Toward a Pentecostalism We Can All Practice: how modernism ruined the mystical

Blog Signature

I know many of us have a shared Pentecostal ancestry, so to speak.  I have spent the better part of a year contemplating how my Pentecostal heritage is going to continue to influence my Christian walk.  There has always been an element of Pentecostalism, and charismatic movements for that matter, that has resonated with me spiritually.  In fact, as a confirmed member of the Episcopal Church, I have found that the spiritually efficacious nature of charismatic/Pentecostal theology is still very much part of how I live out my faith.  Indeed, I have even been caught off guard by it in a couple of settings.[1]  I bring this up, because I have never been academically satisfied with the Pentecostal doctrinal propositions or defenses offered by Pentecostal scholars.[2]  However, I am not willing to “throw the baby out with the bath water,” to borrow from a colloquialism that I have oft heard being tossed around in Pentecostal institutions.  So, after a couple of years spent ruminating and a couple of very long conversations with one of Loyola University’s professors emeritus, I have finally found a way to begin articulating, theologically, the struggle I have with Pentecostal doctrine.[3]

            As an undergraduate student, it quickly became evident to me that some doctrines are, well, more “doctrinal” than others.[4]   I mean to say that some doctrines that are entertained by Christians are orthodox, and some are not.  They are a matter of personal preference, and do not really constitute something the broader community must believe or practice, though they may articulate the official position of one Christian sect.  This may seem nit picky, but it makes all of the difference in the world to me.  I cannot abide by the fact that many Pentecostals see in their Pentecostal doctrine certain elements that are essential for belief.  I agree that many elements of charismatic/Pentecostal theology are edifying, that they enhance spirituality, and that they offer practical ways of living out our faith – and, as such, are worthy of pursuit.  However, Pentecostal doctrine is not essential to the Christian walk, and to teach it as such is an abuse of authority.  These were the only ways that I was previously able to articulate my frustration.

Lately, though, I have found a cleaner way to address the problem I have with the Pentecostal experience and the teaching of Pentecostal doctrine.  I think the problem I have is a simple disconnect that exists between the mystical and the intellectual.  I think the church has been experiencing and will continue to experience some fallout over the western church’s reaction to the Enlightenment.  The modernist response to the Enlightenment has made mystical Christianity all but an anathema.  However, this is the source of my issues with Pentecostalism.  The charismata is something to be approached apophatically and not cataphatically.  The gifts of the Spirit, including tongues, constitute legitimate mystical experiences, and, yet, the Pentecostal church wants to teach it cataphatically.[5]  I think this is the same problem the Roman church ran into with its teaching on transubstantiation – they wanted to “teach” a mystical experience.[6]  As a result, I feel a lot better about the role that the charismata will play in my Christian life.  They are, as I believe Paul intended, an ad hoc mystical experience designed by God to enable Christians to interact with the Spirit as the Church functions as Christ’s agents in the world.


[1] One instance in particular comes to mind – at a spiritual retreat with 310 teens, I found myself laboring in prayer with a girl and was surprised to be led by the Spirit to pray in tongues, so I did – privately.

[2] Honestly, how many times have you heard a Pentecostal call that phrase, “Pentecostal scholar,” an oxymoron?  I have heard professors at A/G institutions do it.

[3] Though, not necessarily with Pentecostal practice – which doesn’t even scratch the surface of how hard it has been to separate the frustrations I have with evangelical theology/practice from that of Pentecostal heritage.

[4] I hope to invoke not only the denotative (a collection of teachings, beliefs, etc) sense of “doctrine,” but also the connotative element as well.  The emotional force of saying that something is the official teaching of your church amounts to saying, “you must believe, do, say…”

[5] Remember those camp evangelists that had everyone at the altar doing “Pentecostal calisthenics” to warm the new initiates up for the baptism in the Holy Spirit?

[6] It, incidentally, is also where many protestant churches run into trouble as well.  They want to make the “mystical” aspect of communion into a memorial or “visible” Christian practice, and just end up robbing it of meaning.  What good is a mystical experience without mystery?

Advertisements

22 Comments

  1. Shawn,

    I had a couple questions and reactions:

    A) What do you know about Charismatic Anglicanism? The Episcopal Church had a great many parishes – including my own parish – that became involved in the “Charismatic Renewal.” In addition, where there is growth in Anglicanism they tend to be charismatic if not necessarily in what we think of as a “Pentecostal” way.

    B) You seem to equate “Pentecostal” with “Mystical Experience.” Where would you come to such a conclusion? I ask because I still interpret charimaticism in the Church as something related to empowerment and mission rather than “mysticism.”

    C) If you see your history as a Pentecostal as being ‘mystical’ is that something that has influenced your highly sympathetic readings of Islam?

    Reply

  2. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul offers guidelines for how “mystical” gifts such as tongues and prophecy are to be exercised, so that worship services can be conducted “decently and in order.” Whatever the influence of the Enlightenment on Pentecostalism and evanelicalism, Paul doesn’t seem to separate out the mystical and the rational as neatly as you seem to be doing here.

    Also, I’m not sure I’m following your usage of the terms apophatically and cataphatically, terms that are normally used in reference to how we speak of God. You seem to be using them as synonyms for mystical and rational, but that’s not quite right, is it? Apophaticism is the way of negation, the reminder that “God is not__________.” It doesn’t have to do with direct, non-rationally mediated experiences of God, does it? I think the proper term for that is contemplation.

    Reply

  3. @Tony,

    A) Not much, other than I am aware it exists in the same way that I am aware of the charismatic and Pentecostal movements within the Roman church. Two of the priests at my church (one of whom was part of the Pentecostal movement in the Roman church a few decades ago) seem to have very charismatic leanings – at least that is what their preaching seems like.

    B) I think this is exactly the point of my post. I think what you have expressed is one of the ways Pentecostal groups try to teach the charismata. However, think about the practice of that theology (especially about the baptism of the Spirit). What is its point; actualizing your understanding of how God empowers us or having a personal experience (or oneness) with God that changes who you are?

    C) Hmmm, hadn’t really thought about that, but I guess it could have on some practical level. The content of this post is an epiphany I had recently, so I’m not sure.

    Reply

  4. George,

    You wrote:

    “Whatever the influence of the Enlightenment on Pentecostalism and evanelicalism, Paul doesn’t seem to separate out the mystical and the rational as neatly as you seem to be doing here.”

    Isn’t that always the way it goes. :0)

    However, I see that you did not directly refute the point I was making – so, does that mean that you agree in principal that certain Christians have overreacted to Enlightenment thinking – in particular Pentecostals that want to make their mystical experiences as “rationally” legitimate as possible in the face of a science-drunk society?

    You wrote:
    “You seem to be using them as synonyms for mystical and rational, but that’s not quite right, is it? Apophaticism is the way of negation, the reminder that “God is not__________.” It doesn’t have to do with direct, non-rationally mediated experiences of God, does it? I think the proper term for that is contemplation.”

    Technically speaking, the via negativa (apophatic theology) and the via affirmativa (cataphatic theology) both have to do with mysticism. Burch says, “Thus cataphatic theology, as a means of via affirmative, operates on the level of reason” (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1244). Regarding the via negativa, Corduan says, “Apophatic theology – an approach to the knowledge of God that denies the strict applicability of any human concepts to God, originating in the Neoplatonic tradition,” and “the role of the [Neoplatonic] One was taken over by God, who was thus thought to be beyond conceptualization…Dionysius recognized a way of affirmation in which it is realized that God possesses all attributes as First Cause. This way of affirmation begins with God and sees all creaturely attributes as derived from him. But if we attempt to reverse this process and try to reapply those attributes to God, we find that he is beyond such predication, and all we have left is the darkness of skepticism concerning his attributes” (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1245-6). I was also thinking of the way in which Westerhoff uses apophatic and cataphatic in Spiritual Life: the Foundation for Preaching and Teaching. In it he pairs things like contemplative prayer with apophatic spirituality. So, I think that the ideas of apophatic and cataphatic in a taxonomical sense actually fit under the broader notion of Christian mysticism.

    Reply

  5. Shawn:

    You may be right that Pentecostal demands for evidence of Spirit-baptism is a kind of Babylonian captivity to Enlightenment epistemology.

    But that’s not my concern, which is twofold: (1) whether, when it comes to tongues, it is helpful to divide too sharply between the mystical and the intellectual; and (2) whether apophatic and cataphatic are correlative terms to mystical and intellectual, respectively.

    Regarding (1), Paul’s treatment of public messages in tongues seems to span the divide you’ve created between the mystical, thus calling it into question. If for Paul, public messages in tongues were both nonrationally edifying (to the speaker) and rationally edifying (to both speaker and hearer by means of interpretation), then it really doesn’t make sense to corral tongues into the mystical pen. Indeed, if Acts 2 is to be believed, tongues were simply the supernatural ability to speak another human language. That might have been mystical for the speaker, but it was intellectual for the hearer. My point is that I think tongues cannot be neatly analyzed as either mystical or intellectual. It’s both.

    (2) In Aristotelian logic, both apophasis and cataphasis are forms of reasoning, so it doesn’t make sense to align apophatic with mystical and cataphatic with intellectual. Apophasis is a form of reasoning that works by denial, cataphasis by means of affirmation. Apophaticism is not arational, nonrational, or irrational. It is a form of rational argumentation. In theology, it serves the purpose of guarding against idolatry by turning God into a being that can be comprehended by creaturely concepts. Okay, fine, but I still don’t see how it’s germane to this discussion. In mystical spirituality, the goal is hesychasm or contemplation, quietness before God or sight of him. In my opinion, using any of these terms to discuss Pentecostalism is inappropriate, for the simply reason that tongues is neither negation, affirmation, quietness, or vision.

    George

    Reply

  6. George,

    “Regarding (1), Paul’s treatment of public messages in tongues seems to span the divide you’ve created between the mystical, thus calling it into question. If for Paul, public messages in tongues were both nonrationally edifying (to the speaker) and rationally edifying (to both speaker and hearer by means of interpretation), then it really doesn’t make sense to corral tongues into the mystical pen. Indeed, if Acts 2 is to be believed, tongues were simply the supernatural ability to speak another human language. That might have been mystical for the speaker, but it was intellectual for the hearer. My point is that I think tongues cannot be neatly analyzed as either mystical or intellectual. It’s both.”

    I did some graduate work under Dr. Benny Aker at AGTS on theology of the charismata. At the time I was there (things may have changed since then, I haven’t kept up with it), the A/G’s best and brightest were drawing some fairly distinct lines between what they felt were glossolalia associated with the corporate prophetic gifts of tongues and the individual or ad hoc charismatic glossolalia. Interestingly, we were researching how those “nonrationally edifying” tongues seemed always to fall into this category of mystical experiences you mentioned, while the actual glossolalia seen in Acts 2 and I Cor. 14 were unique to the corporate worship experience and the broader biblical significance of the Ascension and Pentecost. Consequently, research seemed to be pointing to just that kind of distinction between “mystical” tongues and “intellectual” tongues by virtue of what role they fulfilled in Scripture (typically signified by whether the “tongues” in question were actual languages or spiritual utterances). At best, I can readily accept that the point you are making demonstrates indirectly that mystical experiences are typically only personally uplifting, and it is preferable to be intelligible among the community so that all may be edified by our gifts. There is (or at least was, in fairness) A/G scholarship that contradicts what you are saying is the relationship between “nonrationally edifying and rationally edifying” tongues.

    You wrote:
    “In Aristotelian logic, both apophasis and cataphasis are forms of reasoning, so it doesn’t make sense to align apophatic with mystical and cataphatic with intellectual. Apophasis is a form of reasoning that works by denial, cataphasis by means of affirmation. Apophaticism is not arational, nonrational, or irrational. It is a form of rational argumentation. In theology, it serves the purpose of guarding against idolatry by turning God into a being that can be comprehended by creaturely concepts. Okay, fine, but I still don’t see how it’s germane to this discussion. In mystical spirituality, the goal is hesychasm or contemplation, quietness before God or sight of him. In my opinion, using any of these terms to discuss Pentecostalism is inappropriate, for the simply reason that tongues is neither negation, affirmation, quietness, or vision.”

    I have written and re-written my response to this a couple of times and I’m still not happy with it. I genuinely enjoy interacting with you, but for some reason I am always so tempted to be snarky with you – forgive me?

    It’s interesting to me that you are retreating to your analytical and rhetorical training here. I’m suspicious it’s because you have gone into “win the debate” mode, which is fine. However, I offered academic work from two PhD’s in an Evangelical source (though, it was a one volume theological dictionary – sorry, I was going for expediency – nonetheless…) that demonstrated that the notions of apophatic and cataphatic theology cannot be reduced to simple modes of logical formulation. In fact, I attempted to demonstrate to you that my point was not to draw simple line between “mystical” and “rational,” rather my point is to demonstrate the experiential nature/goals of pentecostalism versus its insistence on some kind of orthodox formulation and execution. I agree with you, apophatic theology is generally conceived as reasoning through negation and cataphatic theology is generally conceived as reasoning through affirmation – both are reasoning, both are “intellectual” exercises. However, you are not allowing for the nuance that is present in either our understanding of mysticism or our understanding of mystical traditions like via negativa and via affirmativa. Perhaps the fault is mine in not communicating well?

    ” (1) whether, when it comes to tongues, it is helpful to divide too sharply between the mystical and the intellectual; and (2) whether apophatic and cataphatic are correlative terms to mystical and intellectual, respectively.”

    So, in response to (1) what are we going to say is “too sharply,” is this the argument of the beard? I think some distinction is necessary, but you think I have made it too distinct – what is the right amount of distinctness? In response to (2) I don’t think that apophatic and cataphatic are correlative to mystical and intellectual, respectively. They are both mystical, though one reasons through affirmation and the other through negation, generally. As you have aptly pointed out, mystical is still “rational” in an Aristotelian sense.

    Peace to you, my brother

    Reply

  7. George,

    Incidentally, what you said here is huge to me.

    “You may be right that Pentecostal demands for evidence of Spirit-baptism is a kind of Babylonian captivity to Enlightenment epistemology.”

    /1/ It is the part of my point that I have an investment in, and /2/ the stuff we are arguing about now, I think, amounts to finding mutually pleasing language so that we can officially agree.

    Reply

  8. (1) Shawn, I am curious of what you mean by “mystical experience”?

    (2) Have you ever spoken in tongues?

    (3) Do you still speak in tongues?

    I have spoken in tongues lots. It is on my list to post about my experiences — odd, though, I would never call those “mystical” — because I have had experiences I would tag with the word “mystical”. I am not toying with semantics, instead I find it interesting to try to communicate subjective experiences.


    BTW, I recently did a little post on a book on Pentacostalism in a book recommended by Nick. Which then inspired this post on Millenmialism. And, I spent a lot of time drawing up these beautiful diagrams of the various Eschatological positions.

    I know you guys must have missed me deeply, but I couldn’t think of anything of interest to respond to your recent posts. Hope you enjoy this.

    Reply

  9. Hey,
    What do you think about having a “I spoke in Tongues” blog carnival. Each of you boys here, who have had the privileged experience, and I write our experiences. Keeping out of all the theology, of course. Just tell the story !
    Good idea?

    Reply

  10. Sabio,

    1) I mean that, in my experience, tongues had always been tied directly to devotional activity like contemplative prayer. So, I’m thinking of things like Theosis or via negativa as Christian mystical attempts to experience or be one with God. Here is something else I found that gets at what I am saying.

    2) Yes

    3) When I feel led or an urgency about it, but is very infrequent anymore. In fact, when I do experience the phenomenon it seems to catch me off guard.

    “I am not toying with semantics, instead I find it interesting to try to communicate subjective experiences.”

    Probably another good example of what interests me in how Pentecostals decide to “theologize” about their doctrines. These are indeed very subjective experiences, but it seems like they are trying to legitimize it to the broader community by attaching some form of standardized theory to it.

    “I know you guys must have missed me deeply, but I couldn’t think of anything of interest to respond to your recent posts. Hope you enjoy this.”

    I have a hard time believing you didn’t have anything of interest to say. :0)

    And, I did miss you.

    I’ll check out your posts when I get a chance, thanks!

    Reply

  11. Shawn:

    I think we’re finding some areas of agreement: (a) Pentecostal insistence on evidence of Spirit-baptism may have been influenced by the evidentialist epistemologies of 19th-Century America. (b) Private messages in tongues are nonrationally edifying, more on the “mystical” side of things, that is to say, then on the “intellectual.” (c) We should avoid disputes about words.

    Where do we still disagree? (d) You wrote: “There is (or at least was, in fairness) A/G scholarship that contradicts what you are saying is the relationship between “nonrationally edifying and rationally edifying” tongues.” How so? I actually agree with the point of view that you’ve expressed. I didn’t argue that private messages in tongues bridged the divide between “mystical” and “intellectual,” I argued that public messages did. For the speaker, a public message in tonuges is both personally and nonrationally edifying (because the Spirit is speaking through him) and rationally edifying (because the message is interpreted both for him and for the audience). You’re seeing a contradiction here between me and AG thinking, but I don’t see it. In fact, if I’ve understood you correctly, this is another point of agreement between us. Public messages in tongues are both nonrationally and rationally edifying, while private messages in tongues are nonrationally edifying only.

    (e) I don’t want to get into a dispute about words, so I don’t think I’ll press the debate about the precise meaning of apophatic and cataphatic any further. My position is something like this: I think one can describe “mystical” experiences “cataphatically,” at least to say, “I just had a mystical experience.” Even further, one could, like Pascal, describe–even if in a limited way–his famous “night of fire.” Julian of Norwich could come out of one her reveries and affirm, “All will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well.” We may not be able to limn the nuances of “mystical” experiences through words and reasons, but we can capture some aspects of them. I suspect you agree with this to some extent. Hence, no more beard-pulling.

    (f) After re-reading your post and responses, I wonder if your real concern is not cataphasis but technique. It’s one thing to make certain doctrinal affirmations about tongues or other mystical experiences. It’s another thing to promote techniques as a sure-fire way to have that experience, e.g., just say shouldaboughtahonda over and over till you find yourself speaking in tongues. Care to comment?

    George

    Reply

  12. George,
    (A,B,C) – Indeed, we do agree
    (D) – I think we are close, here. Probably close enough, in fact. I think I may have just misunderstood the intent of your point about Paul and his discussion of prophecy/tongues in 1 Cor.
    (E) – Check, I don’t know that arguing about usage is going to help much. Let’s just shave that one off the list.
    (F) – George, I think my intent in using “Cataphasis” to polarize the conversation was to demonstrate that the doctrine has strayed out of its appropriate realm of experience into the realm of dogma. So, to whatever extent your point here means that we cannot make affirmative theological statements about the orthopraxy of the charismata generally or glossolalia specifically, then we are nearing agreement here, too. I concede that my point may be an over-reaction. But, honestly George, you are not representative of either the status quo in laymen or ministers of Pentecostal denominations – you are much easier to reason with on these issues (most likely, because you have your own issues with them) – so I feel like I have fallen into the trap that Luther, Augustine, et al fell into. It seems like some level of polemics is needed to bring the ship to rights again.

    Reply

  13. Shawn,

    At the end of the day though I still do not understand/disagree with what you mean by “mystical.” Especially as you seemingly put it over and above other forms of knowing God.

    Reply

  14. This sentence about tongues interested me: “the doctrine has strayed out of its appropriate realm of experience into the realm of dogma.” I hear what you’re saying, but surely we agree that tongues can be an appropriate topic for dogmatic reflection! I don’t want to overthink tongues, nor do I want to turn tongues into a dogma characterized by undue rigidity or an orientation toward technique, but still…

    I’m probably just overthinking your point, though, so I’ll stop.

    Reply

  15. You guys are all so careful and couched in your words it is hard to figure out what each other is saying. It seems like you all want to say carefully something so as to stay orthodox enough or something. I often walk away wondering, “Gee, what did they say? What do they really think?”

    Tony asks Shawn “I still do not understand/disagree with …”

    Gee, does that mean, “I still do not understand with … AND I disagree with … ” Even the simple sentence wasn’t simple.

    I asked Shawn what he meant by Mystical too. Sounds like Tony and I are both waiting. But will he say it wrapped in so many words that we have no clue what he means. Or maybe fellow theologians will understand but poor me …..

    Reply

  16. Well, I was only going to point out that the conversations on this site take a decidedly academic tone. When one talks with members of the “academy” a slip in language can turn out to be a little more detrimental than just embarrassing. You have academic conversations in order to hone your skills at many things, including the analytical clarity that George mentions. I am sure there are a great many conversations to be had out there in fields in which I do not hold degrees that I would be completely lost/bored in.

    Reply

  17. Sabio,

    “Sorry, the speaking in tongues post will have to come later — can’t just muster that one up. I have to wait for the spirit to move me.”

    good one, :0)

    Reply

  18. Praise the Lord Dear beloved man of GOD.

    Greetings to you in the Name of Jesus Christ, and from India

    I would like to introduce me as Pastor T. Lazarus founder of Shalem ministries in ongole Andhra Pradesh south India. Aged35 years

    and married and two children we are also going in the ministry of the Lord. I am doing ministry since 16 years I came here yet present where I am doing ministry according to vision the Lord told me and led me here to do HIS ministry. By the Grace of GOD and by the leading of the SPIRIT I have build one church in ongole i have nearly one hundred twenty believers in my church the Lord using us in HIS ways. Not only that we have lot of remote villages in those villages people does not know about Jesus Christ so I was so touched by the spirit to go and preach the good news to them. I have been doing ministry and by the Grace of GOD I was build some churches in some remote areas, many
    Muslims and Hindus people came and accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior and LORD and they baptized also. In my sojourn I have seen lot of things in some areas while I went to preach and pray for the sick and demons, lot of people they are living without knowing Jesus and about HIS love. So I was inspired a lot by the spirit to go
    and visit them and introduce the love and kingdom of GOD, When I visit them the LORD began to manifest HIS glory among the people; sick are healed and demons are came out from lot of bodies. These manners the Lord doing HIS works for establish HIS kingdom in those remote areas.

    Man of God, I am very happy and love your heart that you may help any kind of way I am so happy to connect and having fellowship with Indian ministries and pastors, but I would like to have your spiritual fellowship. I hope and believing that there is no far ness to the spirit. We are praying for you and waiting for the Lord that he may bring you here to our flock edification and for deep experiences in the spirit.

    MAN of GOD, I would like to you to visit my place one time it’s been blessing to me because your steps brought anointing Great revival in our lives. Not only that we need deeper experience in Christ and we would like to learn and know the new things from you and your revelations for edification of the church and pastors. If you have any leading and will please come and conduct three days pastors conference in Ongole, my burden and wish is; if we revival one pastor then he will revival lot of people for the kingdom of GOD. We need the mental of you and we need double measure of spirit from you so please pray for us. Please let me know that how the SPIRIT of leading you leading you about me and my invitation to India. We are already began to pray for you we are so blessed if we have your spiritual fellowship with me to earn thousands of souls for the kingdom of God.

    Brother, I am sending some more information about my place and district.
    Brother, as I was state with you before; we have Total 56 Mandal , 1043 Villages are in this District .Prakasam Total Population of Prakasam is 3054941 .1549891 Males , 1505050 Females .Prakasam is in 14 th position in the state By Population. but there is no much servants of God labors are few there lot of need and lake of the missionaries and evangelists so I was inspired by the Holy Spirit I was started a small bible school in my church it was started with five men by the Grace of God they are filled by the Holy Spirit and trained as evangelists and now they are doing ministry in some places my heart desire is we have to train many servants of God to send in to every place in India especially to my district. That’s way I am asking you to come and help us to train missionaries in India for Indian fields.
    This is my Vision;
    1. Train young people as pastors and evangelists
    2. to reach and touch every remote village of India, and to earn this country for the Lord Jesus.
    3. to feed poor and orphan children and widows.
    4. To help native missionaries in India.
    5. To build more churches and congregations in lot of places in India.
    6. My wish and desire is to revival every pastor and servant of God that they may do more ministry for kingdom of GOD.
    7. To conduct Gospel meetings and pastors conferences more and more for the edification of the pastors spiritual lives.

    Please pray for my vision fulfillment and if the Lord’s leads you to me to bless us and lead us in to deeper experiences in Word of God.
    We love and love to hear from you.

    Yours brother in Christ

    pastor.T. Lazarus + 91 99594 39348
    Shalem ministries
    zachariha nagar
    Ongole.523001
    Andhra Pradesh
    south india.

    Reply

  19. Wow, I am apparently still following this thread. I read “Pastor Lazarus'” letter. The experience was similar to accidentally lighting on a Christian AM radio station and stopping to listen for a while.

    It is like listening to a foreign language — beautiful in its own unique way but strange enough that you are glad you don’t live there.

    Reply

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