6 Questions for the #UMC Schismatics: Progressive Edition

humptydumpty
Humpty Dumpty, illustrated by Denslow, circa 1904. Courtesy Wikimedia commons.

My recent post questioning the conservative UMC schismatics garnered a wide range of responses, including many who called on me, in the name of fairness, to ask similar questions of those progressives in the UMC breaching covenant in various ways.  Though I had at least hinted at the end that I saw their actions as equally schismatic, I did not have time and space to then go into my questions for the left in  a similar fashion.  So, in this follow-up, I offer some questions to my liberal UMC neighbors:

1. What ever happened to doctrine?  Progressive Methodists excel at talking about and advocating for social justice, inclusion, tolerance, and diversity.  These are wonderful things, of course.  But often these terms are simply lifted from secular culture and deployed in progressive Christian circles with little to no theological content.  There are strong theological voices for progressive Christians to draw on, in the sexuality debate and beyond.  However, the seeming lack of interest that many progressives have in basic Christian orthodoxy gives moderates and conservatives concerns about the presence of foundational Christological and Trinitarian affirmations among our more left-leaning neighbors.  A little doctrine and theology would go a long way, not just in building trust in the church but in making your own arguments more plausible.  If you talk like a Unitarian Universalist, you can’t expect to be taken seriously in any discussion about church beliefs and structure.

2. When did celibacy become oppression?   I believe that there are valid concerns that the sexuality clauses of the Book of Discipline (BOD) are unevenly and unfairly enforced against our LGBT members and clergy candidates (outside of answering one written question that was not discussed, sex was not brought up at all throughout my ordination process). It is  fundamentally unjust to hold LGBT persons to the “celibacy in singleness, fidelity in marriage” clause (as marriage in the church is not, at present, an option) if we also do not take celibacy equally seriously among unmarried heterosexual Methodists.   By so doing the church is, quite literally, placing  “burdens too heavy to bear” upon our LGBT members and clergy candidates to which we are not willing or able to hold heterosexuals accountable (Acts 15:10).

That said, Christians have always – since Jesus and Paul – held that celibacy was a valid Christian vocation.  No doubt, in a world that idolizes sex, we need to be much more proactive in providing resources and showing grace to persons called to a single life, but this should be viewed as a positive vocation with a long history among our monastics, clergy, martyrs, and saints.  By itself, the Church’s call to celibacy in singleness is not oppression; our highest calling as a people dedicated to sanctification is not expression or intimacy but holiness.  In that regard, the Church of the 21st century would do well to recover the witness of celibate persons and lift up singleness in all the possibilities that it offers.  The debate over who should be celibate will and should go on, but celibacy as a valid calling for Christians should be unquestionable.  We worship Jesus, after all, not Freud or Kinsey.

3. Have you counted the cost?  Some folks did not like when I brought this up at the New York Annual Conference forum on Clergy Covenant and Human Sexuality, but it needs to be considered.  The regions where progressives dominate the church are not the healthiest parts of our communion.  There are more United Methodists in North Georgia than the whole of the Pacific Northwest.  A member of the Connectional Table informed me that many Annual Conferences have pension funds that are unsustainable.   Many others Annual Conferences can’t even pay the full bill for their episcopal leaders.   Meanwhile, the churches that are leading the charge for a formal schism in reaction to breaches of covenant by progressive UMs are mostly within (and would likely draw many supporters from) the South Central and Southeastern Jurisdictions.  These two jurisdictions alone “pay in” through apportionments a much larger percentage than their numbers represent – a rough estimate I’ve heard was that these regions represent 40% of the church numerically, but pay 70% of the apportionments.  How much will your ministries of justice, peace, and mercy – not to mention all those boards and agencies that we fought so hard to keep intact in 2012 – suffer if some of our largest churches pull out?  This is not to defend the tactic  – even though it seems to be getting popular with progressives now, also – but simply to say: you may get what you want, but at what cost?

4.  Can people of good will disagree with you?  Part of the trouble with binaries like liberation/oppression and justice/injustice is that they create a very simple narrative world in which those on one side are righteous and those on the other side are evil, if not sub-human.   I have seen traditionalists, the Book of Discipline, and even the UMC as  a whole labelled “homophobic,” “ignorant,” “oppressive,” “hateful,” and the like by those on the left.  At the Connectional Table dialogue last month, someone stated that “violence” had been done, presumably because one (fairly tepid) panelist kinda sorta defended the BOD. Violence? Hatred? Oppression?  Those are a very broad brushes with which to paint.

I have many conservative friends and colleagues.  I’ve sat down with some of the leading evangelical pastors in our denomination.  These are not people who fear or loathe LGBT persons.  You certainly won’t win them to your side by declaring that they do.  But this rhetoric persists.

Now, of course, homophobia, discrimination, and hate speech should have no place at all among God’s people.  Even Christians who do not see lesbian and gay relationships as valid expressions of God’s will should, in the name of Christian love, defend the persons in them from abuse.  Likewise, I believe (and think it should be a no-brainer) that the church should support efforts to make sure that gay and lesbian partners be given civil and legal recognition in matters of inheritance, visitation, etc. on par with heterosexual couples.  But on the matters of church discipline vis-a-vis marriage and ordination, I ask: is it possible to disagree with you about sexuality and still recognize each other as sisters and brothers in Christ?

5. What else is up for grabs?  I sense a concern from moderates and traditionalists about deeper divisions among us than just matters of church discipline and sexual ethics (see #1).  If whole conferences and jurisdictions feel justified, on principle, to ignore or disobey certain clearly defined parts of the BOD, what else can be ignored?  Progressives will sometimes argue that their current breaches of covenant “do no harm” to the rest of the UMC, and so should be allowed to follow their own path.  But if this persists – absent an agreement similar to Bishop Coyner’s recommendations – what else can be ignored, and how is the rest of the church to trust that this is the only area of the BOD that progressives will seek to pressure until it breaks?   When even left-leaning bishops do not seem particularly interested in listening their peers, there seems to be a legitimate concern that progressive United Methodists have no concept of authority outside of personal conscience.  A church full of self-appointed Luthers (of whatever ideological stripe) is going to find it difficult to live together and serve God’s redemptive and healing mission.

6. What is your end game?  I believe the vast majority of UM progressives, like their conservative neighbors, sincerely love Jesus and feel caught between their personal convictions and their love for and commitment to the UMC.  Those of us who disagree with their beliefs and/or actions should still be in prayer for them, as they are our beloved in Christ.  So I ask you, my progressive friends, the same question I asked the conservatives: what is your end game?  It seems pretty clear to most observers that, given the demographics, General Conference 2016 has little chance of removing the language related to marriage and ordination.  So, barring that, what can you live with?  Is an “agree to disagree” statement worth pursuing? Could you live with a United States Central Conference, that could have more flexibility (as all the other Central Conferences have presently) with what language to adopt around sexuality?    I hope, for the sake of a church that I truly love  and that  still has much to offer the world,  that there is something short of full victory (represented by a full excision of the LGBT clauses in the BOD) you are willing to accept – because continued “biblical obedience” may tear the church apart to such an extent that, like Humpty-Dumpty, it could not be put back together.

Conclusion

Ultimately, I don’t want to be in a church of only personal holiness or or only social justice.  As Methodists in the lineage of John and Charles Wesley, I think we really are at our best when we  strive to have our cake and eat it.  And so in asking tough questions of the schismatics on both ends of the spectrum in the UMC, it is in the service of this goal: that we might be one.

The old song was wrong: breaking up is not hard, it’s easy.  It’s what the rest of the Mainline has done.

I believe we can and should strive to do better.

23 thoughts on “6 Questions for the #UMC Schismatics: Progressive Edition”

  1. Meanwhile, just keep paying apportionments in full to keep us solvent. Methodists are now frantically trying to solve the riddle of lawlessness. And because we love the aesthetics of process more than anything else, we imagine a modus vivendi, an “arrangement” (however flimsy and meretricious) to which all parties surrender, that will save this church. Wishful, wishful…

    1. Gary, I cannot reply with as many big words as you have deployed, but I will say this: apportionments are not “to keep us solvent.” They are one aspect of our shared life together, our covenant. They are far from everything, but they certainly aren’t a small thing.

  2. Drew, thank you for your advocacy of celibacy. I would like to add that some celibate Christians (me for example) do NOT feel a particular sense of “call” to a celibate lifestyle. I personally feel called to seek first the kingdom of God. For me that has meant some personal sacrifice. It means putting God first.

    Sadly, during my 24 years of ministry, I have often felt unsupported by the church. My singleness has been viewed with suspicion rather than regarded as a reasonable choice for a follower of Christ. I believe that if the United Methodist Church honored deeply committed celibate, single Christians more than we tend to do, we might offer a powerful witness to those who are deeply troubled by sexual confusion.

    Frankly, I am tired of being “in the closet” as a single, celibate Christian. I think it is time for those who are celibate among us to speak up and take a “place at the table”. I don’t want pity, and I don’t like coping with suspicion. I want the honor and respect that I believe such a witness to Christ deserves.

    1. And I think you deserve that, Holly. There is a long history of seeing celibacy as an honored estate, but unfortunately – in one more instance of Protestant overreach – most communions outside of Rome and the Christian East don’t even have language to affirm it, much less support and nourish it.

  3. Great two-part post.
    On celibacy, I’ve heard folks attempt to deconstruct and refute Paul in light of contemporary understandings of human sexuality. These arguments seem to regard celibacy as inherent oppression… Relates to the personal conviction and aversion to authority issues you bring up too.

    1. Thanks, Billy. The things that are done to poor St. Paul in the name of englightened modernity are quite sad. Good observation that this relates to personal conviction/authority as well…because for most contemporary Westerners, the only authority is my personal conviction! And, as James said, “my brothers, this should not be” among us.

  4. Drew, I’ve been reading your thoughts for over a year now. I’ve gotta say I think this two-part series has been really helpful and profound. In my opinion, the most helpful stuff yet. I’ve read over the two articles several times now, and it hits me harder after each time. I’m done for now. But I thought it was important to let you know that this later article in dialogue with progressives feels a lot more convicting than the one against evangelicals. Does anyone else feel that way?

    I didn’t come to these articles from the center (I identify with the evangelical paradigm, although I do share you passion for our faith having a practical social impact), so maybe I’m being biased. However, after reading these two, it just feels so much more clearly that the progressive side is in more serious error. And I know that’s probably not what you’re going for, or what you would think a helpful comment to be. But you seriously just knock the legs out from under progressives here, while I think evangelicals still have a few legs to stand on after your previous article. I can’t think of any better concerns than what you raised in the previous article, but I still think that if the two sides are both right in some way, things should feel a little more equal at this point. Am I right in identifying the imbalance in the equation here, or am I just that biased?

    1. Jeffrey,

      I don’t think you are wrong to notice such an imbalance – it probably comes from my own background, by the way. I think the progressives are in more serious error, because I think it is ultimately more honorable to simply leave than to say, “If I can’t have this, no one can” and break it instead of enduring it or leaving with integrity. But I am probably harder on the conservatives because of my own history with fundamentalism; I get very nervous when UMCs start sounding a lot like the Southern Baptists I (at least thought that) I left behind. That said, I really don’t fit well into either camp, and I find serious errors in both – sometimes I’m better at calling out side versus the other. I appreciate your careful reading and commenting. Keep me honest! Peace to you.

  5. The African conferences and the Southeastern Jurisdiction together have 51% of the votes in Portland. They are 59% of the membership. The Southeastern Jurisdiction paid 35% of the total apportionments.

    The Western Jurisdiction has 3.4% of the votes in Portland. Therefore, over 95% of the delegates are going to travel over 1,500 miles to attend our “greenest” General Conference.

    The Western Jurisdiction is 2.9% of the membership. North Georgia AC has more members than the entire Western Jurisdiction, not just the Pacific Northwest.

    The Western Jurisdiction paid 6.2% of the total apportionments paid. They meet less of their obligations than any other jurisdiction (yes, even lower than Southeastern).

    Another way to look at it is that the $1.29 million the Western Jurisdiction paid to the Episcopal Fund is only enough to pay for four bishops. So, not only do they not pay for their own bishops (the only jurisdiction with that dubious distinction) but they pay NOTHING toward the central conferences’ bishops or the retirees.

  6. (1) Doctrine? I’m interested in theology and philosophy. I not familiar with “doctrine” other a bit of jargon used by Leninists — Trotskyists, Stalinists, and Maorists. I’ve tried read Jones’s bok on “Methodist doctrine”, but found it thin. Not heavy referenced or convincingly argued. My first question, upon rejoining the Methodist Church in 2005: what happened to Methodist philosophical theologians? Why do people ignore 20th Century Methodist thinking? Why not mention, no grappling with Bowne, Knudson, Brightman, Muelder, DeWolf, Schilling? The White Plains discussion opened with a mention of The Beloved Community, but Methodist bloggers seem not to have read Josiah Royce or the Boston “communitarian personalists”. Why not? A Methodist Sunday School teacher, Randall Auxier, has just finished a fine study of Royce that pulls in the Bowne/Brightman line of personalists. I’ve never seen a mention of Auxier, his “Time, Will, and Purpose”, or his earlier edition of the correspondence between Brightman and Charles Hartshorne. No Methodist bloggers seem to have read Gary Herrstein’s paper on Royce’s Beloved Community and Brightman’s ethics.

    I have yet to notice a discussion of John Cobb, a Methodist philosopher and theologian who builds on Hartshorne and Hartshornes teach, Alfred North Whitehead.

    It all reads as if Methodist divinity schools have forgotten the evolution from Methodism in the 1880s, when Bowne began to teach and publish, right through 2000.

    If Bowne, Brightman, DeWolf, Muelder, and Cobb did not contribute to what Jones calls “doctrine”, then what was the Methodist Episcopal Church doing for 100 years? Personal note: I joined he Methodist Church in 1960, when I turned 12. Our formal teaching of “doctrine” was on the Apostle’s Creed. Much later, after I had left intellectual and social history, I took a course in “classical American philosophy”, where I noticed that Brightman and his followers had educated Martin Luther King…a significant religious leader! See the repeated mentions of “persons” in King’s selected sermons, “Strength to Love”, and his final book: “Where do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?” I believe that King used Royce’s phrase, “The Beloved Community” while adding content from Boston’s “persons in community.

    (2) Q: When did celibacy become oppressive? A: When it became the only way that the UMC can accept a gay member or leader. Celibacy does not appeal to me, but if you want to try it, go ahead. I don;t know anyone ready to smack you on the wrist.

    (3) Q: Have we counted the cost? I haven’t but I do not want schism. (Pronounced “sizm”…not “skizm”. One thing I’ve retained from my intellectual history days.) I haven’t counted up apportionments, but I believe that my congregation, St Paul and St Andrews UMC, pays it full apportionment. We also pay to repair a building that is about 100 years old, and that got walloped by Superstorm Sandy. The old roof took a beating. Same with my study church, John Street Methodist.

    Two observations: (a) New York City is more like the rest of the country in that many people have drifted away from churches. A NY Times article noticed that New Yorkers now go to an art museum on Sundays to have a spiritual experience. I see many people lugging yoga mats around the subways. People still hunger for something, but most churches don’t offer it.

    (b) I grew up in DC, the border-south, with family in Virginia. Everyone went to church. That is no longer expected. What will happen in the SE Jurisdiction and in Texas when modern life sweeps through? The NY Annual Conference has seen the sweep and adjusted. Is the SE J ready?

    My unscientific suspicion is that Methodists in the SEJ behave and talk more and more like Southern Baptists. The MEC decided against “biblical literalism” and forms of “bible idolotry” more than 100 years ago: a “traditionalist demanded that Borden Parker Bowne, an ordained elder as well as an important philosopher, be tried for heresy. Bowne’s metaphysics insists that religious faith has no reason to assert Genesis, for instance, against the gathering of scientific evidence and the testing of hypothese against the evidence. Bowne also demonstrates that physics / cosmology has no business trying to prove the origin of all “things”. Science works empirically; it cannot work out the explanation for creation-events that cannot be seen.

    Yes, I’ve counted the cost: schism would be catastrophic because of what it would say about Methodism to outsiders. It’s not just the money.

    (4) Can people of good will disagree with me? Of course. I think they are mistaken. I happen to have grown up being afraid of “queers”, while making an exception for a cousin. He is OUR cousin, and I had know him all my life. However, the neighborhood kids, my friends and enemies at school, insisted that it was a living death to be identified as one of them. I thought I had “good will”. I suspect that most of the anti-gay-ness comes from what Methodists learned from their community. It was certainly nothing I learned in church. IN 1970, many of my college friends cam out. I was afraid at first…did it mean that I was one of Them? Were “they” looking at me the way I looked at women? Made me shiver. After a few months, the surprise wore off, and I discovered that my friends were the same people as always. Discovered, also, that some friends who thought they were gay actually were straight. Concluded that people remain the same people, and that sexual orientation exists along a continuum: everybody is somewhat his or that.

    (5) Q: What else is up for grabs? Not much. The ELCA has managed nicely after acknowledging that there are different opinions. The anti-gay article in the BoD is not being “violated” by individuals, but by the general sense of congregations, annual conferences, and now some bishops in those conference. A bishop has the power to decide whether a gay person should be charged and tried, or simply given the UMC equivalent of a jay-walking ticket. Bishop McLee has dne that, and NY Methodists generally approve.

    (6) Q; End game: something like the ELCA’s resolution, or like the statement from “the middle”.

    1. John, I won’t speak for Jones or anyone else, but I honestly don’t take any of those people you name as serious Wesleyan theologians. Maddox’s Extreme Center would be a more “academic” book on Wesleyan doctrine for you than Jones. I’m not sure why these folks aren’t talked about as much today, except to say that they didn’t take Wesley very seriously, so why should people who take Wesley seriously take them seriously? They were Protestant liberals through and through, and that was and is a dead end for the church.

      1. Hello, Drew,

        The Bowne/Brightman line of personalists represent the evolution of the last two centuries of Methodism. I find that they are brilliant Methodist theologians, though they don’t lean heavily on Wesley…in the same way that serious Lutherans don’t use page-after-page explicating Luther. I love Wesley and I’m proud to be part of a tradition that comes from him, but isn’t taking Wesley seriously a bit like antiquarianism. Yes, I read people who work over Locke and Hume (and Read), but the Bowne/Brightman thinkers grappled with Whitehead, the Niebuhrs, Troeltsch, Barth, Tillich, Kierkegard [sp?], Wieman, Dewey, and pretty much any other important twentieth century thinker.

        In doing that, they kept in step with the Methodist (Episcopal) Church as Methodists wrestled with “Darwin”, experimental science, ethics, child labor, unionization, women’s suffrage, women’s ordination, civil rights, and nuclear warfare. Cobb adds an interest in the environment along with his sharper focus on Whitehead, Hartshorne, and “process philosophy”.

        To repeat, I love Wesley. I’m fascinated by 1763 – 1815 in American history. However, I don’t pore over Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson for insights into Thomas Piketty’s research (“Capital in the 21st Century”) findings that globalization is re-creating the huge gap in social classes that America had in 1890.

        Herbert Croly argued (“The Promise of American Life”) in 1909 or so that American problems have to be solved by “Hamiltonian means toward Jeffersonian ends”. Croly felt that there was no way forward by cultivating 18th century solutions.

        Same with “back to Wesley”, if that means we think our way back to 1768.

        I don’t see Bowne/Brightman/DeWolf (and their student, Martin Luther King) as a dead end. Maybe it’s an advantage to be from the South (“…a good place to be from”, as we emigrated Southerners tell each other). Society and culture and church life, in the South, has not changed much since I was a kid. The Methodist Southeast Jurisdiction and the Texas conferences all seem “mis-timed”. The world and the rest of the country has changed. Americans no longer go to church because they are expected. (Standing joke in my old division of GE, which had offices all over the US and Canada: “In New York, you ask what people do for work; in Atlanta, you ask where they go to church; in Los Angeles you ask where they work out”).

        The South is crippled…crippled itself by building its society around slavery, and then Jim Crow (“slavery by another name”). It cannot stay crippled and isolated forever.

        As the isolation breaks, Methodism in Birmingham and Charlotte will face the same problems that Methodism has already faced in New York. If so, the Southeast Jurisdiction is running full-speed into the dead end.

        I’ll look for Maddox. Will you look for Josiah Royce, “Problem of Christianity”, in which Royce works out the reason for and the meaning of “the beloved community”.

        Look, also, for Randy Auxier…Methodist Sunday School teacher and professor of philosophy at Southern Illiniois, as well as chief editor of the critical edition of the works of Royce.

        Incidentally, I agree with the suggestion for a “middle way” between “progressives” and conservatives in the UMC. In fact, I agree with most of it. I don’t believe in a binary ethical choice: either absolute rules or “relativistic” ethics. I don’t know who defends relativist ethics. Certainly not Brightman or Muelder among Methodists, or John Rawls.

  7. I’d like to note that the concept of social justice is not just a vapid secular virtue lifted and deployed in the progressive church. It has strong biblical support in the prophetic texts and in Jesus’ ministry. Just because progressives have certain social stances doesn’t mean they have abandoned all doctrine and are “uninterested” in orthodoxy. Orthodoxy matters to a lot of progressives, as does the Bible. We just read it and interpret it differently. It’s not fair to act like everyone who thinks differently than you is somehow disloyal to church tradition or to the Bible. Thinking differently isn’t bad. It’s just different. Progressives don’t want to take anything away from anyone else in the UMC. We just want to be respected; to have a conversation in which our views aren’t insulted or dismissed and in which we are not accused of things that are really off base. Please take the time to really listen and understand. Only then can we have a productive and loving conversation in which we can evaluate one another’s hermeneutics and/or ethics.

    1. Carolyn,

      Thanks for stopping by. The fairest response I can probably give is to say that I have talked to pastors with major theological gifts (and doctorates) who are progressive and say the same thing. To further clarify, I am mostly talking a) about the most extreme/schismatic elements on the left, who rarely give much indication of interest in doctrine or deep theological reflection and b) about public perception and communication. I have no doubt that many progressive United Methodists are biblically faithful, doctrinally sound people – but in their public arguments and other materials this is not often in evidence. I said “a little theology would go a long way” not because I think most progressives and even progressive caucuses are incapable of this, but because they just aren’t intentional enough about the theological grounding of their positions.

      This would also relate to the discussion of a progressive credo like social justice. I think what progressive often mean by social justice is and can be a perfectly consistent position vis-a-vis Christian beliefs, witness, and mission. But again there are better ways to ground such work in the language and practices of the church. For instance, talk about God’s clear commitment to the other in Scripture, embodied in a Ruth or a Rahab, or John the Revelator’s vision of “every tribe and nation” demanding God’s vindication instead of some vague commitment to an (often superficial) “diversity.” Talk about the preferential option for the poor or the Biblical demand to serve the widow, orphan, and alien, instead of a benign virtue like “tolerance.” Otherwise one might be inclined to suspect that what progressives have done with social justice is lift a cultural concept and baptize it with the absolute minimum gospel content possible.

      Again, thanks for reading and for commenting. Peace.

      1. I agree with what you say about words like “diversity” and “tolerance” being vapid and mostly meaningless. As a current attendee of a self-identified progressive UM church, I can say that in our local parish, we don’t use those words often outside of coffee hour. The preferential option for the poor isn’t named in so many words, but the way you describe it is very similar to the way we speak. Obviously I can’t speak for other progressive churches, but that’s the case in ours… and we often ground what we say in Scripture, particularly Galatians 3:28, the Gospels (all of them), the prophets, and many more. Then again, our local church is made up of a disproportionate number of seminary-educated laypeople and those on their way to ordained ministry (including myself), and there is a heavy emphasis on lifelong learning in our CE programs. Folks who aren’t intentional about expanding their worldview can easily fall into rhetorical ruts and start to use certain shorthand terms that may not be helpful in dialogue with others who think differently.

        FWIW, I too have been disappointed in some of the materials coming out of left-leaning caucuses and I have made intentional decisions not to “like” them on FB or follow their tweets. Who knows who does the hiring for those groups or why they put out what they do. I can’t stand caucuses in general, but I can appreciate the value of the safe space they provide at conferences. In seminary, I found strong theological and biblical support for the views I now hold. So I really really wish our caucuses (all of them, left and right!) would make solid theological contributions to our ongoing theological task rather than simply serve as partisan news services or tents where we can hug it out.

        I appreciate your efforts to be fair in your response. Grace and peace to you as well.

  8. I think part of the tension with the caucuses is that they have to stoke outrage to build their support base and encourage giving (I see this on both sides). It’s a bit like cable news: though we all say we hate it, the alarmist stuff gets more clicks and eyeballs.

    Blessings as your pursue your vocation, Carolyn. Thanks for the exchange and please stop by again.

What do you think? Share your thoughts below...

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