Skip to content

How We Know the Trinity and How the Trinity Knows Himself

December 13, 2008

Through some of my posts on this blog and CBMW’s Gender Blog, concerning the Son’s submission to the Father within the Trinity has stirred up some reaction in both arenas. Here are some things that I always want to keep in mind when trying to define a Christian perspective of the Trinity – some presuppositions.

  1. We must first make distinctions of God’s being, then we define distinctions between our being and God’s. We cannot define “being” in general, then make distinctions. There must first be a Creator/creature distinction. God is not simply an ultimate example of what we want to be. He is wholly other. God is not the sum of all human properties. This preserves against a impersonal monistic understanding of God – this is one error I think McCall and Yandell make in the Trinity debate.
  2. God is the final reference point, not our assumption of Truth. His knowledge is self-contained and what knowledge we have is derivative from him. So then, all statements about the Trinity should be derived from how God reveals himself in Scripture. This keeps man from making God in his image. This also keeps us from making thoughtless analogies.
  3. The Son has the authority of God. When some make the distinction of authority and submission between the Father and Son, this does not mean the Son does not have the authority of God. The Trinity’s ontological relationship is different from his economical. Within the Godhead there are relationships of authority and submission. Yet, over creation, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have ultimate and complete authority within each of One of them. I think some do not make the ontological and economical distinction when reacting to the submission of the Son to the Father.

It is also helpful to think of the economical Trinity in a covenantal framework that preserves a historical redemptive understanding of the Trinity.

Advertisements
25 Comments leave one →
  1. December 14, 2008 7:31 pm

    I appreciate that you are responding to some of my concerns here. You now point out that ontologically the Son has the authority of the Father in himself. This would line up better with Augustine’s statement on the trinity that there was no disparity of substance or power/authority between the Son and the Father.

    Does this mean that Christ ontologically has the authority of the Father but relationally is in a submissive role to the Father. Is there some way to distinguish ontological authority and functional authority, and how can this be demonstrated?

    From the teaching of Darby in the 19th century, all clericalism, all hierarchy was a lack of unity. Authority and submission was an indication of a lack of unity in the Spirit. Congregations were to wait on the Spirit for all teaching and decisions. In the same way, the Godhead had perfect unity and authority and submission was a false gospel.

    Here is his opening paragraph on the evils of clericalism.

    “The statement which I make is this, that I believe the notion of a Clergyman to be the sin against the Holy Ghost in this dispensation. I am not talking of individuals wilfully committing it, but that the thing itself is such as regards this dispensation, and must result in its destruction: the substitution of something for the power and presence of that holy, blessed and blessing Spirit, by which this dispensation is characterised, and by which the unrenewedness of man, and the authority of man, holds the place which alone that blessed Spirit has power and title to fill, as that other Comforter which should abide for ever.”

    I show this to demonstrate that different orthodox teachings of the past viewed both human relationships and the Godhead from a different perspective. They believed in the power of the Spirit on earth. If it was perfect, then “authority” was not to be the means of unity. Only the Spirit holds power/authority.

    Interestingly those who have taken up dispensationalism have forgotten the role of the Spirit in Darby’s teachings.

    It is important to understand that authority and submission is not explicit in Augustine’s writings and it is explicitly held up as an evil in Darby’s writings. Authority and submission is only one very human way of attempting to understand the Godhead.

    Each day we ought to pick up a new metaphor and new piece of scripture and turn it over in our minds and understand that no one single human statement can constrain God or define him.

    So, in reference to God, I ask that he be allowed to take on his true and more complex nature. The teaching of authority and submission is only the feeble and very recent attempt to cast God in human terms of this century.

    **********

    With reference to the genders – Augustine is explicit in stating that the Son is the wisdom of the Father, he is the Logos, the Word. He, the Son is the “expression” of the Father. That is what it means that he is the “sent one.”

    I do not see how this metaphor of the Word, the Logos, surely a masculine metaphor, can be used of the role of the wife vis a vis the husband. Is the wife the “sent one” of the husband, his “expression,” the Logos and sophia of the husband?

    On both accounts,

    First we do insult to God, by not reflecting on the many ways that his unity has been understood throughout history.

    Second, we do insult to man to say that his wife is his “sent one” his “logos” his “sophia.” What of the man who has no wife? What of Paul and Augustine, are they without expression, devoid of wisdom?

    These teachings do great injustice to the notion that the individual, the unmarried man and woman, man alone, or woman alone, may image God. Else what purpose the single missionary? What purpose every single human being who has ever served God?

  2. jbstarke permalink*
    December 16, 2008 3:44 am

    Susan, Thanks for the response. You are really sticking with Augustine. I completely disagree with you on your interpretation of Augustine’s “On the Trinity” and throughout Church History. I am working with a few men on this very subject right now, so I will have to hold back from giving you some cheap proof text.
    Also, I think you are missing how authority and submission is a pattern for gender. Actually, its more than gender. Authority and submission within the Godhead gives a pattern for godly authority and submission in all of life. Children to parents, wives to husbands, worker to boss, student to teacher. Singleness is a wonderful thing, not to be despised. In fact, single Christians experience more of the reality that we (the Church) are married to Christ. Being single or alone does nothing to diminish their being created in God’s image. But marriage, which is brief, does “point” to an ultimate reality that is eternal. What you despise is abuse, which is not godlike. It is an ultimate picture of rebellion – man acting like God, not a creature.

  3. December 16, 2008 4:15 am

    I have certainly wandered too far. My questions are this.

    1. Doesn’t postestas mean “authority” so when Augustine says that the Son is not unequal in potestas, he may very well mean not unequal in “authority?”

    2. If the Son is the Word of God and the Wisdom of God, in what way does this apply to authority and submission relationships in human terms? Is the child the Word of the parent, the worker of the boss. Does the worker speak and the boss stay out of things?

    3. How does one decide which relationships of authority and submission are evil and which reflect God?

    I like your last point,

    “man acting like God, not a creature.”

    That is the problem with saying that men reflect the authority of the Father and women the submission of the Son. It makes the male into God when he is not. It is an abuse.

  4. jbstarke permalink*
    December 16, 2008 4:39 pm

    The confusion is that you think I only pin women as the submissive Son and the husband the Father. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that since there are roles of authority and submission in the Godhead, there are also roles of authority and submission in the human life. Like a boss to a subordinate. A mother to a child. A husband to a wife. A wife is not “sent”, nor is a child or worker (male or female). They are simply submissive to whatever leadership they are under. We are humans made in God’s image, therefore it is “godlike” to be submissive to my pastor. It is also godlike for my pastor to have authority over me. This is not simply a gender issue, this is a problem of an individualistic and autonomous (this is coming from a Baptist) society that I think is sinful. All we are saying is that the Trinity puts forth the rightful pattern that we are to follow.

  5. December 16, 2008 6:36 pm

    But is the relationship between husband and wife like a boss – worker or parent – child relationship?

    And is authority and submission in and of itself righteous? In fact, it has the same potential for sin as any other human configuration. Authority and submission also defines slavery, BDSM, dictatorships and many more deeply sinful human patterns.

    In and of itself, you cannot contrast authority and submission with sin. It is sinful inasmuch as the humans in that relationship are sinful.

    Please do not argue that I am comparing complementarianism to any of the above sinful behaviours. I am simply asking what distinguishes a righteous relationship. Not authority and submission. It must be something else.

  6. jbstarke permalink*
    December 16, 2008 7:27 pm

    I am not arguing that authority and submission in and of itself is righteous. Abuse and dictatorship, along with wrongful submission is sinful. All good and helpful things can be abused. I am a Calvinist, and I love prayer, evangelism, and missions. Yet, there are wrong-headed and sinful Calvinists who throughout history have not practiced these biblical mandated things. Just because something is taken to wrong conclusions do not make it wrong.
    That is also why we have Scripture to guide sinful people like us on what is good and dysfunctional behavior. Authority and submission can define slavery, but not godly authority and submission informed by Scripture – also informed by a Scriptural understanding of love, care, and people created in the image of God. A husband and wife’s relationship is certainly not to be like a boss-worker. But both are to pattern their relationship to godly authority and submission. Otherwise, you have slaver, BDSM, dictatorships, and other sinful patterns.

  7. December 16, 2008 9:39 pm

    Then authority and submission are not Christian or righteous, they just are. They are neither right nor wrong, they are a human cultural pattern qith potential for either good and evil.

    This leaves open the question of what is the good. Should we not seek this and focus our attention on this. It would mean pursuing righteousness as something separate from acting out authority and submission. What is it that defines a right relationship?

    I am, of course, hoping that you will also find an answer to the question about Augustine, because at the moment it would throw into question Bruce Ware’s use of the citation from De Trinitate, 4:28.

    And I disagree with the notion that men imitate the authority of God and wives the submission of Christ. I do not believe that there is a difference in how we imitate God. Men and women as single missionaries or dedicated servants of God, both imitate Christ. Otherwise we toss out Aquinas.

    I hope you will respond to some of my questions in particular.

  8. December 16, 2008 9:40 pm

    I meant Thomas A Kempis not Aquinas.

  9. jbstarke permalink*
    December 21, 2008 12:59 am

    Sue, Sorry about the delay. Situations kept me from responding thoughtfully (assuming this will be thoughtful). I agree with the fact that both men and women image God the same. I completely agree. Also, please don’t think I am saying that submission and authority is the only way that we image God. But both men and women image God in that we both exert authority and submission in rightful places. Parents over children, Pastors over congregations, etc. Submission and authority is something that both men and women do, hopefully in rightful and biblical places.

    It is righteous and good to submit and have authority in rightful places because God has deemed it so. It is good because it is obedient to the authority of God’s Word. If a husbands do not faithfully lead their family, then he is not obeying God’s Word. If a mother does not faithfully show authority over her children, then she is not obeying God’s Word. If a pastor neglects to lead his flock, then he is being negligent over the care the has been given to him. Scripture defines a right relationship, and we, unfortunately, disagree on what Scripture is saying. But, I think Scripture very clearly defines a relationship.

  10. Sue permalink
    December 21, 2008 2:53 am

    You wrote,

    ‘The common way of expressing the power of Christ or God the Father is using the word “dunamis” , not “exousia”. ‘

    You make it sound as if I was wrong in what I said. However, it remains true that “power” or potestas was the normal way to translate the Greek word exousia. You chose to make me the subject of one of your blog posts. I expect that you would treat me with respect and acknowledge truthful information when you are made aware of it.

    Perhaps you would update that post with a comment that in fact, “power” and “authority” have both been used historically to translate the Greek word exousia.

  11. jbstarke permalink*
    December 21, 2008 3:59 am

    Sue, You ignore my very next statement:

    “It can be translated as “power”, but it can also be translated as “liberty” or “right”. There is a wide range of words with different meanings and implications connected with “exousia”. So, to express that there is a difference in authority but not in power between the Son and the Father is not unthinkable.”

    In a way, you have a point. And, as I remarked, it can be translated that way. Yet, semantic ranges and uses change with the evolution of language. It was normal for some translations to translate it that way. But contemporary translations do not. I agree with that adjustment. So then, I do still think you are wrong.

  12. December 21, 2008 4:03 am

    I am sorry, John. I didn’t mean to sound so short, but it is of importance to me that wrong information be corrected. I would really appreciate some note of this in some way, and perhaps in the future you will research this issue further.

    I am interested in responding to your discussion of authority and submission and the image of God, but later.

    Please understand that I am not in any way thinking of you personally when we discuss these issues. Rather, I am focusing on certain doctrines, as they are expressed by CBMW. I have no reason to do other than wish you well. I appreciate the level tone of exchange between us.

  13. December 21, 2008 4:12 am

    Overlap in comments!

    My point is that Augustine explicitly stated that there was no disparity between Christ and God in potestas. This can only be a translation of exousia. Dunamis was translated into Latin as virtutis. So, in fact, Augustine meant that there was no inequality between Christ and God in “authority.” This indicates that the words power and authority, for the purposes of discussing historic Christianity, must both be considered translations of exousia, equally.

    This renders almost every article and book Ware wrote highly problematic from a linguistic point of view. Ware says that Christ is under God in authority, and Augustine says that Christ was equal to God in authority. There is a disparity between Ware and orthodoxy, in the eyes of most people.

    We are not discussing what only some people in the last 20 or 30 years think the Bible says, but what the Bible meant to people for the last 2 millenia up until 1970, well after the ETS doctrinal statement was written. Otherwise, you just create a religion whose vocabulary is only meaningful for those people alive today.

  14. jbstarke permalink*
    December 21, 2008 4:42 am

    Sue, Yes. I see your point. The reason I haven’t gotten back to your Augustine problem is because I am working through that myself with two other men. The last time I read “On the Trinity” was three years ago, so I am not the one to respond thoughtfully on this. The reason I am not convinced of your point is the economical and ontological distinction Augustine makes – which I sometimes wonder if you are making that distinction.
    I am aware of those who put Ware in the line heterodoxy and worse. Even though I do not agree with Ware on some things (even on this topic), he is a friend and many have been unfair towards him.
    I will consider some note of adjustment and get back to you.
    I wonder what doctrines expressed by CBMW are you specifically talking about. There are going to be a wide variety of people in the camp of CBMW. Paige Patterson and I are going to be two strangely different people.

    I, too, have enjoyed our exchange.

    Also, I just want to be as clear as possible. I think single missionaries have a wonderful, image-bearing, purpose in life. Image bearing has much more to do than just marriage. Marriage is not ultimate, the image of God is. Marriage is only a pointer. Singleness can point to the marriage of Christ and his church much more effectively at times than a sour marriage.
    Long response, sorry. Have a wonderful Sunday.

  15. Sue permalink
    December 21, 2008 5:37 am

    I will consider some note of adjustment and get back to you. Thanks very much. I appeciate this acknowledgement – just a small note of your continued research added as a comment to the other post would be great for me to see.

    As you know translation history is a real love of mine and this is an interesting avenue.

    You may want to note that in the Vulgate exousia was usually translated as potestas, and dunamis was translated as virtutis. Potestas was translated into English as “power” and dunamis also. The word authoritas, authority, appeared in the Erasmus Latin translation which was used as a base for the KJV via the Bezae text.

    In any case, it is worth noting that historically “power” is a translation of exousia. This is what makes translation history so fascinating.

    Also, of course, dominari was the Latin translation of authentein. The two words authentein and exousia had no semantic connection until the Erasmus Latin translation introduced the word authoritas.

    I would much prefer is people quoting church fathers would provide the original along with the tranlation.

    I have no trouble discussing Augstine’s actual point as long as the language issue is resolved. My sense is that if Christ is the expression of God, and is therefore in some way responsive to God as the initiator, this in no way resembles the boss – employee relationship or gender.

    Woman is not the “Word” of man, nor a slave the “Word” of the master. This relationship between God and Christ is not compared to the sexes or to the slave by the ancients as far as I know.

    I do not think that these paradigms can be demonstrated from historic church writings.

  16. Sue permalink
    December 21, 2008 6:02 am

    Typo – “I would much prefer is (“is” should be “if”) people quoting church fathers would provide the original along with the tranlation.

    PS I respect your own attitudes as you express them here. The CBMW post which I am most concerned about was on Feb. 7, 2008 and says,

    “Our ministry to men and women must be rooted in a proper understanding of the doctrine of God. Being created in his image means ministry must carry the different distinctions between equal persons of the Trinity.
    Biblical manhood and womanhood must be rooted in the doctrine of the work and person of Christ. Therefore all women’s ministry in the local church must rely on the doctrine of Christ.

    Jesus is the example of perfect submission. The work and submission of Christ radically reorients Christian service for Christian women because it is following in the footsteps of our Savior.

    For me the work and submission of Christ is his death on the cross. Why is this pointedly made the orientation of women’s ministry but not of men’s ministry? It seems very odd. I have seen other posts which express this same view.

    *****

    A third issue is that all women who are single feel that they are not recognized by CBMW for what they do. Single mothers do all the work of a father. They provide, and nurture, and protect, and take care of the plumbing.

    Children need their father, as a father, but a woman is equally provider and protector. It is so hard for women to see themselves simply dismissed for who they really are.

    I am not saying that you do this personally, John, not at all. I am saying that the teaching of CBMW teaches that woman is not protector and provider, but clearly she is.

  17. jbstarke permalink*
    December 21, 2008 2:09 pm

    Very quick – the wife is not the “Word” of the husband. But she is imaging God in godlike submission in the same way she is imaging God in her godlike authority over her children. This is why I don’t like to use the word “parallel” the way Grudem does. I like to use the word “pattern”. The Godhead creates a pattern of authority and submission that mankind should pattern themselves after. I don’t think the word “parallel” is helpful. It tends to analogize. The women is not “sent” or is the “word” of anyone. I think that is taking the image too far. I don’t think any complementarian is saying this.

  18. Sue permalink
    December 21, 2008 2:58 pm

    The women is not “sent” or is the “word” of anyone. I think that is taking the image too far. I don’t think any complementarian is saying this.

    And for some of us, saying that “a wife is to husband” as “child is to parent” is also taking things to far. The child is being raised to adulthood, but the adult woman is being reduced to childhood.

    A smallness of a child is sweet and good if it is age appropriate, but to stunt the growth of an adult and to keep her in a relationship of submission within her own home, is to belittle her, to make her less than adult.

    My sense is that most complementarians don’t actually do this, so please do not take this personally. I don’t mean it that way, to imply anything about your life, but about the teaching. If someone actually lived by this teaching, and some do, the damage and defacing of another human being is extreme.

    My sense is that it takes years to recover and regain normal function. Clearly some woman will never have that opportunity. But just as small stature is a good thing for a child and a bad thing for an adult, so is the reduction of a wife to the position of servant or child a bad thing.

    The difference between complementarians and others is in where people draw the line.

  19. jbstarke permalink*
    December 21, 2008 3:21 pm

    Of course the relationship of a husband and wife and a wife to a child is very different. In the same way Christ and the church is different from a husband and wife. The husband is not God nor is he her savior. That’s why I use the word “pattern”. It is helpful to see godly submission in Christ for husbands, fathers, wives, mothers, children, everybody to model in the appropriate way. If a husband is treating his wife like a child, he is neither godlike or righteous. He is not following a biblical understanding of a husband. For some to follow this teaching in a way you are describing is not Christian. I know of no CBMW figure to teach this or encourage it.
    I think we are going to disagree with gender roles in marriage. My wife is a very bold and courageous woman who delights in following my leadership in our family.
    I agree that often times single women or even abused women are not appropriately discussed at CBMW (not that they should be something reduced to just being discussed). Its a neglected topic. Maybe a genderblog post could be titled:
    “What does a single biblical woman/mother look like?” Though we may disagree with what that looks like.

  20. Sue permalink
    December 21, 2008 9:52 pm

    A single mother looks like one person who is undertaking the full roles of both father and mother. Just like Lydia or Chloe or Nympha. The woman runs the household, providing financial support and infrastructure like repairs, and nurtures as well. She does all of this without sacrificing her feminine nature because femininity was made by God to be providing and protective. Thank goodness!

    The differences with regards to the comparison of the son and the father and gender roles between CBMW and egalitarians is simply a matter of where the line is drawn. C’s draw the line so that the woman not quite a child or a servant, but not quite an adult with full rights. Since the only rule is that “husbands have authority and women submit” each church and each husband and each family can draw the line in a different place. The husband can say how much the woman submits or if she has any rights at all, just as long as the wife submits. The woman has to be whatever her husband allows her to be or she has to leave. It all depends where he draws the line.

    I am not saying this to you personally, please don’t take it that way, but it is about the doctrine. But there are no hard and fast guidelines to control how much suffering a woman may endure in this kind of “pattern.” She is to imitate Christ’s suffering. It is unlimited.

    Some people will never recover from the deprivation of self that they experience in this kind of relationship.

  21. jbstarke permalink*
    December 21, 2008 10:02 pm

    I don’t know where you have witnessed this sort of application of the doctrine of submission and authority in marriage, but it is not a Christian application.

    “The woman has to be whatever her husband allows her to be or she has to leave.”

    No where does anyone at CBMW express this opinion. I know you are not aiming these statements at me, and I appreciate that, yet I know of no one who thinks this way – men or women. This is a pagan understanding of submission and authority, not a godly one. Those who are writing for CBMW are very clear on the responsibility of the husband to lead with godliness. I am sad that you have expressed your opinion of CBMW this way. I hope somehow it can be changed.

  22. Sue permalink
    December 21, 2008 10:33 pm

    CBMW supports the notion that the husband reflects the authority of the father and the wife reflects the submission of the son.

    As Ware puts it, and as was preached in my former church, “the Father never submits and the Son always submits.” This was preached by Ware in my hometown to pastors and then a few months later this was preacher in my former church. My daughter who did attend that sermon, stood up during the sermon and stumbled down the aisle in tears.

    Can you imagine for one second what it would be like to live with and share a house and a bedroom with another person to whom you always had to submit in everything, and the other person never submitted to you. Never, always a one way street of command and obedience.

    If a husband actually applies this teaching expressed by Bruce Ware, that the wife imitates the Son who always submits, and the husband imitates the Father who never submits, two people are totally destroyed, and the children severely damaged.

    I don’t know how CBMW staff themselves live but they do give husbands a weapon of total destruction when they teach that marriage is an authority- submission relationship. They give men the means to justify treating a wife like someone who exists only to seek the goals of the husband. This is Ware’s teaching. It will destroy both husband and wife if acted on.

    Have you read any of Ware’s sermons lately. I will try to supply links if you like.

  23. jbstarke permalink*
    December 21, 2008 11:02 pm

    I think you and I are going to disagree on this topic. There seems to be a history you have with Ware that I am not aware of. I do strongly believe that Scripture puts the primary responsibility of the family on the father. Therefore, the wife should submit to the husband’s leadership. However, the husband does certainly submit to the wife. In the same way Christ submits to the Church. The husband submit preferences, joys for the joy of his family. He is going to put his family’s needs and happiness before his. He is going to work a second or third job in order to provide. He is going pray for his family faithfully when he could be doing other interests. In the same way, Christ submit his interests (prayer of Gath.) for the joy of the Church. One can submit much to those they lead. I hope my wife finds comfort in sharing a house and bedroom with someone who leads by putting her needs and desires before his – hopefully I do that.

  24. Sue permalink
    December 21, 2008 11:27 pm

    I can see that you do not hold to many of the positions of CBMW! So, once again, do not take this personally. Here is Grudem on the myth of mutual submission, on the CBMW site,

    “What then does “one another” mean in Ephesians 5:21? It means “some to others,” not “everyone to everyone.” The meaning of hypotassō, which always indicates one-directional submission to an authority, prevents the sense “everyone to everyone” in this verse. And the following context (wives to husbands, children to parents, servants to masters) shows this understanding to be true. Therefore, it is not “mutual submission,” but submission to appropriate authorities, which Paul is commanding in Ephesians 5:21. The idea of “mutual submission” in this passage is just a myth-widely believed, perhaps, but still a myth.”

    SO according to this there is one-directional submission in marriage. The husband is an authority there is no such thing as mutual submission, not according to the offical CBMW position. That is why I believe BMW teaching is dangerous.

    And I do think that as the children grow older and go to school many women like to have a part time job.

  25. Sue permalink
    December 21, 2008 11:37 pm

    Here is part of Ware’s sermon here,

    ************

    III-A. The Son is under the headship or authority of the Father—General Truth Stated

    1 Corinthians 11:3: “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”

    Note: Nowhere in Scripture does the Father ever do the will of His Son. It is always the Son Who does the will of His Father.

    III-B. The Son’s Submission of the Father over the Son is clear in the Son’s incarnation and earthly mission

    Consider John 8:28-29 or John 4:34. Jesus Christ in His incarnate ministry was doing the will of Him Who sent Him, and was sent to accomplish His work. The amazing thing is that in His earthly life, we can surmise that He never woke up wondering, “What am I going to do today?” His sole purpose was to do the will of His Father. He always does what pleases His Father.

    ….

    Marvel at the submission of the eternal Son to the eternal Father, carried out with absolute fidelity to His Father’s will, and with nothing but joy and happiness and satisfaction. Note: this is true not merely of the incarnate Son, but of the eternal Son, to the eternal Father! And marvel at the Spirit’s joyful willingness to be eternally in submission to the Father and to the Son. Take this to heart, and apply this principle broadly in ministry: It is as God-like to submit joyfully and gladly to rightful authority as it is God-like to exercise wise and benevolent rightful authority. Is it any wonder that that when God created human beings in His image, that He made them equal in essence, but distinct in function? Relationships of authority and submission in human relationships, then, derive from and should be modelled after the relations of authority and submission in the Godhead.
    ************

    My interpretation is that women only are to submit and men only to have authority. My interepretation is that there is no such thing as mutual submission in the trinity according to Ware and CBMW.

    I think this kind of relathionship is unbearable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: