Why I Do Not Occupy Jesus

In the past two years or so, since the Occupy Wall Street became well-known, it has become very common to Occupy _____, that is, to call attention to the inadequacies of an entity, and to try to correct it. One such movement has been a group that calls themselves We Occupy Jesus. I was asked the other day by a friend what I thought about them, so I thought I’d write something about it. Below is how the group summarily describes itself:

“A movement for all individuals, regardless of their own personal beliefs or disbeliefs in any god, who identify with the positive message of the Jesus narrative, who can unite under common principles and practical goals to make the world a better place through tolerance, activism, non-violence, and love for all humanity. This organization serves as a meeting place between those from both sides of the God debate. ‘We Occupy Jesus’ is for anyone who is compelled by the life, message, metaphor, or model of Jesus.”

I’ll start by highlighting some things about their goals that I do genuinely sympathize with.  Based on the above quote, this organization wants to use the life and teachings of Jesus as a basis for social justice (poverty alleviation, environmental stewardship, ending of slavery and trafficking, etc.) From the Beatitudes to the Rich Young Ruler, to the sheep and goats, to the Magnificat, to the parable of Lazarus, it is very clear one who follows Jesus must be deeply concerned for the most vulnerable in society. This group has rightly pointed to the glaring silence of much of the American evangelical church when it comes to helping the poor, and has instead often clung to right-winged rigidity, even when that rigidity seemed to be in defiance of what Christ taught.

The other quote of theirs I really liked:

“We fear that Capitalism is where the name of Jesus has gone to die. We are not speaking out against Capitalism per say (at least, not today) but what Capitalism does is take, package, market, and sell Jesus (and everything else). The close relationship of Capitalism to Politics only makes matters worse. If you hear the words “Jesus” or “evangelical” or “religion” or “family values” and think “Republican Party” then you know you’ve been conditioned by the American corporate machine. If you hear “Jesus” and immediately think of a political party, a scientific stance, or a particular style of music, you know what we are talking about. We are done letting this status quo continue.”

It’s really hard to argue against this. American evangelicalism (whom I presume this group is primarily reacting against) has in many ways created an apparatus in which things pertaining to Jesus are sold, the church is centered on being hip and relevant, voting Republican (a now thoroughly disliked group in America) and speaking against abortion and gay marriage while ignoring many other moral issues. WOJ has rightly noted the bankrupt nonsense that much of this really is.  And I genuinely do hope that in my lifetime, a gospel-centered American church will emerge that cares deeply for the poor and vulnerable, and devotes significant resources to this.

Unfortunately, much of the rest of the movement’s tenets I simply cannot endorse. One example:

“Those of us who began this movement felt that the rift between theism and atheism was growing unnecessarily vast. This rift has also been perpetuated by ignorance, apathy, and special interests. There have been countless movements to reform the Church and organized religion in general, including the intellectual, theological, doctrinal, scholastic, ecclesial, and missional aspects. It is the opinion of “We Occupy Jesus” that such endeavors are noble and those who wish to fight for these goals should feel free to do so. However, the world cannot sit around and wait for such reforms to take place. To be frank, the Church is beyond “fixing” at this point, nor should anyone feel obligated to change the minds of all Christians who disagree with them. Those who identify with the teachings and/or example of Jesus should waste no more time debating metaphysics.”

It is very fashionable in this day and age to want to avoid religious conflict at all costs. Doctrine and theology (“dogma”) are viewed as creating unnecessary divisions in society, and that the only things that REALLY matter are helping poor people and such. I probably somewhat oversimplified right there, but I do believe that is the thrust of many people’s thought processes.  I feel that they further miss some of the point here:

Just as the Occupy Wall Street movement seeks to expose the greed and corruption of the financial institutions of the United States, while also serving as a new platform for creative solutions to change the status quo, “We Occupy Jesus” seeks to take back the narrative of Jesus which has been hijacked by special interests, political parties, religious extremism, and all forces of corruption, bigotry, and false piety. To occupy Jesus means to stand in the middle of the conversation and say you are done being demonized because of the bigotry of the past and the social apathy of the present. The message of Jesus is one of love, service, and self-sacrifice and now is the time to take it back from circles who would pervert that message. Our hope is that one day, the name of Jesus will only be synonymous with love.”

There’s no arguing with the contention that Jesus’ message has been hijacked by some very self-righteous, hypocritical people. However, for too many people, this has come to mean that it is unChristlike to tell anyone else that their views are wrong.

The entire point of Christ’s time on earth, in a nutshell, was to point to humanity’s utter inability to save itself from its sins, i.e. our sins are damning, and Christ’s sacrifice was/is required. And Jesus did not strive to “avoid conflict.” Countless times he called out the Pharisees’ humanistic works-centered salvation with a “woe to you” bit. Or, note another statement: “Before Abraham was, I AM.” He called himself God! Even in one instance that those of more liberal inklings love to cite, where he stopped the adulteress from being stoned, he still said to her, “Go and sin no more.” He did not forsake the notion of individual piety as some seem to think.

Overall, We Occupy Jesus appears to try to turn the “Jesus narrative” into a make-people-feel-good thing devoid of any sense of truth, or of humanity’s inadequacies.  They speak often of being inspired by Jesus. However, the Bible, whether you believe it is God’s word or not, is the primary source on the life of Jesus that we have, and if you do not accept his claims of who he is, then his “overall message” should not inspire you. You should view him as either really looney, or a complete charlatan. The other option is that you don’t believe he actually said a lot of the things the gospels record him as saying. But in that case, it remains a daunting task to fish out a few things about the poor and create a coherent message.

While I don’t like everything about John MacArthur’s style, I think he is largely right about this: that movements like We Occupy Jesus, and the consumeristic evangelicalism that they dislike, are really two sides of the same coin. Consider this:

“So you have the postmodern and then you have the market-conscious church – the church that thinks the Gospel is a product; Jesus is a product we have to sell. And in order to sell him effectively we have to overcome consumer resistance and the way to overcome consumer resistance is to simply figure out a message that the consumer won’t resist. So you invent the Jesus that people will like and you invent the Gospel that people will like.

And then you have another component and that is an age in which tolerance seems to dominate, you know sort of the Rodney King theology “can’t we all just get along.” You have to be tolerant of this, tolerant of that. Intolerance is basically the only virtue left in much of our culture.

All of those things mingle together with one other very important thing. Confronting people like Jesus did, confronting people in false religion, confronting people in error, confronting people’s sins, warning them about hell, calling them to repentance, calling them to escape false religion is a very difficult thing to do. And there’s a natural tendency on the part of people to be reluctant to do that because it has negative consequences. If you feed the poor, nobody’s going to make you a martyr. If you proclaim the social gospel, you’ll be a hero on every front.

Preach the truth, call false religion a lie, tell sinners they need to repent of their sin and escape hell by putting their faith in Jesus Christ, there’s no other way, and you’re going to generate hostility. People get martyred all the time, even today in Afghanistan and Sudan and Iran and Iraq and a lot of other places for proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I think it’s tough to do that. So I think all these things kind of blend together to sort of suck the life and boldness out of the church … we’re just content to be nice people; hey maybe God’s going to let them into heaven if they do the best they can; I guess you can call it legalism lite. It’s not the heavy legalism of Pharisaism but it’s legalism lite – if you’re a good person you’ll kind of make your way in.

It all comes back to the fact that we’re letting the culture determine the message for us. We’re letting expectation, fear of man rather than Scripture determine our message. And rather than following Jesus in the way he presented the message – on the one hand compassionate with those who are willing to repent, tender toward those in need; on the other hand very antagonistic, literally infuriating the purveyors of false religion until they killed him.”

Disagreeing about things does not automatically lead to violence. In fact, I believe that open debate leads to greater respect. In a rare occurrence, I agree with atheist comedian Penn Jillette about tolerance and religious debate. I think he is dead on in this video.

In conclusion, then, while I like some of the issues that WOJ calls attention to, I think they are miles off the mark about the message of Christ and what it means for us. I therefore cannot in good conscience endorse this movement.


14 thoughts on “Why I Do Not Occupy Jesus

  1. I’m sorry you think Jesus calls you to go around condemning beliefs and that he was primarily concerned with people meeting a “belief requirement”. That’s not the “Good News”, that’s the “well, it sucks to be you” news.

    • You know, Dave, Jesus went around condemning beliefs (or the lack of them), and people, for not properly recognizing that he was God’s chosen Savior sent from the Father himself to rescue all of us from our sin.

      John 8:21–25 (ESV)
      21 So he said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.” 22 So the Jews (Pharisees) said, “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?” 23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.” 25 So they said to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning.

      Reshaping Jesus to make him more palatable or condemning those who are trying to offer a more complete picture of Christ runs dangerously close to the sin of the Pharisees who sought to kill Jesus because they just couldn’t stand what he had to say. If you read the passage in its entirety, you’ll see that Jesus is accusing the Pharisees as children of Satan because they won’t accept him and believe in him on the terms that he puts forth. They want him on their terms.

      John 8:34–38 (ESV)
      34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.”

      This idea that we can’t criticize bad ideas and false beliefs is just post-modern foolishness.

  2. “The entire point of Christ’s time on earth, in a nutshell, was to point to humanity’s utter inability to save itself from its sins, i.e. our sins are damning, and Christ’s sacrifice was/is required” I respectfully disagree. The whole point of the OT was “to point to humanity’s utter inability to save itself from its sins,” The whole point of Jesus’ time on earth was to show us His love and forgiveness toward us. To show us he want’s our participation in a loving relationship with Him and His people. Not mindless monetary “sacrifices” that puts salve on our fears. For far too long I believed God was to be feared. I feared for my soul so I “believed”. I feared being different so I conformed to what the CHURCH expected of me. I feared I might be spiritually contaminated if I helped those who really needed it so I didn’t. For far too long I lived in fear. “Preach the truth, call false religion a lie, tell sinners they need to repent of their sin and escape hell by putting their faith in Jesus Christ, there’s no other way, and you’re going to generate hostility.” This is the fear based model of “attracting” new “Christians”. Fear is not the basis of a relationship. The hostility is generated by the fear-mongering. It is easy to spread fear but only He can give us the where-with-all to Love. For too long I was afraid to really follow Jesus’ footsteps because of fear, because of what my church told me, because I allowed others to interpret God’s word for me. Because of We Occupy Jesus, Kissing Fish, Christian’s Tired of Being Misrepresented and other “progressive”(in my mind “real” Christian groups I have been able to heal from feeling like I was living on the outer fringes of Christianity. I have been able to do, not just talk about doing, I have been able to love the poor, forgotten, lost, widowed, orphaned etc, not just pretend I loved them with the dire hope that I didn’t “get any on me”. The bottom line is “God is Love”. I have felt more love, more acceptance, more encouragement, more forgiveness from the people of these groups, whom I have never met, and their desires AND actions for meaningful change in the way we, as Christians, present ourselves to world than I ever did in the church of my conversion. Only by His love have He and I been able to sustain this relationship. Now I have Christ’s real “message” for my life. I know He was sustaining me for this time when He could show me His love in His scriptures, His love for every human, His compassion for the believer AND the non-believer, His desire to use each and everyone of us to to bring His LOVE(not fear) to the world. Now I can fully embrace Him. This is my “new day”.

    • M Kin,

      I’m very sorry for the hurt, and legitimate frustration with much of Christianity. I hear you, and I share some of your same concerns.

      See my comment above. How do you deal with the passages, and there are many, where Jesus is speaking pretty harshly about false belief and those who would deny his rightful place as God’s chose and sent Messiah/Christ/King?

      May own thought is that God’s love can’t be fully understood in all its greatness and glory until we first come to terms with the magnitude of his wrath. The good news for us is that his wrath has been poured fully onto Christ, so that his love is open to us without reservation and condemnation. I really prefer to lead people to God’s love and mercy, but I don’t think we can get there without understanding the wrath.

  3. The church is beyond saving?! Oh man, I couldn’t disagree more. Although the church is full of flawed people and has unfortunately been misused way too many times over the past 2000 years, she’s still the bride of Christ and there’s no denying that.

  4. I don’t understand how the Church can be broken. Maybe it’s leadership and the bodypolitic, if you will, are full of unChristlike individuals but that would just mean that it isn’t fulfilling it’s job as the bride of Christ. But the Church is essentially a community and not an organization. A nation of faithful, not a means by which to run that nation.

    On the whole Jesus is love or fear thing: I agree that the teachings of Jesus definitely reflect a inclusion of the sinful and poor and “wicked” with forgiveness and love and care for them just as he admonishes those who seek to make money off of the faithful (the money changers being the example here). The Bible is also clear that it is only through Jesus that one can get to heaven and God, the father. The bible is clear on this.

    Yes, you should love everyone and be empowered by Christ to do so, says the Bible, but you should also fear the wrath of God and the punishment you shall receive from him. The Bible makes it clear that only through joining the club can you get to heaven, only through joining the club will you be spared an eternity in hell. To God, according to the Bible, it doesn’t matter if you worked for peace all your days and loved your neighbor and were the most loving example of the teachings of Jesus, you are going to hell forever to writhe and suffer and eternally bemoan your fate, because you choose poorly in your Faith, or lack there of.

  5. Hi there,
    I’d love to share my (much abridged) reasons about why as a Christian I do occupy Jesus.

    Over the past 11 years, I’ve been healing from spiritual abuse with a pseudo-Christian ministry. In that time I have seen too much in ministries and churches to ignore the fact that something is horribly wrong with American Christianity. We lack honesty. We use buzz words. We focus on appearances.We rank sins. We miss the point of Love.

    You say, “The entire point of Christ’s time on earth, in a nutshell, was to point to humanity’s utter inability to save itself from its sins, i.e. our sins are damning, and Christ’s sacrifice was/is required. And Jesus did not strive to avoid conflict.”

    While it is true that Jesus did not avoid conflict, any harshness was reserved for the religious leaders–the ones whose hearts were far from God. And if the point is to understand the weight of our sins and need for Christ–then what of the GREATEST (in Jesus’ own words) commandment?

    Christ said the most important commandment was to love God and love others. He could have said ANYTHING else–like convert others, keep perfect doctrine, or simply don’t sin. We’ve become so preoccupied with being right or taking dominion over our cities, schools, country, etc. that we forget the entire Christian message comes down to this Love for all. Take a look at the way Jesus loved. He hung out with those the religious leaders had cast aside. He taught us to make peace with our enemies. He did not argue over beliefs–instead He acted in love and brought healing to the people around Him.

    I occupy Jesus because I believe in the soul-saving power of God’s Love. I believe my faith is never more true than when I am at peace with those around me. I believe that God is bigger that my definitions and that He can survive honest discussions and questions among people of different faiths. You know, God doesn’t need an advocate to convince others or convict them of their wrong-doing. The holy spirit convicts individuals, right? If you want to help bring people into the kingdom, I would start with LOVE before handing down chastisements on people desiring to promote goodness in this broken world.

    • Hey Shannon,

      I think you’re making a really important point here…
      “While it is true that Jesus did not avoid conflict, any harshness was reserved for the religious leaders–the ones whose hearts were far from God. And if the point is to understand the weight of our sins and need for Christ–then what of the GREATEST (in Jesus’ own words) commandment?”

      Jesus definitely saved his harshest condemnation for the proud, the self-righteous, and those who denied him his rightful place because of that self-righteousness. He was compassionate with those who hurt. He was normally the most compassionate with the biggest “sinners”.

      I like to say that Jesus seemed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

  6. The only way to help people see and even consider your way of being is through your actions – Paul speaks about this when he talks about being all things to all people … If that isn’t preaching tolerance I don’t know what is … You meet people where they are and hope they will see your actions and wonder where they come from …

    I can’t express my level of disgust for modern Christianity strongly enough – I’ve considered just leaving religion all together many times – I’m so thankful for the progressive movement and the ability to be part of the new reformation – it restores my faith …

    As for this being a feel good movement – I think nothing could be further from the truth – I’d suggest the writer get on FB and join ‘Occupy Jesus’, ‘Kissing Fish’, and ‘Infundamentalist Christians’ and see how much happiness gospel he sees and how much deep though provoking dialogue he REALLY sees.

    Suffice to say I’d be Agnostic by now if not for progressive Christianity

  7. I’m more a conservative Christian. Not so much the progressive type. Just not my style. However, I firmly stand by We Occupy Jesus. Not because I’ve been there since the beginning. Merely because I want to spread love. I agree with some points the commentators bring up. I don’t personally think the church is beyond repair. I do however believe the faculty occupying the church (sorry for the verbiage) is beyond repair. I say for the most part that we do away with the evangelical right wings. I say we do away with the Church as a business. I don’t believe in multi-millionaire pastors. I do however believe in Social Justice, such as Passion Conference (besides the ridiculous cost), WOJ, and many more. I believe that we can stand on a level plain as the Bride of Christ and preach the gospel while also taking the narrative to those who wish to not associate with religion and teach them love through acts of service, and many other things. To make the world a better place.

  8. All right folks, thanks for all of your input. I am going to do my best here to respond, clarify, address, whatever, etc.

    First of all, thank you everyone, especially We Occupy Jesus, for your civil responses. And specifically to WOJ, I did my best to accurately portray your position, but it does appear that I unfortunately made some hasty and not completely accurate statements, for which I apologize.

    I would also like to reiterate that I really, really do sympathize with WOJ for calling out conservative evangelicalism on its lack of action on social justice. The evangelical status quo in America has often been themed on providing litmus tests on individual piety issues, while dismissing social concerns, sometimes going so far as viewing them as Communist infiltration strategies. Indeed, the words of Jesus are full of uplifting words for the poor, particularly the Gospel of Matthew, which is particularly known for echoing the social justice tradition of the Old Testament prophets. You should know that I have ruffled more than one conservative evangelical’s feathers by taking very out-of-the-evangelical-mainstream views on environmental protection, war, civil rights for American Muslims, Palestinian rights, access to education, and certain anti-poverty programs.

    @Britt Brown: Yes, I did allow your comment. And I fully recognize that Christ contains both spiritual AND social redemption.

    @Kings Garden: I will admit that I probably did not fully summarize Christ in the best way (that’s what I get for posting at midnight). I guess a better way to put it would have been to say that the central theme of the biblical accounts of Jesus is “Every aspect of creation-nature, social institutions, and the individual human heart, has been tainted by sin, and Christ, by incarnating as a human, was able to live a life such that showed a way, through words and actions, that points to a righting of this fundamental flaw in humanity, which was ultimately exemplified by His taking the consequences of it onto himself, then conquering even those very consequences by His resurrection.” While I certainly agree with your points about the importance of his love (and am glad that WOJ has helped you recognize this) I also think that a certain amount of fear towards God (primarily the “respect” type of fear as opposed to the “frightened” type of fear) is appropriate. God is holy, before whom we sinful humans are undeserving. It sounds like you have had a great experience with God lately, having experienced his love. And I think you are on target when you say you want to show that love “to the believe and the non-believer”. I am simply cautioning that I believe there is still a place for an understanding of God’s holiness and wrath.

    @Shannon Ashley: I am truly sorry that you have experienced these hurts with certain evangelical entities. I have experienced these as well, and in fact almost walked away from my faith at one point because of them. You are correct in noting Christ’s emphasis on love, both for God and for others. My own life falls short of this every day. But I am concerned that you are missing the fact that sometimes true love means telling people when you believe they are in error. By your definition, could it not be considered “unloving” how harshly Jesus chastised the Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees? Again, I will not argue against your point that he demonstrated amazing love by spending time with tax collectors and sinners. But your last point concerns me where it says “I believe that God is bigger than my definitions and that He can survive honest discussions and questions among people of different faiths. You know, God doesn’t need an advocate to convince others or convict them of their wrong-doing. The holy spirit convicts individuals, right? If you want to help bring people into the kingdom, I would start with LOVE before handing down chastisements on people desiring to promote goodness in this broken world.” I agree that God can survive honest discussions, and I am trying to have one now. Also, I would agree that the Holy Spirit does just fine without me, but where in Scripture do you see this used as reason not to speak up when you believe fellow humans are in error? For me to not point out perceived errors in the name of love would be quite condescending, in my opinion. Again, watch the Penn Jillette video at the end of the post.

    @Fleur Wiorkowski: I think you have pointed out perhaps the most glaring error in my post. I should not have dismissed WOJ as a feel-good movement when the truth is you guys definitely do say things that many find uncomfortable, particularly the the theologically orthodox yet inactive Christians in our mist. I apologize for that terminology. You have also made a wonderful point about the need for beliefs to be put into action. Paul talks a lot about this, and even more so the book of James (faith without works is dead). I also liked your point about meeting people where they are. I have studied many cases of Christianity being contextualized to people of various faiths, and it caused me to pause and reflect on how in some my ways my own faith is reflective of my American culture. However, I suppose where we disagree is that in my view, one of the good Christian actions to demonstrate is verbally proclaiming its truthfulness to others, which I try to do.

    @Taylor Allen-Sterling Forrest: Very well said.

    @Michael Botte: You likewise caught me utilizing some sloppy wording. I think you guys DO have an understanding of truth you adhere to, just one that I don’t adhere to myself. But my view is that, while Christ’s love is an undeniably important component of the narrative, that narrative is more complete when understood as a part of his lordship and divinity, as a God who so cared for His creation that he willingly lived among humans and took their punishment so that all aspects of humanity might be redeemed. And i disagree about your statements about what Jesus said to Pilate. In the synoptic Gospels Pilate asks if he is King of the Jews, which he affirms. He gives a more ambiguous answer in John. But through his interrogation by the Sanhedrin, as well as in his encounter with the Pharisees, his answers clearly suggest a claim to be divine, as they call it blasphemy, and even try to stone him. The Sanhedrin incident happens in all four Gospels. Hence his divinity is suggested in all the Gospels, not just John, as you appear to suggest.

    In summation, then, I admire WOJ for using the message of Jesus as a basis for inspiring good action in the world. You have rightly shown the moral bankruptcy of numerous factions of American Christianity, which I applaud. However, where we diverge is that I believe that the worldview I adhere to offers a more complete perspective of how and why Christ’s message of love should inspire. The fall of man (not completely sure how literally I believe THAT event to be) has caused sin to taint every aspect of humanity and creation (not just individual hearts, as seemingly thought by many current evangelicals) and is in need of redemption. The stories in Genesis, particularly the patriarchs, further highlight the depraved nature of people, and some parts of Genesis hint at social ills as well (inhospitality in Sodom, in addition to, well, sodomy). As we get into the Exodus, we begin to see a repeating story of God holding people accountable both for their personal sins and for systemic social oppression, and of Him redeeming them from such things (repeated especially in the days of the judges, and then in the days of the kings, the prophets rail against both the debauchery of sexual morality and idol worship, while also condemning both the Israelite ruling class and the foreign oppressors for their social malfeasance).

    Which then brings us to Jesus. His incarnation itself, and the circumstances surrounding his birth, are the ultimate picture of humility and his identifying with the poor and marginalized. As his life progresses, we see a duel concern to redeem physical society (he heals people of their sicknesses, creates food, and rails against the Jewish ruling elite’s utter unconcern for the vulnerable) and for redeeming the spiritual void caused by human systems of salvation (highlighted by the quasi-liberation theology of the Zealots, the materialism and power hunger of the Herodians, the pomposity and letter-adherence of the Pharisees, the overt literalism and power hunger of the priests and Sadducees, and the seclusionism of the Essenes). He points to himself repeatedly, going so far as to say “No one comes to the Father but through me.” I would also point to John 3:16 as a summary of his purpose here. Furthermore the belief in his resurrection allows for the belief that he conquered both spiritual and physical death, the greatest consequences of the fall. The Epistles then more thoroughly expound on that and the theology surrounding it.

    I hope the above has helped provide some insight into why I think doctrine is important, and why I disagree with WOJ. I feel, again, that the full scriptural narrative provides the most solid possible basis for Jesus as inspiration. I realize a lot has probably been left unanswered, but I have done my best.

    I must now go to bed, and will probably be quite busy the rest of the weekend. However, I do to discuss these things again at some point. Peace to you all. 🙂

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