Unwasted Theology

Right now many theologians, pastors, and church consultants define the chief and the sole purpose of the church to be about missions. This emphasis is also highlighted in what is now called “missional living.” In short, the whole point of the Christian life and the life of the church is to simply witness to Jesus Christ.

Consider what John Piper, a well-known Baptist preacher and author from my neck of the woods (Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN), recently had to say about this at one of his popular conferences. The snippets of his message (below) have been neatly packed into a short motivational video on YouTube as well as at: http://www.vergenetwork.org/2012/01/06/john-piper-go-video/:

The unwasted life is the life that puts Christ on display as supremely valuable…

A God centered theology has to be a missionary theology…  There are only three kinds of Christians when it comes to missions: Zealous goers; Zealous senders; Disobedient…

The need of the nations who do not know the name of Jesus is an immeasurable need. It’s an infinite need. 2.6 billion people live in unreached people groups…

It seems to be woven into the very fabric of our consumer culture that we move toward comfort, toward security, toward ease, toward safety, away from stress, away from trouble, away from danger, and it ought to be exactly the opposite!

They are provocative words. And by my eyes, they’re also a bit inflammatory. But that’s what good motivational speakers do, right? They incite our consciences by portraying their desired point in dramatic fashion. (To get the full effect you do need to watch the video.)

But when the music is silenced, the drama removed, and the sentences examined, what remains? I have my thoughts. I’ll summarize them with two words: Irresponsible theology. I’m not saying he’s all wrong. But they do portray the purpose of the church and the Christian life in a limited, and from my perspective, irresponsible way.

But this is the debate of our time isn’t it? What is the purpose of the church? What’s the purpose of our Christian lives?

Time and again people are told they “don’t get it.” Time and again people in the pews are told they are a bunch of self-centered, self serving people who only think of themselves. And so what are they to do? If the purpose of the church is to be missional, they’re told to get off their butts, stop thinking about themselves, stop wasting their lives, and tell someone about the good news of Jesus.

If we use Piper’s theology, they’re “wasting” their lives when they struggle with their sin and “fail to put Christ on display as supremely valuable.” To use Piper’s theology, they add to their sins when they’re “disobedient” and care more about the challenges of their own daily life than about “zealously” giving witness to Christ. To use Piper’s theology, they don’t believe rightly if they think about God without a “missionary theology.”

I realize I’m not giving Piper a full and fair shake by this. (However, a fuller examination of his theology would show I’m not that far off). But here’s my point. I believe that those who feel they have finally discovered the real mission of the church and are now self-declared “zealous” missionaries (while others of us are not), irresponsibly portray the theology and mission of the church when they reduce it to a demand to be missional.

Our theology is much broader and much deeper than that. And, if we are being honest, (at least from a Lutheran perspective), our theology does not begin with missionaries. It begins with Christ. And He did not first send; He first forgave.

Please do not misunderstand. I am for missions! I am for reaching the lost! (This past month I spent over 30 hours with just one unchurched couple—providing groceries, transportation, and shelter, in addition to teaching, praying, and blessing in the name of Christ.) But I am first for understanding the Gospel rightly so that I can not only reach the lost, but so that I can also reach “the found.”

Believers have an “immeasurable need” for the Gospel just the same as those who have not yet received it. Sinners don’t stop being sinners. And when theologies are developed that start with “sending missionaries” rather than with the sent Son of God who came to bring the forgiveness of sins, there is a stark reconstitution of the church’s theology and purpose.

Yes, sinners who are self-centered, self serving people need to repent. But they also then need the Gospel! Not a demand to be missional. Not a guilt trip that says they are wasting their lives. For it is the Gospel itself that will bring them to share it’s joys with others. Not guilt ridden demands.

We can do better than that. Lutherans in particular have to do better than that. Our theology demands it. We cannot let our theology go to waste. We need to be honest and responsible with our theology. We have to stop settling for the latest version of someone else’s theology and start being honest about our own.

As always, I invite your collegial and constructive comments as we seek to dialogue about what it means to be a 21st century Lutheran who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

Yours,

Rev. Woodford

Advertisements

18 responses to “Unwasted Theology

  1. Thank you dear brother for your analysis. I’m firmly convinced that one function flows out of one’s theological identity. I’m grateful that over the years the blessed Lord was patient with me to come to understand and believe it. Piper’s theological identity is not ours, yet, quite a few, especially in leadership positions in our church fail to understand that.

  2. Reverend Woolford,

    I’ve been following your blog writings for awhile and am very appreciate you posts. I’m only a Lutheran laywoman and if you would not mind, I would ask to offer a few thoughts for your critique and correction.

    I find American Christianity as presented by men like Piper very unsettling. As I have attempted to understand what is wrong, one basic thing that these men seem to have in common is that they are using their gift of rhetorical skills to get predetermined end results that they want to see happen. They do not appear to be preaching with a faith that trusts that God’s Word will accomplish what he wants it to accomplish in his way and his time.

    This missional movement seems to deny that God has given us primary vocations to fulfill when it seeks to hijack our vocations or cause us to neglect them. How foolish to be at the church missional meetings and involved in their programs if it is at the expense of catechizing our children and raising them in the love and admonition of the Lord (which is time consuming and, imo, best done in a relaxed atmosphere). The missional tyrrany also seems to ignore that studies have been done which show that basically all that is happening in the missional movement is sheep shifting. I can’t remember the exact percentage, but if I remember correctly, it was some ridiculously high number like 97%! And as you pointed out, they don’t seem to understand that in feeding the sheep with the gospel, God will work in us to reach out to our neighbors with the good news of Christ for us in our everyday, ordinary, left-hand kingdom activities.

    As I was reading an article by Michael Horton recently, it struck me how pragmatic the missional movement preaching is and how pragmatic it’s methods are (eg: employ rhetorical skill to manipulate the laity into doing the pastor’s will and fulfill his vision on how God should work to reach people with the gospel. The pastor’s will wants clones for his mission versus God’s will does not create clones). Horton’s article is long and dense, but I think you might find it rewarding. Although Horton didn’t name the Lutheran theology, the story of the hidden God, who works in ways we would never suspect, is clearly presented to be at work in the left-hand kingdom in his article. If men like Piper understood Lutheran theology, perhaps they would give up their man-made ideas on how to make God’s Word their servant in order to fulfill their agenda.

    In Horton’s article, it was the warning to the Colossions to not be taken “captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” that struck me hardest. I think Horton did an excellent job of explaining this verse of scripture. If my view, in light of Horton’s article, is correct, this is what men like Piper are doing to the laity and teaching other pastors to do to the laity. They are trying to control or subject the word of God to their will and misuse God’s word to control God’s people in order to “missionalize” the world according to man’s ideas and methods not God’s. The “missional” men fail to see their idolatry and their desire to be in control. I think this may be at the core of why I am uncomfortable with the missional movement. If Luther is right that we are either a mask for God or a mask for the devil with no in-between… I’d guess it’s the latter because of the chaos/divisions/harm it causes in the churches and families it infects – if that makes sense? As you said, Lutheran theology is so rich, deep, and sound. I wish all of the Lutheran pastors would pursue our theology instead of wanting to bring strange fires into the churches.

    If you would like to read Horton’s article, it can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/88ffm8o

    Whew… sorry about the length of this comment. I wish it could have been short and sweet.

    • Dear Susan,

      Thanks for your thoughts. One of my goals with this blog is to create an atmosphere so that we can dialogue about the very things that you noted. As you have observed, the underlying theology that drives many in the “missional movement” is not inherently compatible with Lutheran theology because it is another denominations theology. And it’s not that Lutherans can’t or won’t be “missional.” (And since “missional” has so many different meanings, I will specify that by it I mean having a heart for the lost and reaching out to the lost.) It’s that Lutherans want to faithfully uphold our theology as we give care to souls AND reach out to the lost.

      For those of us who have a high view of our theology our aim is simply be honest about our doctrine and practice so that we do not have to be ashamed of being Lutheran. And I do not allow the false divides of either love for the lost or love for doctrine to control or define the dialogue. It’s always a both/and situation. But there is an order to it. Doctrine defines practice. Not out of rigidity. Not out of arrogance. But out of truth; a truth that loves and serves in the name of Christ.

      Other non-Lutherans are also calling out the theological malaise of the “missional movement.” Michael Horton is one of them, (thanks for the link to the article!) along with a some of his other Reformed counter parts, including Kevin DeYoung and Tullian Tchavidjian. And what’s fascinating, is that in Tchavidjian’s case, his call for reform is based, in large part, on tenets of Lutheran theology (see his book, Jesus + Nothing = Everything).

      In short, you are right that many pastors try to control God’s Word to “missionalize” (a good descriptive word) people and establish the priority of a newly created “missional theology.” But what happens is that the primary means to do this is the use of the law. That is, they make demands, commands, and imperatives to be the foundation, not only of their theology, but, sadly, the foundation of the entire Gospel. In so doing, they undermine the profound freedom, comfort, joy, power, and solace that comes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not to mention, as you observed, the (intentional or unintentional) demeaning of vocation (which I have also tried to explore regularly with this blog).

      The bottom line for me is the desire for Lutherans simply to be honest about our theology and practice. Sure, I think we can learn some things from other perspectives. But when the theology of such perspectives begins to redefine our Lutheran theology and practice, then I have serious concerns. If someone wants to hold to that theology, fine. But I ask that they simply be honest about it and not try to “Lutheranize” what simply cannot, in good conscience and faithful theology, be “Lutheranized” (i.e. the demand to be missional cannot be said to be the core of the Gospel. Lutheran theology says the Gospel makes no demands.)

      Thanks again for your thoughts!

      Yours,

      Rev. Woodford

  3. Dear Reverend Woodford,

    Thank you for your gracious reply. I do hope there will be many pastors who will join in this conversation with you on your blog. You are very well spoken in saying Lutheranism is both/and in it’s care for the laity and in reaching out to the lost. If my LCMS laywoman’s concerns will not harm the atmosphere that you are seeking to have on this blog… may I say I do pray that your brother pastors in the LCMS, who have been enamored by the missional movement, will be won back?

    Something these pastors may not have thought about are the Christians who can’t find Christ in American evangelicalism and are looking for him, and those who have given up and no longer go to church? I came from an evangelical background and it took many years and many cycles of looking and giving up before I finally found the Christ I knew as a child while reading some books by Lutheran writers. It was then that I specifically sought out a confessional LCMS church. I have learned to love and appreciate confessional Lutheranism wholeheartedly and with deep gratitude.

    As a laywoman, it’s very disconcerting to see the very things I was trying to escape and that were destructive to my faith, being mistaken for evangelism by the missional movement fans. I wish these missional pastors understood the problems in American evangelicalism and were seeking to help those who are seeking Christ and not another Christian social club with it’s own entertainment venue. I wish they were interested in those who have been crushed by the rampant legalism in evangelicalism and open to helping those whose faith is starving/dying from the fluff in so much of American evangelicalism. IMNSHO, only confessional Lutheranism has the unadulterated gospel of Jesus Christ – our life and food. The sane and medicinal properties of confessional Lutheran theology is the best medicine for those harmed by the very same churches they seek to imitate (not opinionated, am I?). I guess my plea is that these missionalizer LCMS pastors and laymen would wake up and smell the Lutheran Rose.

    I don’t know if you’ve already seen this video of a “Contagious Christmas” at an LCMS church this last Christmas; it boggles my mind. It’s hard for me to understand why any Lutheran pastor would willingly or knowingly exchange pure gold for dross. The end of the video calls what they did worship dance and applauds the creator of the performance. I wish they could see that left-hand kingdom entertainment is not right-hand kingdom worship.

  4. Yikes! I apologize for the link embedding the video on your blog. I thought it was only a link. Again, I apologize.

  5. I guess once again, I just see the issue as being on of balance. Right now, where is the American church? Where does the balance need to be struck? Guys like Piper and others are trying to get the church to move in a particular direction.

    You need the law to do that.

    And maybe some exaggeration — Luther certainly used exaggeration; so did Jesus (“pluck out your eye”) — is needed.

    Do we need to proclaim the Gospel to the Found? Sure. We need to build them up—but didn’t he cover that in the Zealous senders? Not everyone goes.

    It is all very well to proclaim the Gospel to people—they do need to hear it. But Jesus did not proclaim the Gospel to people when they were disobedient. He didn’t tell the man who begged off following him to bury his father “Brother, you are forgiven! Follow me and live in hope!”

    No he told him the dead will bury the dead. (I question Jesus’ view of vocation myself—I think rather we have people to bury the dead. Maybe Jesus was wrong. Or exaggerating. Or maybe he was just trying to guilt this guy into acting right…either way, shame on Him!)

    I think that you are just missing the punch of Jesus and His words. I think that you are missing the radical call that Jesus gives. There is a certain comfortableness that is allowed in society to express our religious beliefs and live out our lives—and I question whether guys like Piper and the like are just challenging whether these societal rules are accurate.

    I don’t think they would disagree with you about the need for the Gospel. I had a member go listen to the author of Radical, David Platt speak. There was nothing said from the book Radical—all of it was simply an overview of Scripture.

    I think these guys get it. I think that if you want to judge them, you ought to judge the whole of what they say. If you want to judge a part, you really ought to judge parts of Jesus as well. “Let the dead bury their dead”? THAT is irresponsible theology, don’t you agree?

    • Dear Rev. Louderback,

      Great to hear from you again! Perhaps it’s worthwhile to discuss the nature of what Jesus said and the nature of what he did. Of course we realize that His ministry was more than what he said, and culminated in what he did, where they are both taken together as a whole. But for our discussion here, how does all of that play out as we try to get people (and the church) to move in one direction or another?

      I think our fundamental difference in approach comes in how we perceive that direction to be accomplished. You note it is by the law. But I contend it’s by the Gospel. I contend that the law cannot produce our good works, love for our neighbor, or desire to serve them. It can tell us what God wants, but I contend that the desire to do that comes from the Gospel and its freeing power on us and in us. And there comes with that the reality that the Holy Spirit will work when and where he pleases. I think the challenge for many comes when they are not seeing the results they want, in the time they want, and so they defer to the law to try speed it up or make it happen.

      What is more, I think there were times when Jesus did proclaim the Gospel when people where disobedient. Most notably, those who were nailing him to the cross, “Father forgive them for they know not what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34). My point is that, like Jesus words “to let the dead bury the dead,” there is a context that each flows out of that helps us see if they are definitively descriptive, prescriptive, or perhaps a combination of both. I don’t think Jesus words to the disciple who wanted to bury his father were prescriptive for all time. I think those particular words were specific to that disciple at that time, but certainly do provide a perspective on how we live as His disciples.

      Even more, Jesus certainly affirms the honor that is due to parents with other words (Matthew 15:4), which is also part of being His disciples. He also comes to Lazarus’s grave, and most notably, is Himself given a proper and honorable burial—to fulfill the scriptures no less (Isaiah 53:9)! Thus, as you note, there is a “balance” that we must maintain with the words of Jesus and the deeds of Jesus for us and what they mean for our lives and the life of the church.

      And, yes, as I noted in the post, I may not have given a full and fair treatment to Piper, but the point was that there must be recognition that our theologies (i.e. Piper as a Baptist and Lutherans) have different presuppositions, which will result in different conclusions on a host of issues. Some issues we have agreement. Others, particularly the sacraments and covenant theology, and therefore the nature of grace, will be profoundly different. For example Piper writes: “All covenants of God are conditional covenants of grace—both the old covenant and the new. They offer all sufficient grace for those who keep the covenant,” p.248. Future grace: The purifying power of living by faith. Lutherans obviously have a different take. But one simple implication of this understanding of grace/covenant is that those who don’t meet Piper’s definition of “zealous senders” or “zealous goers” are therefore not keeping the covenant and thus are actually outside of God’s grace.

      Yes, what Piper has to say about being zealous for the lost can be insightful. But when we adopt such approaches like his, there is the tendency (and I have documented this in other places in substantial fashion) to begin taking on the underlying theology that goes with it.

      As always, I appreciate the dialogue and value your perspective!

      Yours,

      Rev. Woodford

  6. I’m thinking it’s a frustration with Christianity’s lack of influence in the 1st world countries that drives PIper and others like him. In the 2nd and 3rd world countries, people are drinking in the gospel like the Samaritan woman at the well and telling all they know what has happened to them.

    We have become complacent in our Christian walk (we as in all denominations), and as such are Christian in name only. Taking that thought further, what separates us from the agnostic or athiest then? Not morality, not deeds of good works, but only our “affiliation.” Modern preachers and teachers are spending a great deal of energy getting those sheep back in a pen and are trying to clean them up – by having the sheep attempt to clean themselves rather than letting the master shepard do the washing.

    I think that’s the impetus for the law flinging we see so much of. They acknowledge the gospel as a given, but see our lack as evidence of breaking the law and the remedy is *more law*. Susan is correct in the sheep shifting, we gather few unchurched, just take in those that have been given a white wash of law or are straggling out in the woods.

    • Dear Mary,

      “Modern preachers and teachers are spending a great deal of energy getting those sheep back in a pen and are trying to clean them up – by having the sheep attempt to clean themselves rather than letting the master shepard do the washing.” Spot on! Especially as we just celebrated the Baptism of our Lord. Thanks again!

      Yours,

      Rev. Woodford

  7. Rev Woodford,

    Oh you say “Great to hear from you now” but we’ll see. 🙂

    You say:

    I think our fundamental difference in approach comes in how we perceive that direction to be accomplished. You note it is by the law. But I contend it’s by the Gospel. I contend that the law cannot produce our good works, love for our neighbor, or desire to serve them.

    Of course the Law can produce good works. How do you discipline your children? Do you merely tell them they are a sinner and that Christ died for them? Or do you say “What you did was wrong—this specific action—and you must not do it again!”

    I think that as Lutherans we have tangled ourselves in a Law-Gospel dichotomy that ends up just making no sense at all. And we ignore it when it comes to our actions—as I said, your own parenting is entirely focused on using the law to bring your children to act in a right way.

    This is not to say we do not show love to our children and I understand generally what you mean—a person may act correctly and do what is right and still those actions do not please God because they are not done in faith. But at the same time you ought to admit that part of the reason why we do the liturgy is so that people ACT in a certain way, whether they feel it or not.

    How do you get someone to love someone else? Have them act as if they do. Have them behave as if they do, even if thy don’t feel like it. This practice and action brings about the feeling.

    What doesn’t work is telling them “God’s Son has taken your sins away! You are forgiven!”

    As far as the words of Jesus goes, my point there is that Jesus is harder and softer than we imagine Him to be. His Law is pointed and accusing; His gospel more gracious than we can stand.

    We do a dis-service when we neuter Jesus and tone him down. So you say “I don’t think Jesus words to the disciple who wanted to bury his father were prescriptive for all time.” Well, how convenient that is. What about His words on adultery? Can we drop those as well?

    • Rev. Louderback,

      Point taken. I do not want to dismiss the third use of the law. (FC, Epitome, VI, Third use of Law, “The law has been given to men for three reasons: 1) to maintain external discipline against unruly and disobedient men, 2) to lead mean to a knowledge of their sin, 3) after they are reborn, and although the flesh still inheres in them, to give them on that account a definite rule according to which they should pattern and regulate their entire life.”

      Rather my aim is that the doctrine on which the church stands and falls is the Gospel – justification by faith. It is also therefore the foundation for the mission of the church. And yes, I can agree with you that we do a disservice when we neuter Jesus. What I suppose I’m constantly guarding against is a redefining of the church and her mission as one that flows out of a demand of obedience rather than a good news proclamation.

      Here again I think the Formula of Concord is helpful: “4. Concerning the distinction between works of the law and fruits of the Spirit we believe, teach, and confess that works done according to the law are, and are called, works of the law as long as they are extorted from people only under the coercion of punishments and the threat of God’s wrath. 5. Fruits of the spirit, however, are those works which the Spirit of God, who dwells in the believers, works through the regenerated, and which the regenerated perform in so far as they are reborn and do them as spontaneously as if they knew no command, threat, or reward. In this sense the children of God live in the law and walk according to the law of God. In his epistles St. Paul calls it the law of Christ and the law of the mind. Thus God’s children are ‘not under the law, but under grace’ (Rom. 7:23; 8:1, 14)” FC, Epitome, VI, 5 & 6.

      As always, I appreciate your perspective.

      Yours,

      Rev. Woodford

  8. Now, don’t get me wrong—I am attending a funeral this afternoon and the dead are not burying the dead—but the fact is that if you say to Jesus “My family obligations are preventing me from following you as a disciple”, you should expect that Jesus’ response will be “Screw that!” Or something equally pointed.

    So, where does that leave vocation and obligations to family? Well, this is what Piper is addressing, isn’t it? It is entirely too easy to rationalize and excuse our behavior and say “Well, I have good reason for not doing that…”

    Just as the Levite and the Priest had good reason for not stopping to help the beaten man.

    The call then is to examine our actions and say “Are we zealous? Are we lukewarm? Are we half-hearted? Are we making excuses? Do we use ‘vocation’ as a cop-out? (much like I use ‘I deserve me time’ as a way to let my wife handle parenting situations)”

    If we are doing this, we need to repent and turn away from this behavior.

    To me, the missional movement is simply asking this question. That is what I see the point as. That is all I want. Remember, my goal is to have each person invite ONE person to church per year. That would shatter all records.

    One person per year. Shatter all records of our church.

    Do you understand that inviting one person to church each year would be defined as “zealous” activity in our church body? Are you grasping this?

    As far as a person being outside of God’s grace, if a person showed up only once per year to church, you’d worry about their salvation wouldn’t you? Or do you consider that “zealous” behavior?

    • I can agree with the way you express things here. However, my take on Piper is that I’m not sure if he has a deep understanding of vocation. Rather, that in his zealousness he (intentionally or unintentionally) undermines the good and God ordered good that comes from the ordinary, mundane vocations of life, and creates a sense of guilt. But, true, I agree with you that we ought not hide behind our vocations either, but rather, as Luther expresses, celebrate that it is God who is hiding behind them!

      May our records be shattered!

  9. Ok. In closing, I fully understand that John Piper has some bad theology. That is what happens when you are not Lutheran — bad theology creeps in.

    But at the same time, I think you are deflecting the teeth of his accusation too quickly and giving congregational members an easy out. But Christ says “Pick up your cross and follow me!” He means for us to be zealous. He means for us to stick out. He means for us to be counter-cultural — shoot, that is a common mantra among the Confessional Lutherans of the Synod right? Isn’t the liturgy a counter-cultural element of the church?

    And yet, when it comes to being outside of the church, the message that is taught is “Blend in. Look like every other pagan.” I read an article the other day about pre-marital sex and Christians. What do we expect from our young adults? Do we expect them to abstain or not? And how would you teach that?

    Would their behavior not be zealous behavior? And no matter what, would not the Law be an important part of informing that behavior? Or do they need the Gospel? Obviously, they need both—I think that our dickering is merely one of “And how pointed does that Law have to be?”

    So, I echo the call to be zealous. And I agree that the only other option is disobedience. Would you agree to that idea generally?

    Good chatting with you about this. You still have the best thoughts on the subject.

    • Fair enough. I think I have a tendency (on this blog) to guard against theological aberrations and their resulting practices, while on the other hand, you may recognize those aberrations, but are more concerned that we not get lost in how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but in the earnest practice of our theology. I think, for the most part, we are on the same page generally, but tend to guard different turf, and therefore tend to be more comfortable providing wiggle room one way or the other depending on the turf we’re guarding.

      Thanks for keeping me on my toes!

  10. Pastor Woodford and Pastor QL, I got here late to the conversation but wanted you both to know I appreciated it. The points you both make are important and encourage me to study further and learn.

    Blessings,
    Mark Hunsaker

  11. It seems to me that the problem is not a lack of the Gospel in Piper or even that he gets the Law wrong but that the Law is allowed to predominate.

  12. Rev. Woodford. Thank you for your post and for your commentary. I grew up in a Reformed Church and later attended John Piper’s Church up until last Summer. I am now attending a confessional/liturgical LC-MS Church outside the Twin Cities. It seems you have interacted with Piper’s writings to some extent. Do you know of a good in depth study/critique of Piper’s theology from a confessional Lutheran perspective? I still have a number of friends that attend Piper’s Church and they are dumbfounded that I would leave for an LC-MS Church. Our relationships all remain very good and we can discuss these matters freely but I would like to be better prepared for discussions. Apart from some obvious differences with the Sacraments, I’m also looking for something that specifically interacts with Piper’s main books (Desiring God and Future Grace) from a systematic standpoint.

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