Skip to content

INFO I SUBMITTED TO LIFEWAY TRUSTEES ABOUT CERTAIN BOOKS WE SELL

June 21, 2010

Dear Lifeway Trustees, my name is Channing Kilgore and I am an associate pastor at South Whitwell Baptist church in Whitwell, Tn. I am writing you all today out of concern for some of the books/authors we sell in our Lifeway Stores. I do not bring this to your attention for any spotlight or desire for ‘controversy’. The Lord knows our convention has had its share! But I am concerned that some of the material at our stores is not conducive or reflective of our evangelical heritage so I have included the authors/books in the attachment for your viewing with the problems, issues, and/or false teachings that are involved with the mentioned works/authors. Please review this documented paper to discuss at the next Trustee meeting. I do hope to see our churches and bookstores filled with solid evangelical thought, belief, and practice. We are always to be on guard because false teachers have and do creep in unaware. (Jude 4a). It is my hope that by submitting this information to the trustees that I can serve them in gathering data for them to review to help make our stores more and more evangelical as we seek to serve the body of Christ. Let me know if I can serve you in any way. Grace to you and thank you for serving our Convention, Lifeway, and local churches. Your loving brother in Christ, Channing Kilgore
hckilgore@netzero.net
423-718-7467
1) TD JAKES
a. WORD FAITH TEACHER AND DOES MINISTRY WITH WORD FAITH TEACHERS
******”You’re entitled to have wellness in your body. Stop begging for what you’re entitled to.”
(T. D. Jakes, “God Never Meant For You To Lose,” TBN, July 29, 2004)
********”My brothers and sisters the power of life and death is in the tongue. You can have whatever you say.”
(T. D. Jakes, T. D. Jakes During Intermission of “The Bone Collector Part II,” TBN, August 12, 2004)
*******”It’s what you say to yourself that gets you healed. If you say that you won’t be healed you won’t be healed. If you say that you are broke you will stay broke. ‘”
(T. D. Jakes, “Seize the Moment,” Woman Thou Art Loosed, 2000 Atlanta)

*****”The one and only prophetess Juanita Bynum will be with us tonight…Give God praise for prophetess Juanita Bynum…She has Revelation Knowledge from the Lord.”
(T. D. Jakes, “TBN,” July 6, 2004. Describing false prophet Juanita Bynum to the world)

b) VIEW ON THE TRINITY
***-JAKES IS THE VICE-PRELATE, UNDER HEAD PRELATE SHERMAN WATKINS OF ‘HIGHER GROUNDS ALWAYS ABOUNDING ASSEMBLY; – A ONENESS PENTECOSTAL GROUP AFFILIATION (ONENESS PENTECOSTALS DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY!!!! WHY BE 2ND IN COMMAND OF A GROUP THAT DENIES THE TRINITY IF YOU DO BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY?! JAKES ALLIANCES BETRAY HIS SHADY TALK ON WHAT HE BELIEVES ABOUT THE TRINITY!!)
****JAKES USES MODALISTIC LANGUAGE – 1 GOD, 3 MANIFESTATIONS: POTTER’S HOUSE WEBSITE: “God–There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” See http://www.thepottershouse.org/v2/content/view/18/32/
—Listen to the official teachings of the United Pentecostal Church International states RE: Trinity: “In distinction to the doctrine of the Trinity, the UPCI holds to a oneness view of God. It views the Trinitarian concept of God, that of God eternally existing as three distinctive persons, as inadequate and a departure from the consistent and emphatic biblical revelation of God being one…Thus God is manifested as Father in creation and as the Father of the Son, in the Son for our redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in our regeneration.” (from ww.upci.org/about.asp#oneness ALSO: http://www.upci.org/doctrine/60Questions.asp) This is THE LANGUAGUE that T. D. Jakes stated in an interview: “We have one God, but He is Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration.” Said on “Living by the Word” hosted by John Coleman “Aug. 23, 1998….
–NOTE AGAIN: the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements explains ON THE ONENESS PENTECOSTAL ENTRY: “The threefold divine reality is defined as ‘three manifestations’ of the one Spirit in the person of Jesus. …Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee, eds., Patrick H. Alexander, assoc. ed., Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988) s.v. “Oneness Pentecostalism.”
***WE MUST BE CRITICAL IN LISTENING TO ANYONE’S VIEW OF THE TRINITY BECAUSE THEY CAN HOLD TO VARIOUS FALSE TEACHINGS, INCLUDING MODALISM. MODALISM HAS 2 TYPES/WAYS OF DENYING THE TRINITY: EITHER THEY WILL SAY: A) AT DIFFERENT TIMES, GOD APPEARED AS FATHER, THEN NEXT AS SON, THEN NEXT AS SPIRIT B) MODALISTS WILL ALSO SAY THAT THERE ARE SIMULATANEOUS MANIFESTATIONS OF THE FATHER, SON, HOLY SPIRIT…MODALISTS WON’T USE TERM ‘PERSON’S AS IN CLASSIC ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AS HAS BEEN USED FOR 2 MILLENIUMS BY THE CHURCH, AND NEITHER WILL JAKES USE THE TERM ‘PERSONS’ IN REFERRING TO THE TRINITY. THE SECOND FORM SEEMS TO BE WHAT JAKES HOLDS TO. THIS VIEW IS HARDER TO PIN BECAUSE TRINITY LIKE LANGUAGE CAN BE USED. WITHOUT LISTENING CAREFULLY AND ASKING MORE SERIOUS AND ARTICULATE QUESTIONS THEY CAN EASILY SLIDE BY SURFACE QUESTIONS ON THE TRINITY.WE MUST REMEMBER THERE IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FUNCTIONAL (OR ECONOMIC) ROLES OF THE TRINITY AND THE ONTOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE TRINITY. WE CAN SOUND ORTHODOX IN ONE BUT DENY THE OTHER. IT IS HARD TO CATCH THE DIFFERENCE IN THE DISCUSSION BUT WE MUST LISTEN FOR THE ORTHODOX VIEWS OF FUNCATIONAL AND ONTOLOGICAL TEACHINGS OF THE TRINITY.
–CF JAKES ‘DOCTRINAL CLARIFICATION’: I believe in one God who is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe these three have distinct and separate functions — so separate each has individual attributes, yet are one. I do not believe in three Gods.” THIS IS ONLY LANGUAGE DELINEATING AS TERMED IN THEOLOGY AN ECONOMIC OR FUNCTIONAL VIEW OF THE ROLES IN THE TRINITY, NOT THE ESSENCE OR ONTOLOGICAL REALITY OF WHO GOD IS: AS PER EVANGELICALS WILL SAY: ONE GOD, 3 PERSONS!! Nothing has been said by Jakes as regards the Ontological nature of the 3 distinct Persons w/in the Godhead …
—-IF HE BELIEVES IN THE ORTHODOX, CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF THE TRINITY, WHY DOES HE USE ONENESS PENTECOSTAL, AKA, MODALISTIC LANGUAGE? NOWHERE IN ANY OF JAKES’ ‘REBUTTALS/DOCTRINAL CLARIFICATIONS’ DOES HE EVER USE THE TERM ‘PERSONS/SUBSISTENCES’ IN REFERENCE TO EACH MEMBER OF THE TRINITY. HE HAS HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY AND ARTICULATE A CLEAR ORTHODOX, CONSERVATIVE VIEW ON THE TRINITY BUT HAS NOT DONE SO.

2. JOHN HAGEE
a. WORD FAITH PROPOENT – ALWAYS DOING CONFERENCES WITH WORD FAITH TEACHERS AS HE TEACHES/SUPPORTS HIMSELF.
b. BOOK “IN DEFENSE OF ISRAEL” – LIFEWAY STORES DON’T CARRY THIS BOOK OF HIS HOWEVER, THERE IS AN EVEN BIGGER ISSUE AT STAKE HERE; THE POINT IS WE ENDORESE SOMEONE AND, BY IMPLICATION, THEIR FALSE VIEWS BY HAVING HIS BOOKS ON OUR SHELVES: HAGEE DENIES JESUS CAME TO BE MESSIAH – SEE THE FOLLOWING VIDEO FOR HAGEE’S OWN WORDS! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0CyolAOeWQ
c. CF. 1 John 2:22 (Holman Christian Standard Bible) 22 Who is the liar, if not the one who denies that Jesus is the Messiah? He is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.” 2 John 11 warns about supporting false teachers. Whoever supports them, ‘shares in his evil works.”
d. JOHN HAGEE has stated before that evangelizing Jews “is a waste of time.” “The Jewish people have a relationship to God through the law of God as given through Moses,” Hagee said. “I believe that every Gentile person can only come to God through the cross of Christ. I believe that every Jewish person who lives in the light of the Torah, which is the word of God, has a relationship with God and will come to redemption. “The law of Moses is sufficient enough to bring a person into the knowledge of God until God gives him a greater revelation.” said Hagee . . .9
9Julia Duin, “San Antonio Fundamentalist Battles Anti-Semitism,” The Houston Chronicle, 30 April 1988, 1.
—-Why is it a waste of time if he doesn’t really believe in what’s called dual covenant theology, THAT IS THAT THE JEWS DON’T NEED THE GOSPEL BE/C GOD ALREADY HAS A COVENANT IN PLACE FOR THEM? Hagee himself has denied claims that he believes in dual covenant theology but his words/teaching says otherwise. http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1988_54030
3) THE SHACK – THERE ARE HUGE PROBLEMS WITH LIFEWAY SELLING THE SHACK, EVEN WITH ITS DISCLAMER GIVEN WITH THE BOOK! Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary ON ALBERTMOHLER.COM says, “THIS BOOK INCLUDED UNDILUTED HERESY. IT’S A DEEPLY TROUBLING BOOK.’ ‘THE BOOK EVEN GOES TO THE POINT OF ‘JESUS’ SAYING HE IS THE BEST WAY, AND NOT THE ‘ONLY WAY’ TO THE FATHER’…CF. JOHN 14:6 …”IT’S CONFUSING ON THE TRINITY ROLES, ‘THE PAPA SUBMITS TO ME…WE ARE SUBMITTED TO YOU (MACK) IN THE SAME WAY!” DENIES GOD’S WRATH: “I DON’T NEED TO PUNISH PEOPLE FOR SIN. SIN IS ITS OWN PUNISHMENT.” SEE ALSO: http://www.challies.com/media/The_Shack.pdf
–RECENTLY, DR MOHLER HAS AGAIN ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF THE SHACK. SEE HERE: http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/01/27/the-shack-the-missing-art-of-evangelical-discernment/
A FEW QUOTES FROM DR MOHLER’S NEWEST ARTICLE ON ‘THE SHACK’:
“Papa” is absolutely non-judgmental, and seems most determined to affirm that all humanity is already redeemed. The theology of The Shack is not incidental to the story. Indeed, at most points the narrative seems mainly to serve as a structure for the dialogues. And the dialogues reveal a theology that is unconventional at best, and undoubtedly heretical in certain respects.”
“While the literary device of an unconventional “trinity” of divine persons is itself sub-biblical and dangerous, the theological explanations are worse… The relationship of the Father to the Son, revealed in a text like John 17, is rejected in favor of an absolute equality of authority among the persons of the Trinity…The theorized submission of the Trinity to a human being — or to all human beings — is a theological innovation of the most extreme and dangerous sort. The essence of idolatry is self-worship, and this notion of the Trinity submitted (in any sense) to humanity is inescapably idolatrous.”
“The most controversial aspects of The Shack’s message have revolved around questions of universalism, universal redemption, and ultimate reconciliation. Jesus tells Mack: “Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions.” Jesus adds, “I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, my Beloved. Mack then asks the obvious question — do all roads lead to Christ? Jesus responds, “Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.”
“James B. DeYoung of Western Theological Seminary, a New Testament scholar who has known William Young for years, documents Young’s embrace of a form of “Christian universalism.” The Shack, he concludes, “rests on the foundation of universal reconciliation.”
“In evaluating the book, it must be kept in mind that The Shack is a work of fiction. But it is also a sustained theological argument, and this simply cannot be denied. Any number of notable novels and works of literature have contained aberrant theology, and even heresy. The crucial question is whether the aberrant doctrines are features of the story or the message of the work. When it comes to The Shack, the really troubling fact is that so many readers are drawn to the theological message of the book, and fail to see how it conflicts with the Bible at so many crucial points.”
HERE ARE SOME OTHER SERIOUS CONCERNS I’VE SEEN IN ‘THE SHACK’:
pg. 29 – the young Indian’s death is like Jesus’?! “It had all the elements of a true redemption story, not unlike the story of Jesus that she knew so well.” The story is told of a tribe who is dying from sickness and young lady sacrifices herself so the tribe can physically recover. But, Jesus did not die to save us from sickness but from sin and the wrath of God. This is misleading to say the least about the person and work of Christ.

pg 31 – Missy asks questions about the previous Indian story. She asks about the pagan story’s concept of God known as the ‘Great Spirit.’ Missy asks, “Is the Great Spirit another name for God – you know, Jesus’ papa?” Mack replies, “I would suppose so.”- No where in scripture does God reveal Himself as the ‘Great Spirit’ nor give room for people to call Him whatever they want. Equating the Father with the Great Spirit rings loudly of inclusivism, that is, that all religions serve the same God they just may have different names for him.

pg 38 – contains psychologized theology – Nan is said she can easily call God Papa be/c she had a good father… This is modern psychology’s ‘projection theory’. Scripture doesn’t base our response on God to circumstances but to our heart’s desires. See Mark 7:21 and Luke 6:45

pg 65 – demeaning view of Scripture as the only Word of God – Mack had been taught in seminary that ‘God’s voice had been reduced to paper.’

pg 88 – ‘God puts Himself on our level’— This opening quote is at best ambiguous. In light of this quote, it’s disturbing what is NOT followed up with in the book – the statement is never clarified, nor does the book ever talk about God’s holiness, exaltedness…cf. Is. 6/Rev. 19

pg. 90 – equates listening to George Beverley Shea and the Mormon tabernacle as being two equally valid options…very inclusivistic!

pg. 91 – downplays serious theological training in studying the scriptures “None of it was helping in the least.” Modern church struggles enough in its lack of concern for theological depth; this only seems to undercut the need for deeper understanding and/or that classical orthodox theology is no longer desired/valid for today’s issues (which in reality are the same throughout history).

pg. 95 – Papa has scars on wrists like Jesus; this is confusing at the least and doctrinally aberrant if nothing else…cf. only the Son was crucified, not the Father or Holy Spirit

pg. 99- ‘we’ became flesh and blood…No, John 1:14 and the entire NT witness is that only the Son of God took on flesh.

pg 99,100 – “Jesus never drew upon His divine nature to do anything”…This statement is again contrary to orthodox teaching on the person and work of Christ. Cf. Jesus calming the sea in Luke 8:24 and John 10:18 where Jesus has power to lay down His life and take it again.
PG 106 – ‘YOU WILL EVEN LOSE A COMPETITION TO ACCOMPLISH LOVE. IT IS NOT ABOUT WINING AND LOSING BUT ABOUT LOVE AND RESPECT.’ COMPARE TO THE BIBLICAL MESSAGE:“CHRIST OVERCAME AND SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD; HE MUST RULE UNTIL HE PUTS ALL THINGS AT HIS FEET’ 1 COR. 15:25
PG 112 – FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH SOUNDS VERY MUCH LIKE THE EASTERN PANTHEISTIC CONCEPT OF NIRVANA
PG 120 – ‘I DON’T NEED TO PUNISH PEOPLE FOR THEIR SIN. SIN IS ITS OWN PUNISHMENT.’ – PAPA COMPARE ROMANS 1:18FF/REV. 21 AND 22 ON THE FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST SIN
PG 122 – THE WHOLE PAGE UNDERMINES THE FUNCTIONAL AND ETERNAL ROLES WITHIN THE TRINITY…CF. 1 COR. 15:24/JOHN 17 “THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN I”
PG 124 – SARAYU (AKA THE HOLY SPIRIT) SAYS “SO YOU THINK THAT GOD MUST RELATE INSIDE A HEIRARCHY LIKE YOU DO. BUT WE DO NOT.’ AGAIN, THIS IS DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO THE BIBLICAL REVELATION OF WHO GOD IS IN REGARDS TO THE FUNCTIONAL ROLES IN THE TRINITY.
PG 145 – JESUS SAYS TO MACK ‘HAVE YOU EVER NOTICED THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU CALL ME LORD AND KING, I HAVE NEVER REALLY ACTED IN THAT CAPACITY WITH YOU?”
PG 145 – AGAIN THE LAST FULL PARAGRAPH ON PG 145 UNDERMINES THE FUNCTIONAL ROLE OF THE TRINITY. THIS CAN NOT SQUARE WITH WHAT JESUS PRAYS IN JOHN 17 IN HOW HE FULFILLED/OBEYED ALL THAT THE FATHER GAVE HIM TO DO.
PG. 172 – MACK IS ENCOUNTERING GOD, IN HIS PRESENCE AND MACK QUESTIONS WHETHER IT IS ‘ALL A DREAM?’…JESUS RESPONDS WITH “WOULD ALL THIS BE ANY LESS ‘REAL’ IF IT WERE INSIDE A DREAM?” THE BIBLICAL ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING ‘YES’ IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT. THE BOOK CONFUSES REALITY W/ SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE AND EQUATES THEM AS EQUALLY VALID.
PG 178 – MACK IS TOLD THE CHURCH IS NOT BUILDINGS/INSTITUTIONS. THIS IS CORRECT BUT THEN MACK ASKS JESUS HOW HE CAN ‘BECOME PART OF THAT CHURCH?” THE BOOKS VERSION OF JESUS, INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT REPENTANCE OVER SIN AND FAITH IN THE PERSON/WORK OF CHRIST ALONE, SAYS ‘I’TS SIMPLE MACK. IT’S ALL ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS AND SIMPLY SHARING LIFE. WHAT WE ARE DOING RIGHT NOW – JUST DOING THIS – AND BEING OPEN AND AVAILABLE TO OTHERS AROUND US.’ THIS IS A WORKS BASED SALVATION. NOTHING ABOUT THE GOSPEL AND CHRIST’S DEATH, BURIEL, AND RESURRECTION. PAUL WARNS STRONGLY ABOUT ‘ANOTHER GOSPEL IN GAL. 1 ‘LET HIM BE ACCURSED IF ANYONE PREACHES TO YOU ANOTHER GOSPEL.”
PG 179 – JESUS STATES HE DOESN’T CARE ABOUT ‘RELIGION, POLITICS, AND ECONOMICS’…. READ THE PROPHETS WHO WARN ISRAEL FOR NOT POLITICALLY HONORING GOD IN SOCIETY, AMOS 8 SAYS ISRAEL WENT INTO EXILE BE/C OF BAD ECONOMICS…THESE STATEMENTS PORTRAY JESUS AS NOT CARING ABOUT ALL OF LIFE AND ALL HUMAN AFFAIRS. THE BIBLICAL WITNESS IS THE JESUS CARES ABOUT ALL HIS CREATIN AND WILL JUDGE EVERY FACET OF CREATION AND MAN’S REALTION TO IT.
PG 182 – MACK ASKS, “IS THAT WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CHRISTIAN?” THE BOOK’S JESUS SAYS, ‘WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT BEING A CHRISTIAN? I’M NOT A CHRISTIAN.’ THEN THE BOOK’S JESUS ELABORATES THAT HE HAS PEOPLE FROM ALL TYPES OF GROUPS INCLUDING MORMONS, JEWS, BUDDHISTS, MUSLIMS, ETC. MACK ASKS, ‘DOES THAT MEAN ALL ROADS WILL LEAD TO YOU?” THE BOOK’S JESUS SAYS ‘NOT AT ALL. MOST ROADS DON’T LEAD ANYWHERE. WHAT IT DOES MEAN IS THAT I WILL TRAVEL ANY ROAD TO FIND YOU.” THIS IS OUT RIGHT INCLUSIVISM, THE IDEA THAT OTHERS WILL BE SAVED BY JESUS EVEN IF THEY DON’T CALL UPON HIS NAME FOR SALVATION. JESUS WILL FIND A WAY TO SAVE THEM WITHOUTHT THEM EXPRESSING EXPLICIT FAITH IN THE RISEN SAVIOR. NOTE AGAIN THE BOOK’S JESUS ISN’T INTERESTED ‘BEING A CHRISTIAN’. THE BIBLE IS VERY, VERY CLEAR THAT ONLY THOSE WHO PLACE THEIR EXPLICIT FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST WILL BE SAVED, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.
PG 187 – MACK SAYS, ‘BUT WHAT YOU (PAPA) SAID. I MEAN, ABOUT HIDING INSIDE LIES. I GUESS I’VE DONE THAT ONE WAR OR ANOTHER MOST OF LIFE.’ PAPA, THE BOOK’S VERSION OF GOD THE FATHER REPLIES, “HONEY, YOU ARE A SURVIVOR. NO SHAME IN THAT.’ HOW OUT RIGHT BLASPHEMOUS CAN ONE MISPRESENT GOD AND STILL BE CONSIDERED ‘’OK’ TO SELL AT LIFEWAY?! PAPA OK’S MACK’S LYING! NOTHING IS SAID ABOUT THE NEED TO CONFESS, REPENT, BE TRUTHFUL, ETC. INSTEAD PAPA JUSTIFIES MACK’S FORMER LYING AND BRUSHES IT OFF.
PG 195 BOTTOM,196 TOP – MACK IS WONDERING HOW HE WILL HEAR GOD SPEAK TO HIM. GOD RESPONDS BY ‘YOUR THOUGHTS’. GOD DOESN’T TELL MACK TO READ THE WORD OF GOD TO HEAR GOD SPEAK, ONLY TO LISTEN TO HIS OWN INNER THOUGHTS. THIS IS ONE OF SEVERAL PLACES WHERE SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY IS UNDERMINED IN THE BOOK.
PG. 206- GOD HAS NEVER BEEN DISAPPOINTED W/ MAC
PG 226 – FORGIVENESS DOESN’T ESTABLISH RELATIONSHIP; IN JESUS, FORGIVEN ALL WHO SINNED AGAINST ME.

4) ’90 MINUTES IN HEAVEN’ BY DON PIPER – INSIPIDLY TEACHES OR GIVES IT AN ‘OK SIGN’ TO LOOK TO EXTRA BIBLICAL REVELATION/EXPERIENCES FOR FINDING TRUTH WHEN 2 PETER 1:3 “GOD HAS GIVEN US EVERYTHING PERTAINING TO LIFE AND GODLINESS’
a. THE SCRIPTURES ARE TO ‘TEACH US SOUND DOCTRINE’ – 2 TIMOTHY 3:16, NOT SOMEONE’S VISIONS, DREAMS, OR REVELATION…HE DOES NOT PRESENT HIS EXPERIENCE AS FICTION, BUT AS BASED ON HIS TRUE LIFE ACCOUNT OF HIS ACCIDENT….PAUL WARNS US IN COLOSSIANS 2:18 ABOUT TAKING STANCES ON VISIONS.

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: