What Was Decided? The April ‘Clarifications’ and Keeping Faith

Michael Root

What did the ELCA decide in August? That question is made difficult by unclarities in the Report and Recommendations on Ministry Policy of the Sexuality Task Force and by subtle, but significant changes made to the proposed resolutions by the ELCA Church Council in April 2009, reinforced by interpretative documents published prior to the Assembly by the Vocation and Education unit. The interpretation of the Assembly actions is decisive for the revisions of policy documents now underway and will determine what sort of space is made for those who dissent from the Assembly’s actions.

A. The Task Force recommendation.

The Report and Recommendations on Ministry Policies (hereafter, the Report, found here and referred to by line number) was a less than clear document. It did, at times (e.g., in its descriptions of Step Two, which asked whether the church should be open in principle to rostered partnered gay and lesbian persons) give the impression that it was advocating a uniform policy of such acceptance across the church. The resolution by which the Assembly would make the ‘in principle’ decision was not phrased in ‘local option’ terms. Nevertheless, both the general logic of the Report’s argument and, decisively, its own description of what it was proposing indicated a policy by which bishops, synods, candidacy committees, etc., could exercise their own conscience and act in a way different from any such national policy.

The general argument of the Task Force worked from the premise that there was not and would not soon be a consensus in the ELCA on homosexuality (Report, lines 67f). An argument that runs “We do not agree on question x, so we will allow diversity in how that question is answered” makes a certain sense. An argument that runs “We do not agree on question x, so we will adopt this particular definite policy on the question” makes no sense. The argument from bound conscience only works if the conclusion of the argument is diversity of practice.

In its detailed description of its proposal, the Task Force was quite clear that it was proposing ‘structured flexibility’ as something to be implemented, something not now in place, that would allow various groups to opt out of any national policy. The general rule was expressed early in the text: “Decisions about policy that serve only the interests of one or another group will not be acceptable” (281ff). It granted that honoring bound conscience “may lead to some diversity of practice within this church” (413-4) It proposed “some means of structured flexibility be implemented so that congregations and synods may choose whether or not to approve or call people in publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve on ELCA rosters” (446-8, emphasis added). Or again: “Flexibility would make it possible – within existing practices, in appropriate settings, and through a consistent process and standards – for those who already hold the responsibility for discernment and decision making to choose whether or not to approve people who are living in publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders in this church” (480-483; emphasis added; how this flexibility would be compatible with ‘consistent standards’ is not explained.) These descriptions imply that synods and those involved in candidacy decisions (candidacy committees, bishops, seminary faculties) can vote against and potentially reject candidates on the basis of their bound consciences.

The Report also clearly implies that this structured flexibility would be some new set of procedures introduced into the ELCA: “The existing discernment processes for approval and call already assume that synods, bishops, candidacy committees, rostered leaders, and congregations will make decisions in keeping with their own conscience and convictions. If structured flexibility were added to the process, this assumption would still protect any congregation, candidacy committee, synod or bishop from having to violate bound conscience by approving, calling, commissioning, consecrating, or ordaining anyone in a publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationship” (488 – 495; emphasis added). Structured flexibility could not be added to the process if the present process already fully realized structured flexibility.

The proposed resolution on ministry was along these same lines: “Resolved, that this church, because of its commitment to respect the bound consciences of all, declares its intent to incorporate structured flexibility in decision-making into its policies and procedures so that synods, bishops, congregations, candidacy committees, and others involved in the candidacy process and in the extending of calls will be free to act according to their convictions regarding both the approving and disapproving in candidacy and the extending and not extending of a call to rostered service of a person who is otherwise qualified and who is living or contemplates living in a publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationship.” Note, this resolution clearly allows a bishop, candidacy committee, or other body to disapprove a candidate because of the dictates of conscience.

B. The April ‘Clarifications’

The Task Force did not say how such ‘structured flexibility’ would work. How would conflicts of conscience between, say, a bishop and a synod assembly or a bishop and a congregation be resolved? The proposal was criticized (e.g., here) as opening the church to chaos. If a synod could opt out, one might argue that the ELCA would cease to have a single ministerium and thus cease to be a single church.

As the comments on this blog from Pr. Keith Hunsinger make clear, the Church Council, at the urging of national staff, altered the wording of the Task Force’s proposal. In the resolution on bound conscience, the statement that “synods, bishops, congregations, candidacy committees, and others involved in the candidacy process and in the extending of calls will be free to act according to their convictions” was dropped In a stroke, explicit mention of the possibility of various bodies to opt-out of national policy disappeared from the resolutions. The resolutions could now be read as proposing a uniform, national set of ordination standards permitting partnered gay and lesbian clergy. While the resolution still said that ‘all’ bound consciences would be respected, just who came under the word ‘all’ was not specified. ‘All’ could mean all individuals. Nothing is said explicitly about the possibility of synodical bodies making a corporate decision to approve candidates or not.

This way of reading the proposal was put forward by the Vocation and Education unit, especially in its interpretation of ‘structured flexibility.’ As noted above, the Task Force presents ‘structured flexibility’ as something to be added to what is already present, as something new. It represented a flexibility not already present. After the April Church Council meeting, however, a Frequently Asked Questions sheet put together by the Vocation and Education unit stated that ‘structured flexibility’ is what the ELCA already had (on same webpage linked above for the Report). It represented no new flexibility. We had a national, uniform standard and we would have one in the future.

The ELCA website states that the changes made at the April Council meeting were editorial and non-substantive. If the resolutions are read in line with such texts as the just mentioned FAQ sheet, then that claim seems false. The proposals were changed in a fundamental way. A proposal that sought to favor no particular group or opinion and provided for diversity of practice became a uniform national policy.

C. The Assembly action

But the Report from the Task Force explaining the proposals continued to circulate unchanged as the Assembly made its decision. Many, myself included, continued to think that the Report interpreted the proposals. Even as edited by the Council, the ministry resolution remained consistent with the descriptions cited above from the Report, even if the resolution no longer explicitly stated who got to have a bound conscience.

The question now before us is: what forms the correct interpretive context for the resolutions adopted by the Assembly, the Report of the Task Force or the opinions of the Church Council and the staff of Vocation and Education? This question touches three points.

First, when the ministry resolution promises “to respect the bound consciences of all,” how is ‘all’ defined? If the Report defines ‘all,’ then it must include synodical bodies and officials – bishops, candidacy committees, seminary faculties.

Second, what does it mean to ‘respect bound consciences.” If the Report determines that meaning, then ‘respect’ means that syndical bodies and officials must be able to approve or call or not partnered gay and lesbian candidates. Respect does not mean only that individuals may abstain or that a synod or candidacy committee may urge a candidate to transfer. The responsible persons and bodies must be free to make a negative decision.

Third, and most decisively, how does the church keep faith with its own process, the Assembly, and its own people? The text of the Task Force’s Report was the primary document in the Assembly’s hands as they considered the proposals. Many persons in the Assembly had read it with care (probably with more care than the unofficial FAQs, etc., put out from the churchwide office). The Report presented ‘structured flexibility’ as a new initiative to accommodate the divided mind of the church on homosexuality, something that would open the possibility for a synod to approve, ordain, or the call partnered gay or lesbian pastors or not. The Report’s argument from bound conscience, constantly stressed, pointed to a policy that would permit genuine diversity of practice.

True enough, representatives of Vocation and Education said that the proposal was not local option and that structured flexibility was what was already in place. What was never said, however, was that this might be understood as a shift from what was in the Task Force Report and that voters should be aware of this shift. For many at the Assembly, the context for understanding the resolutions being voted on continued to be the text of the Task Force Report. The ministry resolution received only 55%. Could 5 percent of the voters have had the thought: “Well, I am not sure I want this in my synod, but if other synods want to do so, let them”? Such a thought was fully justified by the Report. It is disallowed, however, by the altered understanding of the Church Council and the national staff.

D. Keeping Faith

The proposed revisions to the relevant policy documents interpret ‘structured flexibility’ in the most minimal way possible. No synodical body or official is allowed to act contrary to national policy. Such bodies or officials can try to avoid a direct confrontation with national policy, but national policy trumps conscience, if push comes to shove. This interpretation flies in the face of what is said in the Task Force Report. If ‘structured flexibility’ is defined by the Task Force’s Report, then synods, bishops, candidacy committees, and semniary faculties must be permitted to exercise their bound conscience and deny candidacy, ordination, and call to partnered gay and lesbian persons. The Church Council and national staff cannot have it both ways; they cannot both say that the changes made in April were friendly amendments, merely editorial and non-substantive, and then say that the Task Force Report is now irrelevant to interpreting the proposals. If the church leadership, i.e., the Conference of Bishops and the Church Council, ignore the clear intent of the Report, they will break faith with their own process and with the people of the ELCA.


20 Responses to “What Was Decided? The April ‘Clarifications’ and Keeping Faith”

  1. What Was Decided? The April ‘Clarifications’ and Keeping Faith « Lutherans Persisting Says:

    […] The result was far too long for a post, so it is a posted as a page to the right (or just click here). Thanks to Prs. Keith Hunsinger and Marshall Hahn for very helpful comments. They helped clarify […]

  2. Marshall Hahn Says:

    Thank you for this analysis, Dr. Root. This states in full what I was getting at in my note on the other thread. The primary resources for understanding the meaning of the resolutions that the CWA passed are the “whereas” clauses and the Report from the Task Force explaining their understanding of “bound conscience” and “structured flexibility” and the parameters these would have in the church. Those are the resources presented to the assembly, and it is the understanding presented there that is to be the basis for interpreting the actions of the Churchwide Assembly. Based on that understanding, I will be proposing that our synod exercise its “bound conscience” to choose to maintain the present V & E standards for approval, ordination, consecration, and call.

  3. Pastor Keith A. Hunsinger Says:

    The decision to maintain a single roster was made paramount. Whether that should be the guding principle of the ELCA is qurestionable in my opinion.

    What is new in the proposals for new guidelines for candidacy, et. al., is the position that a pastor signing onto a candidate’s application or a bishop attesting to a call are purely “procedural” matters and have no room for conscience. I have no recollection of those concepts being discussed in the March Church Council meeting. I will oppose them in two weeks and again in the spring.

    • Marshall hahn Says:

      Pr. Hunsinger writes: “The decision to maintain a single roster was made paramount.”
      Perhaps at the Church Council meeting, but this was not made paramount at the CWA. Our bishop has been asked several times, “Don’t these decisions of the CWA create two separate rosters in the church?” And his answer is, “Yes, they do.”

      Marshall Hahn

      • Pastor Keith A. Hunsinger Says:

        I am sorry to say but your bishop is quite wrong. If he has been told this by someone in the national staff I would like to know. While no one took out an ad in USA Today, that has been clear from the Church Council meeting onward.

  4. Marshall hahn Says:

    As Dr. Root’s analysis shows, this is anything but clear. As a voting member at the CWA, what I had in front of me were the resolutions that had been brought by the Church Council, the “whereas” paragraphs introducing them, and the Report from the Task Force. How is it clear that substituting the word “all” for the phrase “synods, bishops, congregations, candidacy committees, and others involved in the candidacy process and in the extending of calls” in the language of the resolution limited the actions of those who could act on their “bound conscience? If a specified list is replaced with the word “all”, this would commonly be understood to expand the scope of those to which the action refers, not to limit it. And, in this case, the first place one would look to interpret what this “all” refers to would be the other documents and material provided to the voting members. No, if the Church Council wanted to specifically limit the scope of those who could act on their bound conscience, they had opportunity to alter the wording to make this clear. The changes the Council made did not do this. It may have been their intention, but it is not the intention of the Church Council that matters. It is the intention of the CWA. And that is determined by the language actually passed and the documents in front of them.

    Marshall Hahn

    • Michael Root Says:

      I don’t think Prs. Hunsinger and Hahn are disagreeing. What Pr. Hunsinger is saying was certainly said on occasion by the Director of Vocation and Education, Pr. Stanley Olson. The problem is that nothing was said about how this insistence that the proposal was not local option fit with what was said in the Task Force Report. The Task Force Report was what was in people’s hands from February on. Many, myself included, were puzzled how the Task Force proposal could do anything other than splinter the clergy roster. What was never explicitly said was that the April clarifications substantively altered the proposal by eliminating its most plausible reading. Like many others, I had a day job and did not analyze closely the alterations made to the recommendations until I got to the Assembly. After all, we were told they were only editorial.
      What is interesting in Pr. Hahn’s comment is that his own bishop also had not gotten the message. This is just another sign of how deeply confused the voted was.

      Michael Root

  5. Pr. Rafe Allison Says:

    Concerning “dual rosters” I ask, can the ELCA proceed otherwise??? Let me explain. At the top of page 10, second column of the Social Statement, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,” after giving reference to “The church’s historical experience” (please note the choice of that last word!) the statement goes on to say:

    “Recognizing that this differs from the historic Christian tradition AND THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS (emphasis added) some people, though not all, in this church and within the larger Christian community, conclude that marriage is also the appropriate term to use in describing… same-gender… monogamous relationships.”

    Simple translation? The statement recognizes that “this” (“this” conclusion that marriage is appropriate for same-gender, monogamous relationships) DIFFERS FROM… not only the historic Christian tradition, BUT… THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.

    NOW, I ask the question… when ANYONE is ordained as a pastor of Christ’s Church in the ELCA, what do they vow to both Church and God??? They vow to preach and teach in accordance with the Word of God AND the Lutheran Confessions! My point is not simply polemical rhetoric! It is simple logic! IF one takes the vows of ordination in the ELCA… logic dictates that one cannot, at the same time, promote, promulgate, or “preach and teach” according to a task force document that itself admits that it does, in part, (and in the most pertinent and controversial part!), depart from, not only Church tradition but the Lutheran Confessions that we have vowed to uphold! Again, what I am laying out is not opinion or rhetoric. The ELCA Rite of Ordination and the ELCA Social Statement both speak for themselves. Unfortunately they do not speak in concord. The proposed ELCA policies, our CWA actions, and our Lutheran Confessions are, irreconcilably, speaking out of both sides of their collective mouth!

    In light of this, can someone explain to me how we can continue to ordain pastors to a common roster that mandates adherence to our Lutheran Confessions while at the same time CWA and church council actions are dictating to those same pastors, (and those of us already ordained), that said pastors support the implementation of, as well as carry out the substance and spirit of, a document that itself clearly admits that it is not in keeping with (“differs from”) the Confessions we have vowed before God to uphold? (Of course if there is a civil “right” to be ordained then I suppose none of this matters anyway, does it???)

    The ELCA leadership has a vital decision to make. Either continue in this veiled hypocrisy and ask of its pastors what, by their own vows, they cannot give… or create two rosters. One for the pastors who are still willing to make and abide by the vows to preach and teach in accordance with God’s Word and the Lutheran Confessions… and another for the pastors of “Welcome to the ‘church’ of What’s Happenin’ Now!” OR WAIT!!! Perhaps there’s another option. Perhaps the Arcus Foundation and its founder, billionaire president Jon L. Stryker will pump ANOTHER quarter of a million dollars into “Lutherans Concerned?” This time in an effort to do away with the Lutheran Confessions and our ordination vows??? Heck, maybe for half a mil we can finish off the Word of God once and for all as well???

    The way I see it, my denomination is asking all of its pastors to make a choice. Either defy the vows we have made to God and Church, OR, promote the content of a Social Statement adopted by barely two-thirds of roughly 0.02% of all ELCA Lutherans. Anyone want to venture a guess which way I’m going??? (And, by the way, if you find my argument “offensive” just keep in mind that the same 0.02% of all ELCA Lutherans who got together in Minneapolis also voted that you have to honor and respect my “bound conscious” which, as was demonstrated in practice at CWA, really only means my “opinion.”)

    • The Rev. David Brobston Says:

      On the Friday after the vote I had discussion with the Bishop who guided me through the candidacy process – now the Executive for Ecumenical Relations for the ELCA, +Bp. Don McCoid.

      As I wept and he was my pastor I looked at him and said, “Bishop, when you were there to lay hands on me 16 years ago and I promised to preach and teach in accordance with Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions and to “uphold the teachings of this church” I have taken that vow seriously – Sometimes I have been more faithful than others, but I have taken that vow seriously.”

      Now I find myself that I have to choose between teaching and preaching in accordance with God’s Word and the Confessions OR upholding the teachings of the ELCA. So, I said to him, “So, from this afternoon until I leave the ELCA I will be in violation of the vows I took that May afternoon in 1993.

      So, for the past few months I have knowingly walked in “Confessional Dissent” – the toll that takes is overwhelming.

      • Pr. Rafe Allison Says:

        “So, from this afternoon until I leave the ELCA I will be in violation of the vows I took that May afternoon in 1993.”

        David, I encourage you (and others) that if you choose to remain in the ELCA, even short-term, that you NOT violate the vows you/we took at ordination to satisfy a simple majority of a bit more than 1000 people in Minneapolis, but cling to those vows all the more. I’ve copied, enlarged, and posted on my office wall those vows so that they are there as a reminder to me through all this. I didn’t vote for policies that ignore God’s Word and the Confessions… but I did make vows to God and Church to teach in accordance with both… and God help me, that’s exactly what I intend to do. I’m convinced our congregations are hungry to hear… and this denomination needs to hear again THE WORD! Hang tough, and Christ’s Peace.

      • The Rev. David Brobston Says:


        I don’t think I was clear on what I had said to +Bp. McCoid. The fact that I couldn’t follow the decisions of CWA09 makes it impossible for me to support the ministries and teachings of the ELCA.

        Preaching and teaching in accordance with the Scriptures and Confessions has been the all the more central since August.

  6. Pr. Rafe Allison Says:

    Sorry… should have said “Either uphold the vows we have made to God and Church, OR…”

    • Marshall hahn Says:

      What Pastor Allison writes is essentially what I have written (without the exclamation points) here:

      My point is not so much that there should now be two separate rosters, but that the actions taken at Minneapolis, for the very reasons Pastor Allison raises, violates our own ELCA Confession of Faith, since we have decided to adopt these ministry changes on something other than the basis of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. Indeed, we have said that we are doing this despite the witness of the historic Christian tradition and the Lutheran Confessions.

      Marshall Hahn

      • Pr. Rafe Allison Says:

        Marhall, thank you for the link to your other writing. I concur, no denomination should have multiple rosters. Only pointing out the impossibility of the current situation. (and apologies for the number of exclamation points!)

  7. Dan Says:

    Do you really think Mr. Stryker or his fellow travellers in Chicago give a hoot what it says on line X of page Y in some social statement nobody read? Do you you think thay care that some some folks may have been snookered by some changes editorial or not made in April or whenever? Do they care if the ordination vows are now nonsensical?

    No, they don’t care. They’ve won. And it was easier than expected because the masses of ELCA Lutherans either agree with them or are more apathetic than Chicago ever dared hope. Sure, about 1000 people met in Indianapolis and shook their fists and even went so far as to plan another meeting to plan on thinking about maybe deciding something or not in a year. But that’s about it. And apparently most pastors thought CORE went too far!

    The other guys have won. You have really only three choices.
    1.You can move on to the final stage of grieving: acceptance. You can accept the new norm. But I don’t see how you Pastors can make that work very well without going the whole nine yards. One would assume that you will be trying to convince people to join your churches, but are you going to explain to them that you have major disagreements with the church you want them to join? I know that if I do finally knuckle under and go back to my church I WILL NOT ever again try to get new members. Why would I lead them into the middle of this controversy and possibly even lead them to Hell??

    2. You can just leave by yourself. I’ve done it and its very lonely. Nobody else in my church seems to think this is a big deal (if they even know about it at all). They’ve been told its just going to work out somehow.

    3. You can explain to your congregations what is going on and advise them that that they should take the relatively simple steps involved in leaving the ELCA. As I understand it the main objections to the other Lutheran bodies is that they are either very small and congregational or don’t accept female clergy. If the female thing is a deal breaker, then you just have to decide which is worse: accepting gay marriage and gay clergy or not having a Bishop. It seems to me that ANY form of church government would be preferable to the one that got us here.

    • Marshall hahn Says:

      Well, no, there are at least two other options (and probably more).

      You can treat the ELCA as irrelevant. You can focus on the ministry and mission of your local congregation, giving support only for those ministries within the ELCA that you can wholeheartedly support. I know of several pastors and congregations which are tending in this direction. It is easier to do for larger congregations, of course. It is what a number of my orthodox UCC friends have been doing for years. Of course, it begs the question as to why you wish to remain associated with the ELCA at all, but it is an option some have and will take.

      You can take the path of confessional resistance, in which you call attention to the errors the ELCA has made, seek to oppose them in whatever way you can, and call the church to repent. Futile gestures? Perhaps. Or a way to give witness to the church – and to those within the church – of the seriousness of the errors the church has made. This is the option I am pursuing – for now. Because I consider it to be a temporary option. If the church does not repent of what it has done, and creates a situation which makes it increasingly difficult to pursue this option, then I will consider other options. And I am not sure at what point those conditions would be met. That is the reason I am also keeping the conversation open with folks from all sides.

      In some ways, the strategy Lutheran CORE has adopted allows for both of these options above. It allows for those who choose to disengage from the ELCA without formally leaving, and for those who wish to confront the ELCA on the errors we have committed. Which is also why I am involved with CORE.

      Marshall Hahn

      • Pr. Rafe Allison Says:

        Yes, well said Marshall. We are moving forward in that direction as well. Actually, for a while at least, we are doing both of the options you have suggested. If some must cut-and-run in anger I respect that. But, over the weeks/months since CWA (yes, I was a “voting member”) I’ve come to feel the obligation to stay and be one of those voices “crying out in the wilderness.” A layperson and VP of our congregation hit on it very well when she said: “It’s clear too many of us have been complacent, perhaps this will make us stronger disciples.” The grassroots upswell in our congregation is already bearing fruit as attendance at our Adult Bible Study has increased and continues to do so. We’ve traded-off some of our anger to ask the question: “What does it mean TO US that the sole rule and norm for our life and our faith is the Word of God as expressed in the written word of the Old and New Testament.” Putting your two suggestions together, (focus on our mission/discipleship while at the same time pursuing confessional resistance), can bring benefits to the individual congregation and Christians in the short term… even if we decide at some point down the road that the situation in the ELCA has become untenable. If we leave it should be for something positive, not just to “flip-off” Chicago. I too hope the conversations that LCORE is promoting will be productive. But in the meantime, there’s other work to be done. Thank you for contributing your thoughts, they are helpful.
        Peace to all, Rafe

  8. A.B.Cely Crowe Says:

    Dr. Root,

    In light of such discussions concerning “erring church” etc. and the fact that the issue of homosexuality and Christianity is Not a new thing (despite what the American media would like us to believe); can the ELCA even be considered Church now? Especially in light of Pr. Allison’s remarks about the decision to go forward with the pronouncement even though it goes against Tradition (as well as the Lutheran Confessions)?


  9. Dan Says:

    As to the addditional options, the first one “begs the question as to why you wish to remain associated with the ELCA at all”. Well isn’t that a pretty huge question? The second option involves gestures that are “perhaps” futile. So I’m not sure either of those are meaningful options.

    Let me clarify something. I’ve noticed that whenever someone pushes for meaningful action in any of this they are labeled as “angry”. I am not at all angry at the people who made these changes. I was dumbfounded 6 years ago when it became clear this was coming, but I don’t think I was angry even then.

    Even back then I was advocating “cutting and running” not because of anger but because it was apparent that the denomination was split down the middle and that could only lead to churchwide mud wrestling in the future. And I think a church’s ability to witness is greatly compromised when it is at war with itself.

    So I think it would be better for everyone if the two sides amicably agreed to disagree. But the disagreement is to big to allow both to remain in the same denomination. To me it keeps coming back to this: when I try to get people to join the church, what are they joining? Their kids are going to be going to camps and youth gatherings and such and there is no way the local congregation can control the indoctrination process that is sure to be attempted. Can we in good conscience lead the unsuspecting into this? No!

    You might say, “Oh but I can steer them away from those situations”. Maybe, but will the next pastor? I’m not being angry. I’m just being practical. If your church stays in, it will eventually fall into line. And the longer it stays in, the more comfortable it will become with the changes and the harder it will be to leave. That’s just common sense.

  10. An Alternative Path « Lutherans Persisting Says:

    […] into the Report and Recommendations of the Task Force, as is discussed in the paper to the right (here). That Report was never repudiated by the church leadership. It is late in the day now to say […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: