah assures the King and people of Jerusalem that they should NOT join this alliance because Assyria is coming to steamroll Israel—and will even do so with Divine mandate.

This is great news!

Crisis averted.

This was the wrong lesson.

The leaders of Judah heard what they wanted to hear from the passage we read today: the Israelite and Aramean threat wouldn’t last.

What they didn’t pay attention to was WHY God was going to use Assyria to bring down Israel.
God was not permitting the destruction of Israel because they dared attack Judah and were preparing to lay siege to Jerusalem.

No, Israel was going to be punished because of the way the wealthy were treating the disadvantaged. God was coming for Israel because the prosperity of Israel was not being appropriately shared. Because the leaders of Israel were making sure that they benefitted more than anyone else, and in doing so had ignored the scriptural commandments to ensure proper care was taken of those left on the margins: the widows, the orphans, the stranger, the poor. God was preparing to punish Israel because the system was rigged.

Sound familiar?

I live just outside D.C., so politics and polling are in the air. One recent New York Times/CBS poll stood out. The notable number: 69% of Americans think that race relations are generally poor—the highest that number has been since the Rodney King verdict 24 years ago.
I read that, and I can’t help but think that the percentage of people who are worried about race relations seems to track most closely with the percentage of white people who are forced to confront the experience of communities of color.

Over roughly the last 14 years, Philando Castille had been pulled over 45 times before the traffic stop that ended his life, racking up some six thousand dollars in fines. The majority of those stops followed the pattern set by the first: he was cited for violating his learner's permit—something the officer COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN before the stop. According to NPR, of 46 traffic stops and citations, only 6 were for things the police could have known about before actually stopping him. His most common citations were failure to have proof of insurance and driving on a suspended license (his license having been repeatedly suspended because he couldn’t pay the fines…of course, if he just stopped driving, he’d have a hard time getting to work, thus making paying the fines even more difficult). His story is particularly recent and tragic, but I hope none of us think his was an isolated experience. Fines for failing to pay fines are but one common way of writing oppressive statutes to turn aside the needy from justice.

And lest you think that this experience is limited to the economically disadvantaged, last week, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, took to the floor of the Senate to share some of his experiences, including the fact that, as an elected official, he has been stopped by police 7 times in the past year. One of his staffers had been stopped, essentially for driving a Chrysler, so many times that the staffer just gave up and sold the car. Senator Scott even recounted a time when, after 5 years in the Senate, he was essentially accused by an officer of the U.S. Capitol Police of impersonating a Senator.

49 years ago, the Rev. Dr. King, speaking at Stanford University, said that “large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense, our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again." [quote begins ~24:55, but seriously, watch the whole thing]

Israel’s punishment wasn’t for traffic stops, but it was for the Bronze Age equivalent.

Further, as Isaiah knew, and surely as the wealthy of Judah should have known, Israel wasn’t alone in guilt. Isaiah may have been speaking ABOUT Israel, but he was speaking TO Judah. Isaiah’s words were preserved so that Isaiah could continue to speak through history.

Through that text, Isaiah continues to speak to us today. 49 years ago, Dr. King was speaking to us, and, like Isaiah, his words are preserved.

But Judah didn’t want to hear it, and so, they learned the wrong lesson, and instead of attempting to reform society and build something worthy of divine protection, Judah paid tribute to Assyria to ask for human protection.

Judah sought refuge not with God, but with military power.

Now, if Judah had, like us, only heard the part of Isaiah we read earlier, this may have seemed like a smart choice. The Assyrian military was, at this moment in history, unparalleled. They were the ONLY, perhaps even the FIRST superpower.

But that wasn’t all Isaiah said. Earlier, we heard verses 1 through 6 from chapter 10. In verse 7, Isaiah continues:

“But this is not what he (the Assyrian ruler) intends, nor does he have this in mind; but it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off nations not a few. For he says: “Are not my commanders all kings? Is not Calno like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad? Is not Samaria like Damascus? As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols whose images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, shall I not do to Jerusalem and her idols what I have done to Samaria and her images?” When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, he will punish the arrogant boasting of the king of Assyria and his haughty pride.” For he says: “By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I have understanding; I have removed the boundaries of peoples, and have plundered their treasures; like a bull I have brought down those who sat on thrones. My hand has found, like a nest, the wealth of the peoples; and as one gathers eggs that have been forsaken, so I have gathered all the earth; and there was none that moved a wing, or opened its mouth, or chirped.”

[God responds:]
“Shall the ax vaunt itself over the one who wields it, or the saw magnify itself against the one who handles it? As if a rod should raise the one who lifts it up, or as if a staff should lift the one who is not wood!”

Assyria may be the rod of God, but just because God CAN use Assyria doesn’t mean God NEEDS Assyria.

As Judah learned the wrong lesson from Assyria’s power, so did Assyria. The Assyrians learned that they were nearly unopposed, and so they took too much. Like Israel and Judah, they concentrated the resulting wealth and power of their expansion and might. And so, they, too, were brought down by God: this time using the Babylonians.

From the end of the Second World War through the 1980s, the world was divided between two superpowers. Since the 1990s, much like Assyria, the United States, our own country, has stood alone as the sole super-power.

Like Assyria, God can use our power. Like Assyria, God does NOT NEED our power. Like Assyria, we are judged on how we use that power.

And just to be clear, in case you didn’t hear it before, God’s concern is not for the people of Israel, or the people of Judah, or the people of any particular country. God’s concern is for God’s people. All of us, regardless of human borders. Iniquitous decrees and oppressive statutes are not limited to domestic policy.

I have a long history of being annoyed by Geico ads.

Their current campaign, however, intrigues me—it’s punctuated with the tagline “It’s what you do”
Currently, they are running one where a pirate captain has just taken a ship, and is preparing to seize the gold, when his parrot repeats his plans to hide it from the crew because they are all morons anyway. If you’re a parrot, you repeat things. It’s what you do.

With further apologies to my mother (and all other mothers), another involves a James Bond type secret agent (I assume) taking a call from his mother during a fight. “If you’re a mom, you call at the worst time. It’s what you do.”

If they were to read the prophets, particularly Isaiah and Jeremiah, they might make one “If you’re an empire, you fall. It’s what you do.”

Or, “If you’re a prophet, you say things people don’t want to hear, and watch, helplessly, as they learn the wrong lesson. It’s what you do.”

2,800 years ago, Isaiah spoke truth only to watch Judah learn the wrong lesson. 49 years ago, Dr. King spoke truth, and we learned the wrong lesson.


Today, thousands of our siblings of color are taking to the streets to tell us a truth. What lesson will we learn?



___________________________________


Note: This Sermon owes much to Richard Rubenstein's Thus Saith the Lord: The Revolutionary Moral Vision of Isaiah and Jeremiah.


Friday, November 13, 2015

A Christian Response to the Death of Osama bin Laden


A Christian Response to the Death of Osama bin Laden

Rob Vaughan
5/4/2011




New York Daily News

Philadelphia Daily News

New York Times

New York Post
Washington Post

San Francisco Examiner















          On Sunday, May 1st, 2011 President Barack Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden, leader of al-Qaeda, and an icon to Muslim extremists around the world.  Within minutes, Americans erupted in celebration, celebration matched in its intensity and unity only by the despair and shock immediately following the attacks of September 11th, 2001 whose leader had just been assassinated by a team of Navy SEALS in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

            The immediate sense that these events represent the final victory in the so called ‘War on Terror’ is understandably strong.  Bin Laden is the face of that conflict to many across the world, on both sides of the conflict.  Ultimately though, such feelings are false.  There may have been a time when a strike against bin Laden would have brought his network down around him.  That time has passed.  At best, this represents merely a victory, and is certainly not the end of the ‘war.’  This is clearly understood in Afghanistan, which has born the overwhelming brunt of the conflict.  Haroun Mir, deputy director of Afghanistan’s Centre for Research and Policy Studies sums it up succinctly “The assassination of bin Laden will not end our suffering, so al Qaeda will continue its terrorist attacks, the Taliban will continue their insurgency in Afghanistan…The death of Osama bin Laden will not itself lead to lasting peace in this country.”[1]  Ahmad Wali Massood, a former ambassador to Great Britain remarked “By removing Osama bin Laden – that does not mean the structure has gone.  Already the Taliban has established [something] almost similar to the al-Qaeda organization…If the US thinks its mission [against terrorism] is over…that’s mistaken.  Probably that might be news for [US] public opinion, to announce a victorious end, but that doesn’t mean anything on our account.”[2]

            These seem to only echo my feeling that while the celebrations across the US are real, ultimately it is just “sound and fury, signifying nothing”[3] over a hollow victory.  Further, as much as there appears to be the appearance of unity of American opinion that the death of bin Laden is a good, the gleeful reaction to the news of another death is highly troubling.  In addition to the celebrations in the streets Sunday night, many in the media struggle to see this death as anything other than a reason to celebrate.  Comedians Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert acknowledged that somewhat troubling nature of this glee, but still wholeheartedly embraced it:

“I suppose I should be expressing some ambivalence [laughter] I suppose I should be expressing some ambivalence about the targeted killing of another human being and yet, uh, no.  I just want details…”[4]
            -Jon Stewart

“I am as giddy as a school girl who just shot bin Laden in the eye…  Hey, Osama, no 3d movies for you in hell…
“I am just so happy, and I hope, I hope I am never this happy again over someone’s death, and I’m sure, I know, if I could see myself in a mirror I would be appalled by the look on my face [pulls out mirror, looks in it] nope, I like this, that’s a good look, I want to stay this way forever.”[5]
            -Steven Colbert

Even the threat of reprisals, such as alleged plans to detonate a nuclear device in a major European city should bin Laden by captured or killed[6], could not bring down Stewart’s glee:
“Yes, we shouldn’t have killed him, now the terrorists are gonna want to attack us.  But you know what, even when they do you know who won't see it? Bin Laden. Because we shot out his eyes and now he lives in a pineapple under the sea”[7]
            -Jon Stewart

The emphasis on the specific fact that bin Laden was shot in the eye only serves to highlight that this is not satisfaction that there has been some sort of justice served, but glee at his death.  And yes, Stewart and Colbert are both comedians living in New York, both heavily affected by the attacks, and both men whose jobs are to make people laugh, perhaps providing them with excuses for a lack of balance, however, they are both sufficiently in tune with their audience that one can reasonably assume they echo the feelings of a great many people, likely including nearly all of the college students in Washington D.C. who flocked to the White House lawn Sunday night, chanting U-S-A and singing the theme song from the comedy movie Team America.[8]

Despite the initial celebrations, a more complicated American response came to light over the next few days.  On Monday, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke somberly:
 “This is a day we shouldn’t forget that 3,000 people died…It’s a little hard to have a smile on our faces…Nothing will ever return our loved ones—but we are rebuilding from the ashes and the tears a monument to the American spirit…Today, let the spirits that are all around us know some peace and justice.”[9] 

Al-Jazeera English, in a story appearing May 3rd, spoke to Eileen Zott, one of the many New Yorkers who lost family in the attacks said “I don’t know how I feel about this…I’m a Christian, and killing isn’t part of my beliefs.  It doesn’t bring anyone back.[10]” Another woman quoted in the same article said “I’m glad he’s off the streets.  I’m glad he can’t plan any more attacks…but I can’t celebrate this”[11]

The complicated mix of emotions resulting from the death of bin Laden mirrors a long tension within Christianity.  In Romans 12:9 Paul tells the church to “Love what is genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good.” Just a few lines later, “hate what is evil” becomes more complicated, with verses 14-21:
 “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.  Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.  Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly, do not claim to be wiser than you are.  Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.  If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.  Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ No, ‘if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink’ for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
           
            Martin Luther responded to the tension of this, and other passages with his Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms.  The first is the Kingdom of God, and is the highest allegiance for the Christian[12].  True Christians belong to this kingdom, and are capable of living peaceably with one another[13].  For non-Christians, and presumably also false and nominal Christians, a second kingdom is needed, one which
“[subjects] them to the sword so that, even though they would like to, they are unable to practice their wickedness…In the same way a savage wild beast is bound with chains and ropes so that it cannot bite and tear is it would normally do, even though it would like to’ whereas a tame and gentle animal needs no restraint…”[14]

That bin Laden would fall into the category belonging to the kingdom of the world is, I hope, obvious.  The question then becomes what to do about it.  Luther answers that Christians may participate in governmental action, even as an executioner if it is necessary for the good of the temporal government.[15]  The conflict between taking violent action on behalf of the temporal authority and Christian commands to non-violence is, for Luther resolved because, in acting on the authority of the temporal government
“you would be entering entirely into the service and work of others, which would be of advantage neither to yourself or your property or honor, but only to your neighbor and to others.  You would be doing it not with the purpose of avenging yourself or returning evil for evil, but for the good of your neighbor and for the maintenance of the safety and peace of others.  For yourself, you would abide by the gospel and govern yourself according to Christ’s word [Matt. 5:39-40], gladly turning the other cheek and letting the cloak go with the coat when the matter concerned you and your cause.”[16]

Luther would, I’m sure, have no problem with the killing of bin Laden as a just exercise of temporal authority over a dangerous man who had killed a great many people, and, left to his own devices would have killed a great many more.  Clearly, even a Christian could be the one who pulled the trigger and not risk salvation, as the act was in state interest, so long as, inwardly, and when in consideration purely of self, that Christian acted in accordance with the Gospel and the kingdom of God.

            Despite Luther’s likely acceptance of the legitimacy of killing Osama bin Laden, I think it unlikely that he would condone the celebrations that followed the announcement.  The killing was legitimate to the extent that it was taken out as a means of protecting others from future attack, as a means of preventing further injustice, but vengeance, ‘returning evil for evil’ is still unacceptable, for both the individual and the temporal power.[17]  The celebrations following the announcement of bin Laden’s death indicate a feeling that vengeance has been made, in addition to, or perhaps instead of justice being done.

            Martin Luther King, Jr. would join his namesake in condemning celebration over death, but King’s doctrine of non-violence did not make an exception for temporal authority.  The internal/external division present in Luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms led to troubling results in the 400 years that separates the two.  The separation of an internal, Christian ethic from an external, worldly ethic contributed to the use of the church to justify unjust actions of the state, including slavery, segregation and war.[18]  It led to a church that forget its prophetic role, forgot “that it is neither the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state.  It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.”[19]  Regarding the idea that a Christian can conscientiously serve as the executioner of the state, King says: “Some who have been taken from their schools and careers and cast in the role of soldiers.  We must provide them with the fresh bread of hope and imbue them with the conviction that God has the power to bring good out of evil.”[20]  King does not assure them that their actions as soldiers are just practice of temporal power, permissible as they serve the greater good.  Their conscription into the military is evil, as is much, if not most of what they are likely to have to do as soldiers.  King instead assures them that, though they have been subjected to evil, and may do evil, God can still cause good from it.

            The inspiration of this paper, and, indeed, my first thought upon hearing the news if bin Laden’s death was a quote from King.  “Returning violence for violence multiples violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars…Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” In my work on this paper, I returned to what I thought was the source of that quote, only to discover I had slightly missed (though further research online indicates that what I have may be an authentic King quote, though I am not sure precisely from where.  The real quote, at least as presented in Strength to Love is:
Returning hate for hate multiples hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.  Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.  Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.  So when Jesus says ‘Love your enemies,’ he is setting forth a profound and ultimately inescapable admonition.  Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies—or else?  The chain reaction of evil—hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars—must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.”[21]


            There are those who would counter King’s message, answering it with the apparent practicality of Luther’s two kingdoms for providing a way to security while living Christian love.  This seems at first a compelling argument, but it fails on two levels.  First, living a truly Christian life can not mean dividing oneself into public and private personas, dividing the world into public and private action.  As Matthew declares that no one can serve the two masters of God and wealth,[22] neither can one serve both the state and God.  Paul’s exhortation that the Roman church should be subject to the authorities is tempered by the implicit admonition that one should only be subject to the authorities so long as they do not require one not also be subject to God, where the two are in conflict, one must resist, not violently, but through the creative means of non-violence employed by Christ and employed by King and others in the Civil Rights movement, employed by Gandhi in India, and, more recently, employed by  many young people across the Arab world.  As King declares: “We have followed the so-called practical way for too long a time now, and it has led inexorably to deeper confusion and chaos.  Time is now cluttered with the wreckage of communities which surrendered to hatred and violence. For the salvation of our nation and the salvation of mankind, we must follow another way.”[23]

            I have struggled greatly with this thought over the past several days.  I am convinced that King would not support the killing of bin Laden.  I do not support the killing of bin Laden.  My definition of the doctrine of Imago Dei[24] is clear that not some, but all humans are created in the image of God, that every killing, every death is offensive to God.  In killing bin Laden, we have not brought the world closer to peace.  Bin Laden will be replaced; al Qaeda will be replaced; the United States will be replaced by other instruments of hate until such time as love drives out hate.






[1] Jacqueline Head, “Death fails to bring hope to Afghans,” Al-Jazeera English,http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/05/20115214431590378.html (accessed May 2, 2011).
[2] Ibid
[3] Macbeth
[4] “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” May 2, 2011
[5] “The Colbert Report”, May 2, 2011
[6] Christopher Hope, Robert Winnett, Holy Watt and Heidi Blake, “WikiLeaks: Guantanamo Bay terrorist secrets revealed,” The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8471907/WikiLeaks-Guantanamo-Bay-terrorist-secrets-revealed.html (accessed May 3, 2011).)
[7] “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” Aired May 2, 2011
[8] Jenna Johnson, “Bin Laden Death Draws Student Crowd to White House,” The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/campus-overload/post/students_converge_at_white_house_after_bin_laden_killed/2011/05/02/AFqC2pYF_blog.html (accessed May 2, 2011).
[9] Sally Jenkins, “Resilient New York takes grim satisfaction in bin Laden's death,” The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/resilient-new-york-takes-grim-satisfaction-in-bin-ladens-death/2011/05/02/AFjc3McF_story.html (accessed May 3, 2011).
[10] Gregg Carlstrom, “New Yorkers' mixed reactions to Osama's death,” Al-Jazeera English, http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/20115352740772938.html (accessed May 3, 2011).
[11] Ibid
[12] J. Philip Wogaman, ed., Readings in Christian Ethics: A Historical Sourcebook, ed. J. Philip Wogaman and Douglas M. Strong (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 129.
[13] Ibid 129
[14] Ibid 129
[15] Ibid 131
[16] Ibid 131
[17] Ibid 131
[18] Martin Luther, Jr. King, Strength to Love (Philadelphia: Fortress Publishers, 1981), 63.
[19] Ibid 64
[20] Ibid 64
[21] Ibid 53
[22] Matthew 6:24 NRSV
[23] Ibid 56
[24] The Doctrine of Imago Dei is the system of beliefs surrounding the value of human life and well-being considering humanity to be made in the ‘image of God.’  We learn about this through Biblical references and our own shared experience with one another so that we may place proper value on both ourselves and others, and how to best relate to one another in recognition of the ways in which God is manifest in every human being.

Friday, April 5, 2013

The Lord’s Prayer

01-IMG_232702-IMG_2397
03-IMG_232904-IMG_240005-IMG_240206-IMG_2404
07-IMG_2405
08-IMG_240609-IMG_240710-IMG_2336
11-IMG_241112-IMG_2415
13-IMG_2418
14-IMG_242315-IMG_242516-IMG_2342
17-IMG_2343
18-IMG_234419-IMG_2434
20-IMG_234621-IMG_243822-IMG_2441
23-IMG_244624-IMG_2350
25-IMG_245026-IMG_2453
27-IMG_245728-IMG_2459
29-IMG_246030-IMG_246331-IMG_2358
32-IMG_246933-IMG_247234-IMG_2473
35-IMG_247436-IMG_2478
37-IMG_248038-IMG_248139-IMG_2483
40-IMG_248541-IMG_2486
42-IMG_24901-IMG_23702-IMG_2499
43-IMG_250044-IMG_2503
45-IMG_237546-IMG_237647-IMG_2512
48-IMG_251549-IMG_2516
50-IMG_251851-IMG_2381
52-IMG_252453-IMG_252654-IMG_2529
55-IMG_253156-IMG_253357-IMG_2386
58-IMG_253559-IMG_238860-IMG_2389
61-IMG_2390
62-IMG_2541
63-IMG_2393
64-IMG_2544

All photos by Rob Vaughan, 2013.  Please do not re-use, either in whole or in part, without linking back here.