Good night and good luck

Posted: October 1, 2011 by J in Church

Thought we might as well start with something spicy.

I watched Clooney’s film Good Night and Good Luck the other night. It was pretty cool. Loved the complexity, and the Robert Altman-style layers of sound and action constantly running simultaneously (think Gosford Park). I get bored easily…

Anyway, it’s about the McCarthy era in the US, basically communist witch-hunts. Communism seems like the biggest threat facing mankind. McCarthy is destroying people’s lives by publically labelling them commies. The news guys at CBS decide to take him on. They discover that anyone who attacks McCarthy is likely themselves to be labelled communist. McCarthy sees his crusade as representing America. Hence to oppose him is to be un-American. What Murrow and company at CBS object to is the climate of fear this created, and the way it stopped people freely associating, expressing their views, etc.

Nowadays of course no one worries much about the communist threat. The West has moved on, we’re in a post-Communist-threat world.

I couldn’t help seeing parallels with the church scene I’m part of. We’re evangelicals. And we’ve spent the whole of the past century fighting against theological liberals, both elsewhere and also in our own ranks. There’s been a sense that anyone could at any time start going liberal, get infected so to speak, reject the authority of Scripture, and defect to the other side. The enemy is everywhere, the enemy could be any one of us. We live in a constant state of vigilance.

We’ve tended to identify doctrinal faithfulness with certain leaders, big men we could call them, so that loyalty to them was a sign of orthodoxy, and conversely any criticism a sign of suspicious doctrine. Of course the big men change over the generations, but we always have them, and we always rally around them. After all it’s a war you know.

The liberal threat shows different faces over the generations too. 80 years ago it was the doctrine of the virgin birth that was the litmus test of orthodoxy/heresy. Later it was the historicity of Scripture narratives (esp. the Gospels). More recently divergent views of justification and Pauline theology have been the threat. It’s always something. The threat’s always there.

When a leader is identified as having crossed over, things can get ugly. I’ve seen ministers labelled and cast out. Ostracised. Denigrated. They become the enemy within. I’ve been warned against going to work at certain churches, because my reputation would suffer. I’ve seen people rehabilitate their rep by linking up with ‘kosher’ churches. Seriously.

We’ve had these habits of mind for a long time, they’re deeply ingrained by now. We feel that maintaining evangelical orthodoxy is like walking a knife edge, you could slip at any time. Our natural tendency is to fall away from it, reject the authority of Scripture, and smash our faith in the deep ravines of liberalism. Only constant vigilance can keep our churches from this terrible fate. I grew up in this mind set.

Well, now I’m going to out myself. I’m afraid I’ve started to doubt. I’m just not sure any more about that knife-edge. I’m not sure about the whole threat. I know there’s heaps of liberal Christians out there. But I don’t feel so sure that liberal rejection of the Bible’s authority is the natural temptation of all people. I’ve been a Christian for a few decades now. I’ve known heaps of evangelicals in that time, and the huge majority of them have stayed pretty committed to a high view of Scripture. When I try to look into my own heart, I find many sins and temptations there. But the temptation to embrace  a Christianity that denigrates Scripture is just not one of them. I had heaps of mates at college,  none of them seemed inclined to lower the status of Scripture. They loved it. They revered it. They still do.

So here’s my thought. Could it be that the liberal threat which had come to seem like the natural state of things, could it be that it was just a phase? A long phase, granted, a whole century. But could it be that we’re now entering a post-liberal era? An era when Christians generally won’t be tempted in that direction? Could it be that the war is ending, and we can kind of… give up the hunt?

If I can speak again for myself and some of my closest Christian friends who are in ministry, I think for us the authority of Scripture is a sort of given. It’s just not an issue. Inspiration by the Holy Spirit, we get it. We believe it. We don’t worry about it. We kind of – I know this is going to sound bad, but it gets the point across – we kind of take it for granted. In the struggles and controversies of fighting the good fight, it simply isn’t where the action is.

In fact, a lot of the questions that liberals and evangelicals fought over, seem very dated to us. “Can miracles happen?” That just sounds so modernist and unsophisticated. We’re asking, “how does God’s action in the world leave us space for real agency as creatures in his image?” – and we’re wanting trinitarian answers.

“Is the new testament history?” For us the historicity of the Gospels is a given. We accept it. We don’t stress about it. We’re more interested in, why did the apostolic circle feel it necessary to tell the history four times over, borrowing so much from each other’s accounts? Was there something each of them felt hadn’t been said by the earlier Gospels? What were Luke and John and Matthew trying to say by telling the story the way they told it? Yup, we’re more interested in narrative issues and theology than in revisiting historicity. There are a few people out there who reject Christ because they can’t accept the historicity of the story. A couple of people I’ve met even remember the Da Vinci Code! But for every one of them, I reckon there’s a thousand who ignore Jesus because his people don’t seem to have a compelling and convincing vision for life to offer them. Historicity just isn’t where the battle is.

So there it is, I’ve come out of the closet. Not bad for the first post of a new blog! I have begun to doubt if the war is still on. I don’t feel the need to rally around anyone, except Jesus. I might be seriously naive. I may be totally misguided. If I am, please let me know! But I seem to be living in a post-liberal Christian scene. So I’m calling it the way I see it. Good night and good luck.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. mike w says:

    On the other hand, the witchhunts do send people out into new fields to love Jesus instead of being caught in power politics.
    One of the biggest losses of the McCarthy era was the loss of moral and political discussion. The climate of fear shuts down all sorts of discourse that has nothing to do with communism/ theological liberalism, and we are all the poorer for it.
    Most people just dont have the guts to get on with good work without becoming embittered. Take a look at the history of Youthworks college on their website, for example.
    Now, we all love Youthworks and the amazing work it does. Then, it was a trojan horse which will lead us astray.

  2. Mike S says:

    Are we in a post liberal world? I dunno. In my observation, ‘liberalism’ creeps around the 10-year-of-ministry mark.
    My family is involved in the liberal side of the Methodist church in NZ, and I’ve heard stuff like: the best source of liberal ministers is not liberal churches but disaffected middle-aged evangelicals.

    Now, many of you know that I’m no fire-breathing red-neck. I think that some of our litmus test topic are the result of evangelicals disagreeing over what the Bible says, not disagreeing over the nature of scripture (yes, I mean the whole new perspective storm in a teacup). But I see a real down-the-road danger of people moving away from the evangelical fold.

    I think there is need for vigilance. Be alert, not alarmed.

    But that is a LONG way away from name-calling and witch-hunting, which I think is the real ‘problem’ that this article highlights. In my mind, the issue is not being alert, it is HOW we are alert and how we respond to people whom we think need some loving warning.

    Oh, and mixing up people who read the bible differently to us and people who don’t take it seriously.

    • Jonathan says:

      That’s interesting, Mike. What do you think is disaffecting evangelical leaders 10 years out? And why does that point them in a liberal direction?

      You say

      “I see a real down-the-road danger of people moving away from the evangelical fold.”

      What makes you think this danger is real? Why more likely than, say people moving into the evangelical fold down the road?

  3. Chris S says:

    Hey all, a couple of thoughts from my location at the moment:

    1) I have trouble thinking ‘post-liberal’ from here, because ‘liberalism’ (though that is a very slippery and many sided term, as is ‘evangelical’) is just part of the furniture in Anglicanism over here. There are people in all places on a sort of a spectrum (with Anglo-Catholicism being a big part of the mix too), but it certainly not a non-issue. And for the record I am learning a lot from pretty much everyone.
    2) Doctrine of Scripture becomes a much more live issue when you are in a place that doesn’t have a basically shared doctrine of Scripture – eg differences in view of whether we are looking for a ‘whole Bible’ picture of some question or other, or instead looking for a true or dominant strand amongst many conflicting (and sometimes mutually exclusive) possibilities that are in different parts of Scripture. There is more to it than that, but I think it becomes a big issue again.
    3) I think that most (not all, but most) who would self identify as liberal (or something similar), or as neither liberal nor evangelical, would have at one time self identified as evangelical or something similar here.
    4) It is probably true that most younger leaders of the church here think many of the arguments you mentioned were pretty modernist and eg they think ‘can miracles happen’ is a bit of a modernist non-issue. Many seem to have more angst over whether this gospel thing changes anyone. It will remain to be seen how this plays out in the future.

    Last little thing – I would have to say, despite my last point, a number of people I have already chatted to have had doubt etc struggles re historicity questions, though most of them tied up with what happens today and how that fits with what happened then. I do think historicity questions are still important for many, though they are not just plain historicity – it has to do with how we should be reading the different genres in Scripture – again that is my perception. Sometimes this may be the case, I suspect, for more people than we think, as the lack of open talk about doubt means many suffer quietly or perhaps quietly disappear. But tha, again is a theory.
    And maybe I just attract people who are like me 

    Love yas, God bless
    C

    • Jonathan says:

      Great comments Sparky,

      On 1), yeah the scene in NZ is different from Sydney, no question. Obviously I’m talking mainly about our scene here. Glad to hear you’re open to learn from all brands of Christian.

      2) this thing about competing strands in Scripture, is that coming from a doctrine that doesn’t uphold the unity of Scripture? Just trying to understand.
      We have trouble here too with how to approach Scripture for answers: e,g, the proof-texting approach vs the whole-of-Scripture approach (biblical theology). But those differences are within evangelicalism!

      3) This is your most relevant point for my discussion. What’s going on there? Are they starting life as evangelicals and going liberal? OR are they dabbling in the evangelical movement then moving on? Is it a general direction falling away from evangelical faith, or just a lot of flux?

      4) totally. Hard to worry about abstract arguments re. whether miracles can happen, when you’re just hoping and praying to see some! I think this argument (against miracles) has just about disappeared, don’t expect it’s coming back to church any time soon. The kind of scientific/rationalist mindset that started that debate has been declining all my lifetime.

      Your last comment is very interesting. “though they are not just plain historicity – it has to do with how we should be reading the different genres in Scripture”
      Now that’s a live discussion! One that’s going on right inside the evangelical fold. Not ‘Is the NT history’ but ‘Is the NT trying to be history?’ Actually, I think we apply it more to the OT at the moment. But I can imagine others asking this of the gospels. The answer to this is going to be largely a literary one, not a scientific one (archaeology etc), I reckon. And I’m happy to disagree with, say, you, about the basic historicity of Jonah or Ruth or Daniel (I am pro-historicity btw). But not of Exodus or 2 Kings or Luke!

      On DOUBT, I see it as a fairly different (though related) issue. I sometimes doubt if there is a God or if Jesus is ever going to return. I can imagine rejecting Christian faith. But I can’t see much sense in keeping on identifying as a Christian or teaching in a church afterwards! For me, doubt is about the whole package of Christianity. But if I’m going to be a Christian, I reckon I’ll believe the Bible!

      • Chris S says:

        Hmm, thanks Jonno. Just getting to make a couple of answers to your Qs now. Really do quite like this discussion, even though I’m not all that good at bogg-ish things. to your Qs re my points:
        1) sweet. One thing studying Luke in depth taught me (and you can resonate with this I suspect), and especially studying it with Peter Bolt (his attitude with this stuff is outstanding and really generous, which is I think why he is such an astounding scholar, and bible reader in general), is anyone who has a serious interest in Scripture is likely to have some insight into it – and liberal-ish German scholars certainly do. So I figure everyone has things to learn from – both positively and negatively.

        2) re competing strands in Scripture – yep I think that is part of it – there is often an assumption (and this is VERY widespread) that Scripture is not basically unified, and there SEEMS to be (I could be wrong here) a real feeling that certain texts (eg the OT ‘texts of terror’, and some NT ones too) are not compatibile with the gospel. This gives us a hermeneutic that lets us elimnate certain parts of Scripture rather than try to listenb to it again to see if we have heard it right, or be prepared to readjust our perception of what is ‘right’ in the first place. I feel this myself with certain texts, and at times have felt it intensely (there was a while there in my darkest times in 3rd year that just about evey text seemed like a text of terror for historico-doubt reasons!). but that is what I mean I think – a lot of it has to do with an attitudal stance towards Scripture to begin with I think. But that is another little theory I am playing with at the moment.

        3) I realise this is the key point for your discussion – but in many ways it is far too early for me to say – I am only getting to know a lot of the people across a wide spectrum now. I think many who converted to Xny at some stage converted to something evangelical-ish looking, but some have moved away. Not many convert to liberalish type faith, as it often doesn’t call for a decision of that type. The one or two I have had good discussions with so far on this type of stuff have had existential crises tied up with both scholarship and other lifge issues. but the reality is we are such intertwined creatures that who knows what the causes were. But I would say the spong/Hick type experiences are similar to a few of the guys I have chatted to. An interesting point with that – the most prominent guy I can think of who has had a similar very prominent experience to the Spong/Hick thing is probably Bart ehrman – but interestingly he is now a scholar and not a churchman – perhaps a little similar to what you were saying in another post about many being athiests etc rather than in the church now – I wonder if this is generational to some degree. Not sure.

        Your last couple of points re doubt and the rest are interesting. I kinda agree – I think when I was in deepest doubt I was kinda thinking ‘I’m either in this or right out of it’. But if I went through that in an environment where I could see examples of people who saw a third option (a strongly liberal churchmanship) would I have thought differently? Not sure.
        But also, I think the hiostoricity / miracles thing is for some people an issue still – I know of people I speak to who have real questions about that – it goes ‘if I don’t see it now, did they really see it then?’ Which then becomes a question of historicity, along with other philosophical issues, but not apart from historicity I think. I agree the literary thing has a lot to contribute here, and is in fact primary (in fact most of the arguments against eg Gospel historicity are in fact primarily literary anyway now, as they argue along the lines of ‘this is how people thought then, and we know differently’). Anyway, the people who are having such doubts that I am talking to are inside the church – it is a question for them, in many cases I think, of moving outside the church rather than going to a different sort of churchmanship, but it is an issue for real people inside the church at the moment.

        I can’t write short comments. I need to learn!
        God bless

  4. Mike S says:

    Chris’ location ain’t too far from my family’s (well, wrong Island, but we’ll forgive him)

    Though not normative, I think the stories we hear from people like Spong and Hicks are very informative about the thinking and questions that takes a person from evangelical to otherwise. Rob Bell also gives us an important warning – his latest book (excellent review here: http://www.youthworks.net/articles/book-review-love-wins-by-rob-bell/) starts with difficult questions and examples of hard-line evangelicals being unloving, and then moves to a theological conclusion based – in part – on those examples.

    Questions about the genre of the Bible also get weird. While I’m quite on the ‘left’ of those discussions (not a literalistic person), I still see a great danger of people choosing the genre they want for a text that allows them to avoid things that they don’t like. Where is the line between calling Genesis 1-11 ‘mythological’ and Isaiah ‘prophecy ex eventu’ and then deciding that Paul didn’t really mean to be giving universal instructions, and Jesus’ resurrection was ‘spiritual’?

    When does genre become liberalism?

    Discuss. 3000 words, +/- 10%

    • Jonathan says:

      Thanks for commenting, Mike! Nice to hear your thoughts.

      You say

      “I still see a great danger of people choosing the genre they want for a text that allows them to avoid things that they don’t like.”

      Granted. No doubt the Spongs of this world will do so. Unbelievers everywhere will continue to mistreat Scripture and denigrate Christian faith. But will God’s people? Is the Spirit-filled community of Jesus really in such grave danger of treating Scripture with this sort of dishonest contempt? Given that this discussion is about the (alleged) danger of evangelicals sliding into liberalism, and given your previous post, I think I’m hearing you say you think we are in this ‘great danger’. What makes you think so? You don’t see the Hicks etc as normative, you said. Spong, was he ever evangelical? Where are your fears coming from?

  5. Mike S says:

    I’m simply warning that our current passion for the scriptures amongst us newly graduated will be assaulted on all sides by the world, by liberal scholarship, by hard experiences and by Satan. Personal vigilance is vital.

    I agree that there is no justification for McCarthy-style watching your neighbour. But this is not the same as individual resting on our laurels and thinking that a shift in the philosophical winds will make guarding our faith and doctrine easy. We need to be accountable to our close friends.

    What I’m hearing from you is a rejection of some of the things that we hear about self-appointed groups of doctrinal purity labelling other people without any recourse or discussion. That is wrong, abhorrent and non-Christian. Do not hear me defending that atmosphere.

    HOWEVER, the reality is that we are all individually in danger of laziness, doubt, fear or whatever it is that will drag us away from full faith in the scriptures and move us towards grabbing that intellectually-easy outlet that lets us ignore bits of the Bible that are too hard for us to handle.

    There is a terrible statistic that Archie was quoting about the number of Moore grads who leave the ministry, and some who leave the faith. I wonder how many of them started by questioning the role or authority of scripture (either mentally or, more subtly, in their practice by failing to turn to the scriptures for their strength)

    While McCarthy was off being crazy, there were other people (mostly CIA because the FBI was just as crazy) who ran very subtle anti-espionage operations. Some simply involved a quiet word of warning to those people who were starting to drift towards communism. Maybe that is an image of value to us. The quiet word of warning, encouragement, or love that will strengthen our brother or sister in their moment of doubt and help them to continue trusting in God and his Word.

    • Jonathan says:

      Mike, you’re certainly right that perseverance in the ministry is not a given. And I totally agree about accountability. I meet with some mates from our year as often as poss, for that purpose.

      I am scared of doubt and unbelief, and I’m scared of the trials and suffering that lies ahead for anyone who is faithful to Jesus. I am scared of becoming one of Archie’s stats.

      I’m just not scared of liberal scholarship. I’ve read heaps of it, it just doesn’t seem that threatening to me. I grew up in a liberal church, and when I was converted I couldn’t stand that place.

      I think I’m heaps more likely to become the doctrine police than I am to slide liberalwise. I’ve been the doctrine police. That’s a real temptation for me. (I hear you that you’re not defending that sort of behaviour. I get that).

      I used to be a bit hypercalvinist too. That’s a temptation for me.

      I used to be a literalistic proof-texter. That still appeals in some ways (it felt so simple and concrete).

      The temptations you’re describing seem to me to lie in the other direction. Maybe I’m the odd one out, and most people are tempted as you describe. But for me personally, what you’re saying doesn’t resonate. After 27 years as a Christian, I still haven’t felt the tug of liberalism.

      I agree that vigilance is needed in the Christian life. Definitely. There are real dangers ahead. Just not sure I’m convinced that those are the main ones for our scene. Can’t help thinking, it would be a pity if we put our energies into guarding against threats that didn’t come, and overlooked more pressing dangers.

      Open to have my thinking corrected!

  6. mike w says:

    Fair comments from Mike and Chris. It is much harder to write off liberalism when you are watchinng the damage it does.

    The genre question is interesting. I wonder whether it comes from affirming the doctrine of the authority of the scriptures, but not having a practice of reading the scriptures as they in fact are.

    How do you think a persons background affects this? That is, in my limited experience, christians who have been converted and nurtured by churches outside the influence of the particular ‘big man’ tend to remain evangelical even when the ‘big man’ (or cohorts) disagree with them. Their faith was never really dependent on the ‘big man’.
    The ten years into ministry observation is interesting. Is there a point you realise that the world isn’t what you thought it was? And then you come to doubt the scriptures rather than your particular take on them? Or is it a frustrated dream of changing the world?

    • Jonathan says:

      I wonder whether it comes from affirming the doctrine of the authority of the scriptures, but not having a practice of reading the scriptures as they in fact are.

      Could you clarify what you mean, brother?

  7. Mike S says:

    Jonathan, I think we’ve hit on something:
    “I grew up in a liberal church, and when I was converted I couldn’t stand that place.”

    The stories from Spong et al are the exact opposite – growing up in an evangelical church and then drifting leftwards.
    I suspect you do not feel the tug because you felt it early and were inoculated. You saw the result of it first hand, not just the fancy arguments on the page.

    I, on the other hand, have seen the results of unloving hyper-Calvinism, or unloving hell-talk, and do NOT feel the temptations you mention 🙂

    I think Mike is right when he suggests that upbringing has a lot to do with it.

    If that is the case, then it is worth noting that we have lots of people who have grown up in not-mentioned-here big evangelical churches that might have sown (subtle but important) seeds of disaffection.

  8. mike w says:

    Hi Jonathan,
    seeing Zizek on qanda reminded me of his concept of ‘master-signifiers’, that is a concept around which people rally which becomes empty of content, simply ideology.
    I think it is David Fitch who used this in a book ‘the end of evengelicalism’ (mostly directed at the states) around biblical innerency, conversionism and a christian nation. Basically arguing that they have become ideas to rally around rather than live out.
    Thats what I was getting at, people who will argue for the authority of scripture till blue in the face, but don’t actually pick it up and read, and so the concept of what is being declared as ‘inerrant'(or whatever) becomes essentially empty.

  9. Jez says:

    Guys, thanks for your helpful discussion. 2 quick thoughts that come to mind:

    1. Historicity of the Bible is still an issue for many of the young people that I come across. Many of my students want to challenge the Bible’s authority, claiming that it’s out of date, irrelevant etc. I’ve lost count of how many times this year I’ve been asked, ‘If Jesus loves everyone then why does he not love this group of people?’ (substitute gay, homosexual, greek, those who have sex before marriage). I can’t help but feel that liberalism has been assumed, without the students understanding all that goes with it.

    2. I have this comment running around in my head: believed by the first generation, assumed by the second generation, forgotten by the third generation. Does being reminded of the great battles of the past help us to keep believing them in the current generation? Eg, should we start questioning the need to always go over the battles of the Reformation? Whilst I agree I don’t want a witchhunt or to hold up strawmen unfairly, for me, by looking at these historical issues I’ve come to a greater appreciation of the challenges I now face to the scriptures. From this I want to keep being faithful to the scriptures, as orginally given, knowing that it is God’s power to save.

    That’s my two cents worth, although I’m sure you guys will have questions etc that will help me think more clearly about these issues:)

    • Jonathan says:

      Great comments Jez. Esp good to hear from the coalface of student ministry. I remember similar questions/challenges from students in my time as a teacher. Looking at your list of queries, out of date, irrelevant, unloving, prudish, anti-gay, etc – there seems to be a lot more going on here than questions of historicity. Sounds like ‘existential’ concerns are uppermost – issues of how Biblical faith relates to the here and now. Which certainly is what liberalism was trying to tackle in its own day. But I wonder if your kids are trying to decide whether to accept or reject Christian faith, rather than wondering which version of Christianity makes most sense, the liberal or the evangelical. (Most unbelievers out there are just plain atheists or pagans or whatever, not adherents of that specific kind of unbelief we call liberalism.) What do you reckon?

      I totally agree we need to know the history and remember and learn from it. My suggestion was just that we start to talk of it as history. rather than present. And you’re right about that 1st 2nd 3rd generation thing. it would be a great mistake to stop asserting the authority of Scripture (i prefer the term inspiration) and the historicity of the gospels, just because we’re confident about it. But we assert it because its important, not because its the thing our people are doubting most. I don’t think they are, anyway.

      I know you’ve got liberal Christianity in your family background like me, so these things are close to home. Thanks for sharing with us.

      • Jez says:

        Jonathan, I agree with you. I think they are trying to work out which version of Christianity they are willing to accept. Hence, the importance of making sure we know the differences and are ready to defend evangelical Christianity against liberalism.

        After reading many of my grandfather’s sermons, it seemed he started closer to the evangelical fold and then over time drifted towards liberalism and in the end would more confidently assert its teaching. In the end it seemed Christianity was a good moralistic teaching that had some answers to life but he couldn’t be sure exactly what they were.

        Looking at many of my students I see a similar tendency towards moralism, or just owning the name of Christian and not taking on the truths of the faith personally. Yes, they are trying to work out what they believe. The danger is not being wary of the paths they could go down.

        Maybe you’re right, maybe it is now more a historical argument, in the same way as we view the battles from further back in history. Maybe the way things are going is liberalism in a different form. Thanks for the feedback into my thoughts.

  10. Thanks Jez,
    I think that ‘believed by the first, ignored by second, rejected by third thing’ is interesting and true, but I’d love to see an analysis of how it happens. I agree with Jono, that these things should be beieved and affirmed because they are true. That way they are connected to real belief and faith and life. I reckon there is a real danger when they are reduced (not deliberately, but in practice) to ‘why these people are wrong’.
    A better strategy, and one I think we do reasonably well in Sydney, is to say, look at these truths, they are beautiful, good, life giving and well, true.
    Looking at the good, walking forward, we can avoid the pitfalls all around us, but pointing at a hole and backing away is a good way to fall into another hole.

  11. Matt Bales says:

    Jez and DFM, I thought it was converted in the first, assumed in the second, ignored in the third, and rejected in the fourth. Without any evidence (beyond looking at families I personally know) I’ve always ‘assumed’ the problem is the second generation of genuine Christians who don’t know how to make godly, counter-cultural life decisions. So their children are not necessarily convinced their parents believe in practice.
    Thoughts?

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