Some Temptations Facing the Christian Professor

 I am semi-retired, having completed a satisfying 36-year career as a teacher of philosophy at a secular college, and as a researcher and writer, primarily in the field of the philosophy of education. I am therefore going to dare to write a more experiential narrative in which I examine some of the key temptations that we face as Christian professors. My boldness in doing so is prompted in part by the fact that I wish someone would have given me a paper with this title at the beginning of my teaching career.[i]

1. The tyranny of teaching

            The first temptation I would like to deal with involves the danger of abusing our power as teachers. In an editorial that I have often referred to in the course of my teaching career, Hans Burki (1979) provides a masterful analysis of the danger of teaching becoming a form of tyranny. It is all too easy for teaching to degenerate into indoctrination. Indoctrination, understood pejoratively, involves the abuse of the teacher’s power, and as such is a synonym for teaching becoming tyrannical.

            There are various factors that make it easy for teaching to become tyrannical. It feels good to have a classroom of students see us as authority figures. Teaching involves the exercise of power. We shape the minds of our pupils. Students do become disciples. A theological school shapes the theological outlook of its graduates. Human beings simply aren’t as free as liberals pretend. We are subject to a host of forces, all of which shape our thinking. If there is anything that my study of indoctrination has taught me, it is this – we tend to exaggerate human freedom (see Thiessen 1993). Students are very much subject to the influence of teachers.

            Burki offers another reason why teaching can so easily become a form of tyranny – there is a universal lust for learning. Children are curious. Even as adults, we are always itching to hear more about anything, and therefore we gather around us a great number of teachers, as Paul reminds us in II Tim. 4:3. That is why education is big business. And we as teachers are thankful for the employment this brings. But, always there lurks the danger of teaching becoming a form of tyranny because of the lust for learning. 

            Jesus clearly condemned all forms of tyranny. “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors” (Luke 22:25). Isn’t that a generous label for teachers – “Benefactors.” But Jesus condemns lording it over others. The writer to the Hebrews, quoting from the prophet Jeremiah (31:31-4), predicts a new covenant in which obedience will come from the heart. And then there follows an interesting statement that seems to suggest that there will come a time when teachers are no longer needed (Hebrews 8:10-11). It would be a mistake to interpret this passage as a rejection of teaching per se, as Scripture frequently endorses teaching. The ideal that is here being portrayed is a time when teachers are not needed, because each student will have internalised what they have been taught to such an extent that they no longer need to be taught. They are on their own, free, hopefully, following the tradition into which they were nurtured, and hopefully also creatively going beyond the insights they have inherited, as they also listen to the call of truth and to the voice of God within them.

            I have already begun to address the question of how we can avoid the tyranny of teaching. The teacher-pupil relationship has been described as one in which “the teacher has to learn to be in authority and to be an authority without being authoritarian” (Peters 1973, 47-8). The aim of every teacher should be to make himself or herself redundant, to have students become their own teachers. This will affect the teacher-student relationship in the classroom. As students progress, the relationship between teacher and students should evolve to greater equality. They should be seen as fellow searchers for truth. Teachers and students are better seen respectively as senior and junior members of a college or a university.

             I am intrigued with another warning of Jesus, against those who loved to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’ “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers…. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. (Matt. 23:8-10). Might this entail that we not allow our students to give us a titles such as “Doctor” or “Professor”? This would certainly help to achieve greater equality in the classroom.

            In the same Matthew text, there is another key to avoiding the tyranny of teaching. There is a call to servanthood. This same call appears in the passage I referred to earlier, where Jesus warns us not to lord it over others. But you are not to be like that, Jesus says. Instead, “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” (Matt.20:26-7). Teaching as servanthood. That is the picture we need to keep before ourselves constantly if we are to avoid the tyranny of teaching. We don’t call attention to ourselves, but to the God who has called us, and to the truth that has captured our imagination.

2. The temptation of neutrality

            There is the terrible danger that we as teachers try to avoid the danger of tyrannical teaching by trying to be neutral when we teach. This leads me to the second major temptation facing Christian professors. We are tempted to adopt a neutral standpoint as teachers. Because we are afraid of indoctrinating our students, we try to be neutral in the way in which we teach. I prefer to describe this as the temptation not to teach from and for commitment.

            The notion of neutrality is at the heart of our modern secular ideal of liberal education. This ideal of education is based on such enlightenment values as objectivity, rationality, critical thinking, tolerance, and a suspicion about tradition and authority. As Christian educators we have absorbed these values in varying degrees as we ourselves have been exposed to them via years of secular education, and as we live in a society dominated by a modern scientific world-view. I suspect we have been affected by these values more than we realise. Although I don’t want to discount these enlightenment values completely, I want to suggest that somehow these values have the effect of slowly and quietly undermining Christian commitment. And they have also led to a model of teaching that avoids teaching from and for commitment.

            I have experimented with various approaches to being honest about my own commitments in teaching. Sometimes I have made it a point to announce my Christian commitment on the first day when I meet a new class – it should be noted that most of my teaching has been done in a secular context. Sometimes I wait until well into the semester before I indicate the committed perspective from which I teach. The danger of an early announcement is that it may create unnecessary barriers for those students who are strongly opposed to Christianity. But, regardless of which approach I use, I have tried to be a whole person in the classroom, complete with my own commitments, not only about my Christian faith but about whatever subject I am teaching. There is no such a thing as neutrality in teaching. Thankfully, this truth is being increasingly acknowledged in today’s post-modern academic climate. If we as Christian educators are faithful in our teaching we will be honest about our Christian commitments.

            Not only will we be open about teaching from a committed perspective, we will also teach for commitment. Here again, over time, I have become bolder in what I do in the classroom. One of the courses I enjoy teaching is an introductory course in ethics. It is a course on the foundations of ethics, and I take it upon myself to prove to the students that there are indeed some ethical absolutes. This is quite an undertaking given that most students today are ethical relativists. On one occasion (it happens quite often actually), I was nasty enough to apply the idea of ethical absolutes to the area of sexual behaviour. After a few minutes of this, one of the girls spoke up in exasperation, and loudly, so that all in the class could hear: “You’ve just spoiled my weekend.” She was a beautiful girl, and I am sure I had created some discomfort. Sadly, she never returned to class again. But, that happens only seldom. This ethics course has, over the years, been the most popular philosophy course that I have taught. And I am sure the students are well aware of what they are getting into when they register for this course, as word gets around at a small college. But, they keep coming, though sometimes they are furious with me.

            Permit me here to be so bold as to confess to a worry. Occasionally some of my students who go on to Christian educational institutions, or who have come from such institutions report that there is a lot of hesitation to teach from and for commitment in some of these schools. One student described most of her professors at a Christian college as very neutral in their presentations. Only if she visited them in their offices, did they begin to open up about their commitments. This is wrong. It is a betrayal of faithful teaching. If there is one thing that today’s students need, it is teachers who are committed, and who dare to teach for commitment. Of course, we must be careful that we don’t let such teaching degenerate into the tyranny of teaching. What is needed is a delicate balance between teaching from and for commitment and teaching with openness.

3. The temptation of academic worldliness

            I want to suggest that there is a unique kind of worldliness that is particularly relevant to us as academics. I call it academic worldliness and I believe it is a temptation that we as Christian academics must be on guard against. At times I have been successful in resisting the temptation of academic worldliness. In my teaching and in my writing, I have tried to be very up-front about the Christian presuppositions that underlie my thinking, my arguments, and my critiques of various positions. But there are times when I am not so bold, when I succumb to academic worldliness – when I seek approval and validation via the secular route; when my agenda is driven by the secular world’s academic agenda.

            I have found an essay by Alvin Plantinga, entitled “Advice to Christian Philosophers,” particularly helpful in understanding and dealing with this temptation (1984). He makes three related suggestions. (a) Christian philosophers and Christian intellectuals generally must display more autonomy – more independence from the rest of the philosophical world. (b) Christian philosophers must display more integrity – integrity in the sense of integral wholeness, or oneness, or unity, being all of one piece. Attempts to graft our own ideas onto non-Christian thought will lead to compromise, distortion, or trivialization of the claims of Christian theism. (c) We also need to display Christian courage, or boldness, or strength, or perhaps Christian self-confidence. Plantinga is warning against academic worldliness. I think we as Christian academics need to pay heed to his advice.

            Plantinga goes on to argue that part of the task of Christian philosophers is to serve the Christian community. But the Christian community has its own questions, its own concerns, its own topics for investigation, its own agenda, and its own research program. Christian philosophers ought not merely to take their inspiration from what’s going on at Princeton, or Berkeley, or Harvard. The Christian philosopher has a perfect right to the point of view and pre-philosophical assumptions she brings to philosophic work; the fact that these are not widely shared outside the Christian community is interesting, but fundamentally irrelevant.

            We also need to heed Plantinga’s plea for the development of a uniquely Christian mind. To fail to do so is again to succumb to academic worldliness. Here Plantinga is merely giving contemporary expression to Paul’s admonition: the Christian is not himself subject to any man’s judgment; we have the mind of Christ; and let’s not be ashamed of it; indeed, let’s boast about it. Why? – because all truth is God’s truth. Because every thought needs to be made captive to Christ (II Cor. 10:5). Because “Your word, O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens … your laws endure to this day, for all things serve you” (Ps.119: 89, 91). That is the kind of Christian self-confidence that we need to display in our teaching and scholarship. Our teaching and scholarship must be transformed by a Christian world-view which in turn is shaped by presuppositions articulated by God’s general and special revelation. And we don’t have to be embarrassed about the truth that is in God. Do we believe this as Christian educators? Do we express this confidence in our teaching? Oh, yes, there is a need for humility. After all, we only know God’s truth in part. But, let’s never forget that God’s truth is utterly reliable, and will endure forever.

            With God’s help, I believe that I have been able to resist this aspect of the temptation of academic worldliness. Very early in my academic career in philosophy I developed a passion concerning the cultivation of a truly Christian mind. Here I am indebted to a book I read while I was still an undergraduate student, The Christian Mind, by Harry Blamires (1963). Over the years various other books have continued to inspire this passion (Walsh & Middleton, 1984; Wolters, 1985; Blamires, 1988). More recently, there have been the important contributions by George Marsden (1997) and David Naugle (2002). Thankfully, more attention is being paid to worldview thinking and the cultivation of a Christian worldview in our Christian institutions of higher learning. But all too often I meet Christian academics in our secular universities, and even in Christian colleges and universities, who, sadly, have not begun to think of their discipline from a uniquely Christian perspective. I also worry about the contemporary pre-occupation and uncritical acceptance of post-modernism on the part of some evangelical scholars (see Thiessen 2007). Such scholars have, I believe, succumbed to the temptation of academic worldliness. The writings of Marsden (1994) and Burtchaell (1998), among others, have documented another expression of academic worldliness – the sad history of the secularization of Christian colleges and universities.

4. The temptation of Christian isolationism

            As with temptations generally, trying to avoid one brings with it the danger of falling into another. So avoiding the temptation of academic worldliness can lead to an opposite danger, namely that of Christian isolationism. While we must avoid academic worldliness, we are still called to do our scholarship in the world, addressing the problems of the world, and doing all this in such a way as to speak to our non-Christian colleagues. Christian scholarship (and teaching) is at the same time in the world, but not of the world (John 17). It is hard to walk this tightrope.

            As already mentioned, one of my passions has been the development of the Christian mind and this has led to an ongoing dialogue concerning the distinctiveness of a Christian curriculum and Christian scholarship (see Thiessen 1992; 1999; 2001, ch. 10). I like to stress that the Christian mind must start with distinctively Christian presuppositions that are derived from God’s special revelation. The central problem here is that if we stress the distinctiveness of Christian learning and scholarship too much, it leads to isolationism. Christian scholarship is now viewed as totally different from non-christian scholarship, and it becomes impossible to understand other scholarship or even to talk to other scholars.

            I quite agree that an overemphasis on the uniqueness of the Christian mind can lead to this kind of isolation, and to what is sometimes referred to as the problem of incommensurability of belief systems. But, as I have argued elsewhere, it is possible to avoid such an overemphasis (Thiessen 1997). It is possible at one and the same time to say that Christian scholarship is unique and that it has something in common with non-Christian scholarship. Christian scholars can and must speak to non-Christian scholars, identifying common truth, while at the same time exposing distortions that arise from separating truth from its ultimate origin in Christ.

            For example, in my book Teaching for Commitment (1993) I spend a good deal of time trying to accommodate the secular liberal ideal of autonomy. At the same time I am careful to add a qualifier to this notion of autonomy, talking instead of “normal autonomy,” to set this notion apart from the secular liberal ideal. I also make it a point to show that this qualified ideal of normal autonomy is compatible with Christian presuppositions, and in fact grows out of them. Of course, there is a risk involved in attempting to transform the secular ideal of autonomy. There is a danger here of succumbing to academic worldliness. But I like to believe that I have avoided this, while at the same time avoiding the danger of Christian isolationism.          

5. The temptation of arrogance

            There are repeated warnings against arrogance in the Scriptures. “I hate pride and arrogance” (Proverbs 8:13). “Knowledge puffs up” (I Cor. 8:1). I have already mentioned Jesus’ warning against the desire to lord it over others. Instead, we are to be servants as he was. I think we as teachers and academics have problems with this. We have difficulty submitting to authority, to administration, or to our supporting constituency. Arrogance is a besetting sin of academics. There is a constant temptation to adopt an attitude that goes counter to the biblical ideal of submission.

            I know I have struggled with this in my attitudes towards administration. I know better than they. I have found myself joining in on the favourite preoccupation of mid-morning coffee breaks at educational institutions – criticizing the administration. I forget that my job is to be a teacher, not an administrator. And, have you ever noticed, how many academics fail to abide by the guidelines and time limits set for presenting papers at conferences? We just ignore them. We think that what we have to say is so important that we should be given all the time in the world. Such behaviour is rooted in arrogance, in a refusal to be submissive.

            The problem of arrogance is, of course, rooted in the sinful nature of all human beings. But, I believe there is something about being teachers and academics that makes us more prone to this temptation. We are authority figures in the classroom. We like the title of Professor or Doctor. Our attitudes are also shaped by the education we ourselves have received. We have been taught to think for ourselves. We have been educated to be autonomous. Most of us have received a liberal education, at the heart of which is the liberal ideal of autonomy that stresses independence and freedom. And hence, we have difficulty submitting to anyone.

            But there is something fundamentally wrong about the traditional liberal ideal of autonomy. It fails to do justice to the human need for community. It fails to recognize our dependence on others. It fails to acknowledge the need for submission to tradition and authority. Above all we are to submit to God, and to the authority of his Word. This doesn’t mean that there is nothing right about the liberal ideal of autonomy. But it needs to be seriously qualified, to be in keeping with biblical presuppositions, and hence, as I have already explained, my qualified ideal of “normal autonomy.”

            A brief additional word in the need to submit to the authority of God’s word. I think we as Christian academics have problems with this. We have been trained to think, to think critically, and to judge what we read. And there is the danger that we bring these attitudes and practices to our reading of God’s word. We sit in judgement over God’s word, rather than letting God’s word sit in judgement over us. Here again, we have succumbed to the temptation of arrogance.     

6. The temptation of misplaced priorities

            Mark Schwehn tells the story of a group of academics from the University of Chicago sharing what each of them had written down as their “occupation” while filling their last income tax forms (1993:vii-viii). A clear pattern soon emerged as each scholar revealed his/her “occupation” – sociologist, anthropologist, historian, and psychologist. Meanwhile, Schwehn began to wonder whether or not he had the courage to be honest in the company of his senior colleagues. Though trained as an intellectual historian, he had never once thought to put such a designation down under “occupation” on his tax form. When his turn finally came, Schwehn admitted, that he had written “college teacher” under the relevant heading. When he made this disclosure, Schwehn writes, he felt that it was greeted with what might be best described as mild alarm and studied astonishment.

            Schwehn uses this story to illustrate a very prevalent way of understanding academic vocation in America. The most common complaint among academics is this: “I don’t have enough time to do my own work.” And this understanding of academic vocation Schwehn traces to what he considers to be one of the most influential accounts of the academic calling ever written, Max Weber’s “Wissenschaft als Beruf.” The modern university sees the academic vocation primarily in terms of “Wissenschaft,” the making of knowledge, or research. Teaching, the transmission of knowledge and skills is of secondary importance. And “Bildung,” or the formation of character, is not even in the picture.

            Schwehn feels that it is high time that we restore teaching, and particularly, the formation of character, as essential components of the academic vocation. I quite agree. Schwehn has surely captured, what for Christian academics should be obvious. Yes, research is important. But, let us never underestimate the importance of teaching, of passing on the traditions of learning to the next generation. Teaching is a holy calling. And, let us also never forget that our objectives in teaching must include “Bildung,” the formation of character. There should always be a pastoral dimension to teaching, particularly for those of us who feel called to be academics out of obedience to our Heavenly Father. Hence I have always benefited from a reading of books on the pastoral ministry, even though I am a college teacher. The Christian academic, will be committed to teaching, and will never complain, “I don’t have enough time to do my own work.” Of course, there may be some of us whom God calls to focus primarily on research. But for the vast majority of Christian academics, teaching can and should be viewed as the most important part of our calling. We need to resist the temptation of misplaced priorities.

7. The temptation to divorce teaching from discipleship

            I love teaching, and I love research and writing. But it is all too easy to divorce these from the call to be a disciple of Jesus. Yet, as Soren Kierkegaard reminded us, “Christ did not appoint professors, but followers.” We are also called to love God with our whole being – with heart, soul, strength and mind. Then there is the call to love our neighbour as ourselves (Matt. 22:37-40). I have struggled with these calls to love and discipleship, and I don’t think I am alone. I think we as academics are not very good lovers – lovers of God, or lovers of our neighbours. Somehow, the education we have received, and the entire educational enterprise seems to militate against love.

            Education shaped by enlightenment ideals have made us value being objective, instead of committed; detached, instead of loving; rational, instead of passionate. We have come to enjoy questions, instead of answers. Answers would spoil everything. They might just carry with them a call to be committed. Or, to use Max Weber’s prophetic description of the modern era, we have become specialists without spirit.[ii] We as academics seem to have difficulty blending academic excellence with piety and commitment and love.

            Here we as academics need to be reminded that although we may be good orators, and give the most brilliant lectures, if we have not love, we are only resounding gongs or clanging cymbals. And even though in our research, we uncover new mysteries and discover all knowledge, if we don’t love, we are nothing (I Cor. 13). We also need to remember that teaching and scholarship is not all there is to faithful discipleship. God also wants us to be disciples in all areas of our lives. There is a danger that we as academics become too preoccupied with correct belief. We need to be equally concerned about correct behaviour and character.

8. The temptation to avoid suffering

            Let me conclude by sharing a struggle that has perhaps been the most difficult part of my career as a Christian academic. This struggle arises out of an important part of academic life – applying for various kinds of research grants and fellowships. An essential part of this process is to have one’s proposals for such awards vetted by referees. It is a good process, and generally it leads to helpful comments on one’s work. But at times biases come to the fore as I have experienced on a number of occasions.

            In one case a referee described me as “dogmatic, inflexible, and narrow in training and perspective.” He went on: “It is true that in certain ways Thiessen marches to the beat of a different drummer than most of his colleagues in Canadian philosophy of religion and religious studies.” This same referee went on to encourage me “to adhere to a philosophical approach to [my] subject, and to avoid casual excursions into theology and other disciplines.” Another referee expressed concern about my “consuming research interests and studies,” which all seemed to focus on the defence of religion. And then this: “Could he overcome his own personal religious convictions and concentrate on developing philosophical arguments that could compel and stand against any critical inquiry simply because they represent philosophical thinking at its best.” This very same comment appeared again in a later evaluation of an application for a SSHRC grant. I suspect it was the same person.

            Well, I didn’t get that grant, nor the earlier fellowship. While I would be the first to admit that there may be some legitimate academic reasons as to why I didn’t get them, and while I am also prepared to admit that some of the criticisms made in these reports may have some justification, I do have a problem with their cutting edge. There are anti-Christian biases out there, and they hurt. After reading these reports, I had to swallow hard a few times, pray a little, do some introspection, and ask myself the hard question as to whether there was some legitimacy to some of the criticisms. But, in the end I needed to move on, still marching to the beat of a different drummer, and still writing about topics that I felt called to write about.

            I also had to remind myself that insofar as these comments represented an anti-Christian bias, I needed to accept them as inevitable consequences of my Christian commitment. After all, Christ has called us to share in His sufferings (I Peter 2:21). I find this hard. I am tempted to try to avoid such suffering. But, I am convinced that faithful teaching and faithful scholarship will lead to suffering, to insults, to misrepresentations, to lost fellowships and research grants. We should not be surprised at this. We should not succumb to the temptation of trying to avoid the suffering that is an inevitable part of being a Christian academic.

            This concludes my review of some temptations that I have faced in a very satisfying career of teaching philosophy, mainly at a secular college. This essay could just as well have been described in terms of reflections on some lessons that I have learned and am still learning in my teaching career. But, the emphasis on temptations is perhaps better in helping us to focus on issues that need to be faced. I offer this article as a template for self-examination. The reader might even want to ask a colleague to evaluate him/her on the basis of the above template. And if some guilt ensues from this exercise, never forget that repentance and confession before our loving and forgiving God will lead to forgiveness, and the freedom to try once again to engage in the high and holy calling of teaching.  

(Note: This blog is an expanded version of an essay that first appeared in Direction: A Mennonite Brethren Forum in 2008, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.60-70.) 

Works Cited:

Blamires, Harry. The Christian Mind. London: S.P.C.K. 1963.

____________. Recovering the Christian Mind: Meeting the Challenge of Secularism. Downers             Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

Burki, Hans F. “The Tyranny of Teaching,” Signposts: A News Bulletin of Waymeet, #5, Sept. 1979.

Burtchaell, James Tunstead. The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges and Universities from their Christian Churches. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.

Marsden, George M. The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

________________. The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship. New York and Oxford:             Oxford University Press, 1997.

Naugle, David K. Worldview: The History of a Concept. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2002.

Peters, R.S. Authority, Responsibility and Education. 3rd. ed. London: Allen and Unwin, 1973.

Plantinga, Alvin. “Advice to Christian Philosophers.” Faith and Philosophy 1/3 (July, 1984).

Schwehn, Mark R. Exiles from Eden: Religion and the Academic Vocation in America. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Thiessen, Elmer John. “In Defence of Developing a Theoretical Christian Mind: A Response to Oliver R. Barclay,” The Evangelical Quarterly: An International Review of Bible and Theology 64/1 (January, 1992):37-54.

_________________. Teaching for Commitment: Liberal Education, Indoctrination, and Christian Nurture. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. (Co-published by Gracewing, Leominster, U.K.) 1993.

__________________. “Curriculum After Babel,” in Agenda for Educational Change, edited by John Shortt & Trevor Cooling. Leicester: Apollos, 1997, 165-80.

_______________. “Transformative Christian Education: a Response to Andrew Wright.” Journal of Education & Christian Belief 3/1 (Spring 1999):23-29.

__________________. In Defence of Religious Schools and Colleges. Montreal & Kingston:      McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001.

__________________. “Refining the Conversation: Some Concerns about Contemporary Trends in Thinking about Worldviews, Christian Scholarship and Higher Education,” The Evangelical Quarterly: An International Review of Bible and Theology 79/2 (April 2007):133-52.

Walsh, Brian J. & J. Richard Middleton. The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984.

Wolters, Albert M. Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1985 (2nd. ed., 2005).

 


 

Endnotes:

[i] Versions of this paper were given at a faculty retreat at Canadian Bible College (1995), a “With Heart and Mind” conference at Trinity Western University (1999), and a meeting of the Graduate Christian Fellowship at the University of Toronto (2000). I am grateful to all participants of these events who gave me valuable feedback.

[ii] Max Weber, quoted in Schwehn, 1993, 18.

 

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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: