Please, Call Me “Christian”: In Defense of Our First and Best Team Name

As we took pains to establish in our last session together, we do not like the word Christian.  Our summary went like this:

“Many who consider themselves *true* Christians [as distinguished from *sham* Christians, I suppose] do not like the word Christian because it has been abused by insincere, nominal ‘Christians’ and has therefore become inadequate to express *actual* Christianity.”

Apparently Edward Cullen is a "Proud Christian." Maybe THAT'S why so many of us don't like the word?

As a result of this distaste for the traditional term, a great number of believers prefer using alternative designations in order to avoid being identified with folks who claim Christianity but, by our estimation, do not represent it adequately.

Before launching into a full-blown explanation of why I think this is a rather bad idea, I decided to turn the proverbial microphone over to my readers and asked for your thoughts.  These you delivered, and I was blessed by your thoughtfulness and articulation in affirming the nature of the problem and offering your evaluations of our increasingly prevalent response.  I believe I’ve gotten enough ducks in a row at this point to present a solid argument for an altogether different solution, but if any of you finds it to be less than compelling, then I encourage you to continue the conversation.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am firmly convinced that we should consider ourselves immensely honored to bear the name Christian.  It may take a little time to build up to that point, so let’s start here:

Shirking the name Christian is a selfish, fruitless, and naïve endeavor.

If I ask you a question, do you promise to answer it truthfully?  Not out loud, or to me, or to anybody else.  Just answer this question to yourself, and be honest: “Are my efforts to distinguish myself from false Christians more about God, or are they more about me?  Whose reputation am I really concerned about–His or mine?”

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.”

My great fear is that our purpose in adding or substituting our own personalized expressions for Christian is to make ourselves look special.  And in whose eyes are we seeking this special status?  I don’t think it’s God–though that would at least be understandable for someone who doesn’t realize that he could never look any more lovely to God than he already does clothed in the perfect righteousness of Christ.  Some of us are probably concerned about our reputation among unbelievers, afraid that we’ll be unfairly judged and condemned because of what some lousy “Christians” have said or done (not realizing, I suppose, that embodying true Christianity and proclaiming the grand offense of the gospel will only lead to more severe judgment and condemnation).  However, I think that probably even more of us are working to engineer our reputations among believers, trying to use cool and novel expressions of our faith to score points with our friends and gain/maintain our social status as veritable super-Christians, the great and wise leaders of our Christian social circles.

I’m not trying to insult anyone.  But if you feel like I just insulted you, then maybe you’re the person who needed to hear it.

“When you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites.  For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others.  Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.”

Perhaps even more fundamentally, I think many of us use these alternative expressions in order to make ourselves look special in our own eyes–that is, to help ourselves feel like we’re special Christians.  And when you think about it, who wouldn’t want to feel that way?  Isn’t it exciting and self-validating to think that my personal relationship with Jesus Christ is something truly extraordinary and unique–not just compared to unbelievers, but to other believers as well?  So when an opportunity arises to express to others and to myself how especially understanding or especially passionate about God I am, why shouldn’t I take it?

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.  The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.  I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’  But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’  I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other.  For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

I think a lot of us see these people we’ve identified as fake Christians and set about trying to prove that we’re not like them–that we’re better than them.  And this proving isn’t just something we do to the people around us; it’s something we do within ourselves, because we need to feel better than them.  We must prove to ourselves–by some good word or deed–that we are not fake Christians.  If we must implicitly discredit others’ Christianity in order to do this, then so be it.

But let me ask you another question:  Do you deserve to be counted in the special group of true and faithful Christians?  Are you really so loving and obedient that you never dishonor the God who has entrusted you to represent His holy name?  And when did we start thinking that anyone could do anything to merit extra favor from God?  That is the polar opposite of the gospel message.

“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?”

“By works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight….  But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it–the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.  For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith….  Then what becomes of our boasting?  It is excluded.”

I’m going to leave the issue of motives aside now, for there is a good deal more to be said, but if the Holy Spirit is working you over at all right now, I suggest you take a break from reading Jordan’s Fallible Uninspired Blog and go stew over these things some more.  Seriously, don’t just keep reading until it “wears off.”  Step away from the computer.

——————————————————

Now in addition to carrying the very real danger of self-promotion, our practice of moving away from the Christian name is also self-defeating.  It simply will not do what we say we want it to do–at least not for very long.  See, if all the “cool Christians” start calling themselves something other than Christian, then eventually most of the “lame Christians” are going to catch on and start doing it too.  And then we just have the same problem all over again, either with whatever becomes the most popular new title or, perhaps even worse, with a sea of personal expressions that lack any real cohesion.  I suspect it would go in cycles:

SHARED TITLE → cool xns unhappy → cool xns diversify → lame xns follow → CRAZY PLURALITY → cool xns unhappy → cool xns find solidarity in new term → lame xns follow → SHARED TITLE → repeat ad inifinitum

Now the reason this might sound so implausible to some of you is because it has never happened before.  But why is that?  We’ve had the same title since about ten years after the birth of the Church at Pentecost (see Acts 11:26), and in the two millennia since then, no generation of Christians has made a stink about their name.  Do not miss this point here.  I know that history is something we modern churches don’t really consider much anymore, but let me repeat:  The name Christian has been with us from the beginning, and until now nobody has suggested that we switch to something else.  (Well, unless you count a couple heretics here and there, but even among the heterodox you’d be surprised at how few.)  Now let’s take off our Present Goggles for a second and clarify something: the problems we face as a Church today are not new, and in most cases, their intensity is nothing compared to the struggles our predecessors endured.  So when we look around and see our problem of insincere, nominal Christians, do not make the mistake of assuming that we are the first generation to deal with this problem, or that it’s never been this bad before.  In fact, when you take a look at the history books, you’ll find that it has ALWAYS been this way.  But neither the apostles nor the church fathers nor the bishops nor the ecumenical councils nor Augustine nor the Reformers nor the Puritans responded to this problem by saying, “You know what we should do is DITCH THE FAKERS by CHANGING OUR NAME!  Yeah!  Instead of patiently discipling them or exercising church discipline, let’s just passive-aggressively demonstrate that we don’t care for them!”  You see my point.

“I do not ask for these [the disciples] only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.  The glory that you have given me I have given them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be perfectly oneso that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.”

Jesus clearly has a strong desire that the Church be unified.  Furthermore, He connects the Church’s unity to the strength of its testimony; we must be one “so that the world may believe.”  When was the last time we thought about our unity as an integral part of our witness to the world?  It makes sense though, doesn’t it?  Imagine that you are a non-Christian.  When you look at the Church, what do you see?  You see a bunch of people who seem way more interested in their “personal relationships” with Jesus than they are in building one another up or reaching out to others with the Good News they have received.  You see people who want to separate themselves from one another rather than stand together.  You see people who would rather avoid the folks they don’t think are “good enough” instead of coming alongside them or even confronting them directly.

As it turns out, intentional disunity among Christians is just damaging to our witness as the missteps of struggling or even insincere Christians.

“So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.  Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.  Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.  Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus.”

We have covered much ground today, yet one key issue remains.  We see that we have logical, historical, and theological reasons to keep the title handed down to us.  But are there any reasons that have to do with the name itself rather than the “historical accident” of its being the one we received?  Is there anything significant about the word Christian in and of itself?

In short, yes.  Very much yes.

“Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.  But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.  If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler.  Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.”

Do you see what Peter does here linguistically?  He connects suffering for “the name of Christ” with suffering “as a Christian.”  Of course, we all see that the word Christ is the root of the word Christian; it therefore stands that the significance of the name Christ for understanding and identifying the Son of God parallels the significance of the name Christian for understanding and identifying the people of God.  So just how important is the name Christ?  Many blogs could be filled in answering this question, but for the present, consider the following.  First, Christ is the Greek equivalent of Messiah, which, if you care much about God’s covenants and promises all throughout the Old Testament (and you should!), is hugely significant: the Christ is the great fulfillment of God’s promise of redemption.  Furthermore, the title Christ encapsulates both aspects of Jesus as Savior and Lord, which we see clearly in the prophets.  Additionally, the first generation of the Church gave the title such prominence that by the time of the Apostles’ letters, we already see it used very frequently as a name for Jesus.  The name Christ became so identified with Jesus that, as mentioned before, Jesus’ followers earned the nickname Christians within scarcely a decade of their ministry.

Christian is, simply, the very best title a follower of Christ can hope for, because it implies that our identity, our very being, is in Him.  We do not just follow Him; we do not just worship Him; we are in Him.  We are His.

So what do we do about the name Christian?  We embrace it.  We defend it.  We take the time to define it for people.  We do not ignore or excuse the misdeeds done under its banner, but we point always to the grace that is greater than all our sin.  We never forget that the Church is a hospital for recovering sinners rather than a country club for the purportedly perfect.

And what do we do about phony Christians?  We get involved.  Think of someone you know who claims Christianity but whose sincerity you doubt.  (If you don’t know anyone like this, then you yourself may be doing Christianity wrong.)  Go to that person and tell him that you are concerned for him, that you do not see the fruit of the Holy Spirit in his daily walk, that you don’t think he understands the totality of Christ’s claim on his life.  Exhort him to consider anew his total depravity, Christ’s offer of full redemption, and His command to put off the old self.  Who knows what might happen?

Just please, don’t try to have these conversations on facebook.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Please, Call Me “Christian”: In Defense of Our First and Best Team Name

  1. What would you say about Jewish believers who prefer to be called “Messianic believers”?
    Also, what would you say about Evangelicals involved in Jewish missions who want to call themselves “followers of Yeshua” or “believers” or “Evangelicals” to distinguish themselves from Catholics?

    • To Jordan: Very well-written. I love the volume of scripture.

      To Adam ^: about the Jewish Believers, why should they be different than the rest of Christianity? Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

      • Thomas, that is a great question. I’d like to talk about it after Jordan’s had a chance to respond.

    • Alright guys, since you’re chomping at the bit, I’ll go ahead [Mr. Auer-style] and throw my two cents in.

      While I understand that Jewish Christians have something of a special heritage as Jews, well, their Christianity trumps all. Part of being a Christian is belonging to the body of Christ, and an important mark of Christian unity is having one universal name for the whole lot of us–a name which we not only all *have* but which we all actually *use* and *value*. Using your own special name for your faith because of your background or circumstances of conversion strikes me as going against that unity Jesus prays for and Paul commands. I would recommend that they call themselves “Jewish Christians” rather than “Messianic believers” because this more clearly identifies them with the body. It is dangerous to want to emphasize our distinctives over our similarities.

      Also, I’d remind them that there were a whole bunch of Jews in that first generation of Christians who embraced the name (heck, the Christian movement was led by Jews), so why shouldn’t the current Jewish converts do the same?

      Regarding the second question, I think the fact that Jews have *different* misconceptions about Christians than other non-Christian groups doesn’t mean our approach shouldn’t be the same. It sounds to me like the Christian involved in Jewish missions has an awesome opportunity to hack away at those misconceptions and help them understand what being a Christian really looks like. So I would recommend sticking with the title Christian and committing whatever time and effort it takes to explain it.

      • Your answer to the second question was good. Thanks. And if I could follow it up – what would you say to a Catholic convert to Evangelical Christianity who wanted to distinguish himself from his past by referring to himself as an “Evangelical”, seeing as how Catholics are considered “Christians”?
        I should have been more clear in my first question. What I was more wanting you to respond to was the Jewish preference to avoid “Christ” because of the persecution they’ve undergone under the name “Christ.” I think (I’ll try my best to represent the view) they would say that “Messianic” means the same thing as “Christian”, just like “Christ” and “Messiah” have the same meaning, and that they prefer “Messianic” not only because it has become their tradition (just like Christian is now the Gentile tradition) but also because there’s no baggage from persecution with “Messianic.”

      • Well, regarding your Catholic question, I don’t want to give the impression that I think we shouldn’t tell people our denominations, because that’s just silly. But again, “Christian” is what you and I are first and foremost, before denominational distinctives enter the picture.

        Regarding the Jews, I am reminded of the words of Jesus: “If you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (Matt 6:14-15)

        And again,

        “Peter came up and said to him, ‘Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.

        “‘Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, “Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.” And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, “Pay what you owe.” So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, “Have patience with me, and I will pay you.” He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. Then his master summoned him and said to him, “You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?” And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.'” (Matt 18:21-35)

  2. One more question, then I promise I’m done:)
    What would you say about someone who inwardly prefered “follower of Jesus”? Not because he liked to distinguish himself or thought himself better than anyone, but privately liked thinking of himself as “follower of Jesus.” So, to elaborate, he loves Jesus, he proudly professes to be a Christian, he loves being known as a “Christian”, and he owns the name in all the ways you’ve mentioned in this blog post, but he personally, just for himself, enjoys the sound of “follower of Jesus” more. It’s never a preference he expresses to others because he highly values the unity under the name “Christian” and wants to avoid being/seeming like the hypocritical person in the blog post. It’s just the name with which he likes to think of himself in the intimacy of his relationship with the Lord.

    • (>’-‘)> The Duke of Disclaimers strikes again! <('-'<)

      Dude that's cool. No worries. If the Holy Spirit wants to use certain terms or expressions to focus your heart on different aspects of your life in Christ at different times, then far be it from me to discourage that. My concern was primarily with external identification. Ponder on, brotisseriechicken.

      • lol Disclaimers?! Hey! I thought I did pretty good to avoid them that time. Oh well:) At least I’m The Duke.
        Brojo Jojo, I have this critique:
        I feel like some of the people who you rebuked could have been like the person in my last question. I think it’s okay for those people to share with others certain terms or expressions that focus their heart on different aspects of their life in Christ at different times. They don’t overly identify themselves as that expression so as to feel better than everyone else; they are proud to be “Christians”, but they share this part of themselves with their loved ones. It seems like that’s what some, not all, but some of your friends on facebook might have been doing. I think there are definitely some who do it for self-promotion.
        Also, in that 1st Peter passage, I don’t think Peter is prescribing to those who are undergoing persecution to hold to a specific name. In the entirety of the New Testament the authors of the epistles refer to themselves and other believers as “saints”, “sons of light”, “children of God”, “brothers/sisters”, and in Acts 9 believers were referring to their belief system as “the Way.” Every time you see the word “Christian” it is coming from non-believers in mockery of the believers’ faith in Jesus. The modern equivalent might be something like “Jesus Freak.” I think Peter is saying that when people call you “Christian” (or “Jesus Freak”) don’t be ashamed to own your identity in Christ for the glory of the Father because He is pleased with your faithfulness.

        To respond to Thomas’ question, Galatians 3:28 is speaking in terms of sin and salvation, which is the same for everybody. But I think there are distinctions between Jew and Gentile in this matter of the church, just like I think you’d agree there are distinctions between men and women (who are mentioned at the end of the same verse) in the church.
        I think Jewish believers really would love to call themselves “Christians” and would be happy to come under that name, but the history of their relationship with Gentile churches has been Gentile believers trying to absorb them, wanting them to discount their Jewishness and convert, sometimes under the threat of death. They’ve never before been able to peacefully exist with Gentile believers while distinguishing themselves as Jewish and they want to make it known while they have the voice to speak. As I type this out I see it was insensitive of me in that earlier post to refer to the issues stopping Jewish believers from coming under the name “Christian” as “baggage”, as if Antisemitism is well in their past. One current example are the crazy Baptist preachers who say “God hates Jews.” I think Messianic believers would be fine giving up the title “Messianic believers” in exchange for “Christian” if they knew Gentile believers in the church would acknowledge their Jewish distinction as legitimate.

      • Haha well I knew eventually somebody would say, “Hey, surely not everyone has wrongful motives here! You’re not really being fair.” I agree that not everyone who uses a term or expression other than Christian for their facebook Religious Views does so for the reasons I’ve stated. Indeed, I assumed so from the beginning. But I feared that if I made caveats to such effect throughout my polemic, then those consciences that should be rightly stirred would use such an escape hatch to get away from really examining themselves. I know that’s what my heart would do in that situation. So, at the risk of maybe coming off as harsh or insensitive, I decided to let people sift themselves through that section, hoping they would give me the benefit of the doubt that I’m not quite dense enough to assume that *everyone* is in the wrong. Since the book of Galatians seems to be a hot topic today, I’ll point to it as another example of this principle. Paul is stern, even harsh with the Galatians as he writes; and while he surely realizes that there are positive exceptions in the Galatian church, he doesn’t stray from his argument to formally acknowledge it.

        And, while I agree with you that “it’s okay for people to share with others certain terms or expressions that focus their hearts on different aspects of their lives in Christ at different times,” I think one’s Religious Views on facebook is a poor place to do so. Facebook is social; facebook is public. Putting special Christianese phrases as one’s Religious Views is like me getting all my facebook friends together in an auditorium, standing up at the microphone, and then having a conversation with only some of them that the rest either can’t understand or don’t find relevant to them. It comes off as insensitive to those who aren’t part of the in-crowd, like I don’t really care if they’re there or not. I don’t want to do that. I don’t want my basic facebook profile information to be special in-language that might confuse or alienate any of my friends, from the jocks to the girls to the gays to Mrs. Chitty.

        I think that the Peter passage actually bears out this principle. You are right to acknowledge the many terms NT writers use when speaking to believers, but we recall that the epistles were originally private correspondences between Christians. Paul didn’t have to worry about confusing or alienating outsiders because his letters were to churches. The personal, intimate context gave him just such an opportunity to use other terms to draw out various dimensions of our faith. But the Peter passage is speaking of the church’s outward face–that is, her dealings with unbelievers–and he encourages them in such matters not only to retain the name Christian during trials but to rejoice under it.

        So ultimately, given the public nature of facebook and one’s profile information being an “outward face” for the believer, I would still encourage all Christians AT LEAST to have the word Christian in there.

        It is just plain tough to identify the extent of Paul’s unity remark in Galatians 3:28. There are nearly as many theories as there are commentaries on the epistle. I am not qualified to speak definitely to it, but I will say that I would lean toward applying it in just about any sense that isn’t addressed elsewhere in Scripture or that isn’t self-evidently absurd (i.e. a biological sense etc.).

        And now to the Jews. I will let everything Thomas has said regarding covenant theology stand for me as well; his nutshell introduction is beyond satisfactory for our purposes here. I do have a question of my own, though. You say that the Jewish Christians do not want to have their “Jewishness” “discounted” and that they insist on “distinguishing themselves as Jewish,” so much so that they prioritize it over integration with the rest of the body of Christ. What exact distinctives do they wish to retain? What are these aspects of Jewishness with which they are unwilling to part? I do not presume the Gentile believers’ “demands” to always be reasonable, but I also do not presume the Jewish believers’ “demands” to be justified either. I can’t help but think that, regardless of our *exact* reading of Galatians 3:28, Paul would be saddened to hear that the Jewish and Gentile Christians STILL have yet to find a way to set their prejudices and sacred cows aside and worship together.

        You and I are overdue for a phone conversation at this point anyway, Master Broshi, so feel free to respond by whatever means you deem most preferable.

  3. ^ Adam:
    I love your heart for the Jews, and I think it’s a calling you should keep pursuing. They are a lost people just like any others…
    But I have to disagree that they have a “special place” in God’s heart. I doubt this is a good venue to discuss this kind of thing, but here’s an overview:
    -I believe God’s Promise to Abraham’s “offspring” (not “offsprings”) was completely fulfilled in Christ. (Galatians 3:16)
    -Jewishness was never a sure sign of God’s promise in the Old Covenant (Just look at all of the fallen kings and children of Israel). It has always been a matter of faith; not of bloodlines.
    -I believe Christians are “Israel” in God’s eyes now, regardless of their birth heritage. Galatians 3:7 – “…those of faith are sons of Abraham.” And Galatians 3:29 – “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s Offspring, heirs according to promise.”
    -That’s the Jew’s only claim to fame: they are heirs of Abraham. If anyone faithful to Christ is “Abraham’s offspring,” then there really is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles anymore in any way. Nowhere in the New Testament have I seen any indication of Jews retaining their higher position over Gentiles in God’s plan. That’s the whole point of this chapter in Galatians: to clarify that the OT Promise to the Jews hasn’t been abandoned; rather the Promise has been both fulfilled and expanded.

    I ascribe to Covenant theology instead of Dispensational theology, and that’s where most of this is coming from. In Dispensationalism, the Jews have a huge part to play in the end of the world, but I don’t believe this “fits” with what we know about God through the Bible. In Covenant theology, the Promise is fulfilled through Christ and a new covenant is established with his resurrection.

    Like I said, this is just a really quick overview; I’d love to talk about it more sometime, but I’m trying not to “start something” on the internet, where foolishness rears its head quickly and tensions can rise even quickly-er…?

    So don’t be offended, Adam. Live long and prosper.
    ~Thomas the Christian <— (there, Jordan. Now it's about you a little bit.)

    PS: … also I have scripture supporting me from more than just one little chapter of Galatians, but it was open and handy. 😛

    • I appreciate your thoughtful response, Thomas. I’m glad you said you don’t want to start something on the internet because I don’t want to either. And thanks for saying you’d be willing to talk about it later. I really would like that and prefer it to typing back and forth.
      Good job bringing it back to the blog’s point:)

  4. Pingback: Why I Love Religion (And So Does Jesus) | Calling Out Your Name

  5. Pingback: “What’s in a Name?”: Facebook, Religion, and the Disappearing Christian | Calling Out Your Name

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