NT Wright at ETS (part 2)

N.T. Wright presented the third plenary paper at the Evangelical Theological Society titled, “Justification Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.” And, he started things off by commenting on the title of the paper. He noted that some might assume this was a reference to the fact that the debate seems to be going on and on. But, the real purpose of the title was to say two things about justification. First, as an allusion to Hebrews 13:8, it points to the fact that justification is rooted in Jesus Christ, who is himself the same yesterday, today, and forever. Everything that we can say about God’s people, we say in virtue of who we are in relationship to him. And, second, the title refers to the “triple tense” of justification: we have been justified, we are currently being assured of our justification, and we will be justified in the eschaton. Wright argued that although we often speak of the three tenses of salvation, we rarely apply that same thinking to justification where it is equally important.

Wright moved from there into what he called his “preliminary remarks.” But, for preliminary remarks, they were pretty substantive.

  1. We badly need a new ethic of blogging. Wright expressed dismay over the state of Christian blogging and the lack of charity commonly exhibited in the blogosphere. (I think we can all attest to that unfortunate truth.) And, he called on people to blog on what he actually says and not on what they’ve decided in advance that he must actually think. Seems fair.
  2. Wright thinks some of his Protestant critics sound rather Catholic in their appeal to tradition. He expressed surprise that some people from Southern Seminary and Tyndale College have accused him of “biblicism” for his rejection of various traditional theological formulations. (Indeed, he commented that he’s not even sure what the term could possibly mean coming as a criticism from such quarters.) And, he pointed out that many of his critics sound like the Catholic theologians of Luther’s day—criticizing him for rejecting long-held teachings of the Church and questioning his appeal to the Bible as having authority over all traditions.
  3. Wright argued that the doctrine of Scripture is grounded in the unrepeatable nature of the revelatory events. The life, death, and resurrection of Christ are not simply illustrations of universal truths, but are unrepeatable historical events. Thus, the text has to be understood in that unrepeatable context. We can’t simply take our own questions and situations as normative, forcing the text to speak to them on our terms. Unless we are willing to understand the historical, cultural, and linguistic context of these writings, we will inevitably “demythologize” them.
  4. Finally, he responded to accusations that he focuses too much on minute word studies or on big-picture narratives. He commented that it’s rather ironic, then, that he’s critiqued both for focusing too much on details and too much on the big picture. But, he argued that both are clearly needed. We can’t neglect the details of the text if we are to take the text seriously. And, we all bring a big-picture narrative to the text. It’s not a question of whether you do so, but whether your narrative matches the one given in the text itself.  (As a side note, he made it very clear in this section that he sees his position as related to but decidedly different from that of E.P. Sanders and is obviously tired of being lumped in one pot with him.)

With these “preliminaries” out of the way, Wright launched into the issue of justification.

  1. The relationship of justification and soteriology. I’m going to try and say this more clearly than I think Wright did. In a number of places, Wright suggests that justification is not about soteriology. That is actually an overstatement of his own position. As he made clear in the course of his presentation and subsequent discussion, justification does occur within a broader soteriological framework. So, justification does have to do with salvation. But, Wright’s concern is to emphasize that justification has nothing to do with entering into salvation. And, he wants to make clear that, according to him, when Paul is talking about justification, salvific issues are background rather than foreground issues.
  2. The nature of justification. With this in mind, Wright goes on to state clearly his own position that justification is about declaring who is and who isn’t a member of God’s covenant people.  Wright spent considerable time on the law court background of justification language, arguing again that this metaphor is central to Paul’s theology of justification and refers to a forensic declaration that a person has a given status (i.e. member of the covenant community). And, he points specifically to Philippians 3 as a clear example where Paul rejects works of the Law as markers of covenantal identity, affirming instead the sufficiency of faith and grace for determining who is one of God’s people.
  3. The Reformed background of NPP. Wright reiterated the claim that his view of justification and the Law stands in direct continuity with that of Calvin. I forget where he first made this claim, but he again stated that if Calvin’s view of the had become dominant in Protestantism rather than the Lutheran view, a new perspective on Paul would not have been necessary.
  4. The importance of not “demythologizing” the text. Wright referred to this idea several times. By this he means that the traditional Protestant reading of certain texts tends to downplay the historical particulars of the situation, focusing instead on their transcendent, universally applicable, and often abstract truths. Wright certainly favors considering how these texts apply to us. But he wants to make sure that we’ve taken the historical realities of the text seriously first. So, he rejects any attempt to turn Abraham in Romans 4 or Galatians 3  into a mere example of faith. Instead, he contends that we need to see Abraham himself as central to Paul’s argument. Similarly, he thinks that we too quickly move past the sociological implications of Galatians 2 to what we think are the universal soteriological principles. Such moves are what Wright calls “demythologization” – ignoring the historical particularities in favor of abstract universalizations.
  5. The main point of justification. Wright concluded this section with a brief comment on the idea that justification language is always bound up with Israel and Messiah. There simply is no way to understand what Paul means by justification without this context.

Wright’s second main section dealt with the language of justification. Or, more specifically, with the question of what “reckoned as righteous” meant for Paul.

  1. The covenantal background of the reckoning. Probably the most interesting move in this section was Wright’s argument that “reckoned as righteous” refers to the gift of covenant community. Wright argued that both Psalm 106:31 and Genesis 15:6 connect the reckoning to reward of covenant community. Thus, Paul’s reference to Abraham being reckoned righteous apart from works does not refer to an imputation of Christ’s righteousness (more on this later), but to the fact that Abraham was blessed with covenant community because of his faith-response to God’s covenantal faithfulness (i.e. God’s “righteousness”).
  2. The definition of “righteousness”. Wright also made clear that he understands “righteousnesss” to refer to “covenantalness.” That is, whenever righteousness is used, it refers to the covenantal relations in some way. When used of God, it refers to his covenantal faithfulness; when used of humans it refers to status within the covenant.
  3. The law court analogy. Wright returned to the law court analogy here to explain that the ancient law courts always involve one person against another person (as opposed to modern law courts which are often state vs. person) in front of a judge who makes the final declaration. So, when God declares a person “righteous,” he is simply declaring a verdict in their favor. There is no “transfer” of righteousness (i.e. imputation) as though righteousness were a thing that could be passed from one person to another. So, the idea is that all humans are in the dock before God, but God has made covenantal promises to his people. So, the question is, how is God to work this out without abandoning his covenantal promises or declaring an unjust verdict? And, of course, the answer is given in the Messiah as the one who fulfills the purpose of humanity and renews the covenant people.

Wright then moved to an exegesis of particular passages. Unfortunately, by this point in the paper, he was running pretty short on time. So, he could only offer a few cursory comments.

  1. The exegetical basis of the argument. Wright started by arguing strongly that the debate should be driven by exegesis rather than tradition. And, he suggested that his critics need to spend more time on exegetical arguments, explaining how they read key passages and why his own readings are inadequate.
  2. 2. Romans 4:4-8. Wright started to get into this passage, but ended up cutting himself off short. Basically he argued that the “reward” needs to be understood in the context of Genesis 15:1, where the reward is covenant family. And, the “ungodly” (as in Galatians 3) are the people who have not yet been included in the covenantal family. So, Romans 4 is essentially the same as Genesis 15—God promises that he will create a covenantal family that will encompass all the nations of the earth through grace and faith.

Finally, Wright moved to a section on theological synthesis.

  1. Final justification. In one of the more helpful parts of the paper, Wright made it clear that he does not think final justification comes “on the basis of” works, but “in accordance with” works. This is the first time that I’ve heard Wright clearly articulate that final justification is not grounded in works. He does think that the final declaration of “justified” will be given with reference to works (cf. Rom. 2; 2 Cor 5; Rom. 14), but clearly states that Christ alone is the ground of final justification and that we will not earn or merit it.
  2. Assurance of justification. Wright was also very clear that his position should not cause anxiety about current justification. Justification is grounded in the work of Christ and applied through the work of the Spirit. So, I trust in both Jesus and the Spirit for the assurance of my own justification. As Wright states, you only get to Romans 8:39 by working through 8:1-30. God’s people have assurance now through the Spirit. Thus, future justification does not endanger present justification by faith in any way. According to Wright, “The verdict of the present is firm and secure….The pardon is free and firm and trustworthy. You can bet your life on it….Following that final verdict we will be more happy but not more secure.”
  3. Incorporation in Christ. I wish he had discussed this more, but he concluded this section by saying that he was fully in agreement with Kevin Vanhoozer that incorporation into Christ and adoption into God’s family are critical motifs with the potential for drawing together the various proposals. (The paper that he’s referring to is the one that Vanhoozer presented at the Wheaton conference. You can listen to it here.)

Wright concluded the paper with a powerful proclamation of the Gospel. He is obviously frustrated that people think that his approach undermines the Gospel. To the contrary, he contends that his approach fully affirms the Gospel of Jesus and the necessity of forgiveness, reconciliation, and redemption for salvation.

This post is already way too long as it is. So, I’ll wait until after I’ve summarized the responses before offering some evaluative comments of my own.

Advertisements

About Marc Cortez

Theology Prof and Dean at Western Seminary, husband, father, & blogger, who loves theology, church history, ministry, pop culture, books, and life in general.

Posted on November 20, 2010, in Salvation and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 51 Comments.

  1. I was surprised by your comment:

    “There is no ‘transfer’ of righteousness (i.e. imputation) as though righteousness were a thing that could be passed from one person to another.”

    One of the problems of the debate seems to be confusion over what ‘impute’ means – it isn’t used much in general conversation.

    One place I do use it (as an accountant) is in interest calculations: if I lend you $100 in exchange for $121 in two years time the ‘imputed’ interest rate is 10% p.a. (100×1.1×1.1=121). So what does ‘impute’ mean in this context: that I conclude the interest rate based on circumstancial evidence. It certainly doesn’t mean that I transfer an interest rate from somewhere else!

    And that usage fits well with the general use of λογιζομαι (which is what actually matters!): it’s a verb related to knowing, considering and concluding on a matter.

    And Wright tries to keep imputation within those bounds. “λογιζεται την πιστιν εις δικαιοσυνην” becomes observing faith and concluding them to be righteous – and the ecclesiological point is that if that’s enough evidence for God, then who are you to argue!

    But the issue is then not “Why are they righteous?” (union with the Messiah, a gratuitos gift) but “How do I know they are righteous?” (they have faith, conclusive evidence of prior union, effected by the Spirit)

    • Simon, that sounds like a good summary of Wight’s position. Wright did state that he would be willing to talk about the “imputation” of Christ’s righteousness as long as it was used in this sense – Christ is declared covenantally righteous and by extension so are all those who are his people. But Wright argues that the traditional notion of imputation requires an actual transfer of righteousness, and this is what he objects to.

      • Marc,

        Is not this a “Catholic-Orthodox” position..i.e. Wright. And certainly not Reformational-Reformed?

        Friendly question, 🙂

      • Well, for an amateur, it’s good to see that I might be understanding him!

        But why do theologians use ‘impute’ to mean transfer – when in standard english it means infer (approximately). Surely using a word to mean something completely different to its normal usage is bound to result in talking at cross-purposes.

        But, more importantly, what examples do we have of λογιζομαι being used in that way?

        I know people use the cases where it means to “set down to one’s account” (A.I.3 in LSJ). But the texts supporting this in LSJ (esp. Lysias 32.24) show that even in these cases it relates to considering someone liable for a debt, not transferring the liability. (In fact, the whole premise of the case is that the defendant has credited the liability to the orphans’ account and thereby misled the state, since the liability was not transferred – committing a fraud on the orphans).

        Now if we say, like Paul, “you can credit it to my account”, that’s a way of saying “I promise to pay” – and it’s the promise that results in the liability, not the crediting (which is only the book-keeping, after the event).

        Does that make any sense?

      • I don’t have the use for the Greek apparatus on my computer, but here we must look at the Greek words, Logizomai, to rekon or impute (Rom.4:6, 8, 11, 22-24 ; 2 Cor. 5:19). And Ellogao, to charge to one’s account (Rom.5:13).

        And here we can see it is not just used coventally, in the broad sense only, but personally and in faith. And this is the way the Reformers used it!

  2. N.T. Wright’s Pauline Theology? Where do we begin? It is one big headache to state. So I won’t even try myself. But there is simply no real firm exegesis here, but ideas of theological-historical judgments about the covenant, etc. And then a statement about being in full agreement with Vanhoozer’s theological position? Again, this is simply beyond strange! And my head hurts.. As I have said, let’s keep our Bibles open, and move more slowly with both exegesis, and church history: Catholic, Reformational-Reformed.

    Thanks Marc for all your critique’s! So much to try to chew on here. I am going to re-read Sander’s myself.

  3. PS..Marc, I have come to see that your blogging skills are simply one of the best theologically. You are the “Dean” sir! Thanks! 🙂

  4. Marc- Thanks again for these insightful recaps. These are the best recaps I have ever read concerning ETS/SBL sessions.

    Blessings,

    Matthew

  5. Thanks Marc for taking the time to post your comments. I wanted to be at the conference but could not attend.

  6. Can someone help me understanding what Wright is now affirming by choosing to use the phrase “according to” instead of “basis”?

    I know it isn’t that Wright has changed his view from the fact that good works earn our final salvation.

    In Piper’s NT wright book, he states that he is not concerned about Wright’s view of earning salvation?

    “In other words, Paul believes that all men will face a final judgment (law-court) in which people will “be vindicated, resurrected, shown to be the covenant people”- this is, justified by works. When he says “by works,” he does not mean by legalism or by merit or by earning, but by the obedience of our lives that is produced by the Holy Spirit through” (pg.104)

    So if the issue is not about our good works earning salvation what is Wright now affirming.

  7. Thanks very much for this helpful summary. Daniel, Wright himself actually left a comment on Denny Burk’s blog to make sure what he said about the final justification question (“on the basis of works” vs. “according to works”) is clearly understood–maybe that will help with your question.

  8. Jared, thanks for pointing out Wright comment on Burk’s blog. I had intended to include a comment on the “in accordance with” vs. “on the basis of” in my final reflections tomorrow. So, I’ll make sure that I refer to Wright’s comment there.

  9. Fr. Robert, I would not say that Wright’s argument is essentially Catholic. I started out reading Wright that way, but have since come to understand that his position moves in a very different orbit. At the very least, his understanding of justification as a forensic declaration of one’s membership in the covenant community is definitely not conducive to a Catholic rendering of justification. The one area where I thought his approach might border on a Catholic soteriology were his statements about final justification being on “the basis of” the life lived. But, his more recent clarifications that he actually does not see final justification as being on the basis of works helps clarify (for me, at least) how his view differs from a Catholic view. (More on this tomorrow.)

    • Marc,

      My point about Wright, is that he appears to be more of a social Protestant, but and also at least somewhat semi-Pelagian. Indeed his theology is really hard to define, neither Catholic or classic Protestant, Reformational-Reformed. And as someone has mentioned, it is affecting more classic Reformed churches now. And for me at least, I don’t see it for the better. I am not being negative fully, but just where do we place Wright theologically is my question? At least in Pauline theology and his NP.

      • I definitely would not consider Wright to be a semi-Pelagian. He is very clear when he explains the Gospel that salvation is initiated entirely by God. And, although he attributes more to works that Protestants are usually comfortable with, he is also quite clear (I think) that these works are always the result of God’s grace and the Spirit at work within us. So, for Wright, salvation is by grace through faith from beginning to end. He has been critiqued with somewhat more justice for having an essentially Catholic view, but I think his shift toward saying that final justification is “in accordance with” works rather than “on the basis of works” helps. I’ll comment more on that shift later today (I hope).

      • Marc,

        Looking forward to yours.. Yes, Wright is hard to define. Always questions and more questions! But we all come from some theological place. Reading Sanders is more helpful for me. Though of course Wright states real differences from him.

  10. Simon, I’m going to have to get back to you on that. I haven’t spent as much time as I should understanding the lexical arguments that Protestants have used in arguing for the traditional understanding of imputation. I just know that it is the traditional understanding and that Wright is arguing for something importantly different.

  11. Matthew and Chris, you’re welcome. It’s actually been a great experience for me to write out my understanding of what went on in those sessions. And, if I can pass that along to other as well, bonus!

  12. Thank you so much for providing the information on the debate. This is a really critical question for me now. My church used to use the language of the reformed view and seems to be moving toward N.T. Wright’s position and terminology. I am talking with the leadership about this change with as much kindness and gentleness as I can. I hope we can all continue to love and honor one another in this debate. Still, words matter, so for me understanding and expressing this issue of justification is incredibly important.

    • I hope it helps as you work through this with your church. I’m glad that it sounds like the discussion has gone well so far and I hope that continues to be the case. And, I definitely agree that “words matter,” so the issue is worth engaging carefully.

  13. I’m not sure that Wright represents the historic Reformed position regarding the word correctly. The historic Reformed position does not ostensibly treat imputation as impartation (although perhaps more recent popular descriptions may give that impression). In fact, it was the Roman Catholic position which has tended in that direction as far back as Augustine at least… perhaps because most of the Western Church did not know Greek.

    But the historic Reformed position is that (1) justification is a forensic (legal) declaration; and (2) it consists in Christ’s righteousness being reckoned as ours. In the beginning, this seems to have been more about the cross but came to take on the notion of Christ’s “active obedience” (= lawkeeping) being credited to us.

    Thus both Wright’s and the historic Reformed consensus are both forensic. Where they differ is that Wright notes that Romans 4 never says that Christ’s righteousness is reckoned to us, but that faith is reckoned as righteousness. And more basically, “the righteousness of God” (so prevalent in Romans 3, but also elsewhere) is not a reference to e.g. Christ’s lawkeeping but to His faithful embodiment/acting out of God’s covenant promises (an embodiment particularly carried out upon the cross). That is not the sort of thing that even makes any sense to “reckon” to someone else’s account.

    • Tim, thank you, that’s a good clarification. We should definitely be clear that in the traditional Protestant understanding of imputation the “transfer” of Christ’s righteousness is still forensic. It is, therefore, different from either the Catholic notion of impartation or the Orthodox notion of deification. So, the issue is not about whether justification is forensic, but about whether it involves imputation (in the traditional sense) and where it is located within the broader story of salvation.

    • This is where I was going with “Logizomai”.. Rom. 4:6,8,11, 22=24 / 2 Cor. 5:19. “Ellogao”, Rom.5:13.

  14. Marc,

    This is thoroughly good.

  15. Too many comments to see if this has been answered, but I think I first heard Wright align himself w. Calvin over against Luther at the Wheaton conference.

  16. Also, I’d add that I have been perplexed by how people understood Wright’s view of justification to be a form of work-righteousness. Wright has had a problem with imputation based on the question, “What of the Holy Spirit?” I always read Wright as wondering if we merely “trade places” and receive some form of legal “righteousness” (moral value stored in a bank for withdraw) then in what sense are we ready to be changed and resurrected at the eschaton. If we are not actually changed (e.g. “regeneration”), but only legally changed, then we are not ready for the age to come.

    Since the Spirit actually transforms us our works are a part of that change and then final justification shows not only that we are legally off the hook but also that we have become holy and ready for the age to come by the Spirit.

    I may have misread Wright as well from the other angle, but I never understood the charges of legalism.

    • The concerns about legalism really had to do with Wright’s statements about final justification being on the basis of works. He’s done a good job in his more recent works making it clear that these works are Spirit-empowered, but the “on the basis of” language still caused problems for many (myself included). Once you ground final justification in works, it’s difficult to understand how that could be anything other than a legalistic soteriology, however well articulated it might be. And, that’s why his clarification on this issue was so important.

      • Marc,

        This is where, along with the loss of Imputation, that the theological aspect of semi-Pelagianism gets leveled. Is it works, or grace in faith? (Rom.4) And I am very surprised of the lack of understanding by many of the Reformers teaching on the difference between justification and sanctification. They are always close together, but not the same. I won’t take up the space to put this down, but the classic Reformational and Reformed teaching is simply very important here! And to my mind at least, Wright is certainly neither Reformed or Lutheran. Note Udo Schnelle’s Pauline teaching here..”The doctrine of justification is related to fundamental ecclesiological, ethical, and anthropological insights, but above all and originally, it is a soteriological model with a core consisting of the theoretical understanding of one’s own selfhood: the subject knows itself to be grounded directly on God’s prior act; it is constituted by its reference to God and understands itself as embraced and maintained by God.” (page 472, Apostle Paul, His Life and Theology, Udo Schnelle).

      • Thanks for a good quote. Schnelle’s take on things is obviously in striking contrast to Wright’s. Very interesting.

  17. Hi Marc,

    For those interested, I have been busy doing some internet research on N.T. Wright. To his defense, I found this quote from a paper he delivered back in 2003 at the Rutherford House Conference:

    “Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led – in accordance, in other words, with works. He says this clearly and unambiguously in Romans 14.10–12 and 2 Corinthians 5.10. He affirms it in that terrifying passage about church-builders in 1 Corinthians 3. But the main passage in question is of course Romans 2.1–16.” (N.T. Wright, “New Perspectives on Paul,” Paper delivered at Rutherford House Conference 2003)

    That quote is found under the heading: “3. Final Judgment According to Works.” If you sign up with scribd.com you can find his paper. The tile is simply: “New Perspectives on Paul.”

    • Thanks Chris, I’ve seen a few such quotes in the last couple of days. So, it’s pretty clear to me that Wright has been using “in accordance with” language for quite some time. So, I’m trying to figure out why I struggled to understand him on this point. I haven’t had time to read this particular article yet, but can you tell me if he goes on to make it clear that he does not understand final justification being “in accordance with” works to in any way undermine the fact that it is ultimately grounded in Jesus Christ? I’m wondering if Wright just assumed that people would understand that this was his intent or if he took the time to make his understanding clear on this point.

  18. In reviewing a bit of NT Wright’s “Surprised by Hope” a number of years ago, I touched on a concern that I feel in the current discussion about justification. I find all of his books enjoyable reads but I have come to expect to be interrupted by moments of frustration. I especially appreciate the way Wright explores long standing themes with a willingness to challenge traditional perspectives with deeper reflection. But pursuits of this kind are vulnerable to questionable novelty and this is where I occasionally become frustrated with NT Wright. His use of terms and associations that send mixed messages easily lead to justifiable concerns from critics. See: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/frustrated-by-n-t-wright/

    • Sorry, your comment got hung up in the spam filter for a while. Thanks for the link your your review; I’ll have to check that out. And, like many people, I’ve experienced some of the same frustration with Wright’s writings. I’d agree that he has unintentionally sent some mixed messages that contributed to the difficulties people have had in understanding him. At the same time, though, I’m also coming to appreciate the fact that the very newness of what he was trying to say led many to look for things to disagree with as well. That’s a recipe for misunderstanding.

  19. Indeed, any understanding of St. Paul’s theology will have to deal with the Law of God simply. And here it would seem always best to first look at this aspect in the NT itself. Matthews Gospel is very important here, note chapter 23. Here we can see what Jesus Himself had to say about the Law of God, and of course the Jewish leaders therein…’the scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses.’ (verse 1)

    It is also here that both Luther and Calvin, and many other Reformers looked first. Again any theology that does not seek to find St. Paul’s understanding of Law & Gospel, will surely come up short. And with St. Paul in Romans 2, Moses is not the proper author of the Decalogue but simply the one who interpreted the natural law more clearly. And also St. Paul knew that the Word of God encounters humans in the twofold place and form of law and gospel. But also Christ is in the most profound sense, the end of the Law! (Rom. 10)

    Just a few of my own first pointers, as I approach NT Wright’s “Paul”.

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention NT Wright at ETS (part 2) « scientia et sapientia -- Topsy.com

  2. Pingback: Kingdom Chronicles For The Week Ending 11/20/10 « παλιγγενεσία: The Regeneration

  3. Pingback: Recent presentation by NT Wright on justification at Mark Horne

  4. Pingback: Southern Bread » N.T. Wright at the ETS Conference

  5. Pingback: NT Wright at ETS (final reflections) « scientia et sapientia

  6. Pingback: Worth a Look 11.22.10 : Kingdom People

  7. Pingback: N. T. Wright & ETS 2010 | William Molenaar

  8. Pingback: Responses to N.T. Wright « Near Emmaus

  9. Pingback: ETS roundup « scientia et sapientia

  10. Pingback: » Wrong about Wright? | Denny Burk

  11. Pingback: Some thoughts on the ETS conference | marccortez.com

  12. Pingback: Biblical Studies Carnival נז (November 2010) | Bulletin for the Study of Religion

  13. Pingback: N.T. Wright on Taking the Larger View | The Christian Optimist

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: