From Baptist to Anglican: What is the Appeal?

In his Evangelical Theology, Michael Bird, professor and blogger over at Euangelion, talks briefly about his journey from Baptist to Presbyterian and now to the Anglican tradition.

Then yesterday, Scot McKnight, noted NT scholar and blogger at Jesus Creed, announced his upcoming ordination in the Anglican Communion.

How is it, these two noted scholars (both of whom I respect as NT scholars) can leave behind their baptistic tradition for a paedobaptist one?  We are talking differences in ecclesiology here (church polity, understanding of the sacraments, worship, etc)!

Bird, however, did mention that he found Baptists lacking in their understanding of the sacraments and that they could use a lot more catholicity in their understanding of church.  On both counts, I quite agree.  Bird continues,

Yet I find myself now amidst the Anglican tradition because the genius of Anglicanism is in being able to be both Protestant and Catholic at the same time.  I have learned to love the Book of Common Prayer and appreciate teh liturgies in the Anglican tradition [Scot McKnight happens to mention the same].  Most of my favorite theologians are Anglican, and I have enjoyed seeing Anglican leaders in Africa defend the gospel against their liberal European and American counterparts.”

I had the pleasure of meeting Michael Bird in St. Louis, MO, a year ago, while he was giving a series of lectures at the Covenant Theological Seminary.  We conversed, then, about his upcoming Evangelical Theology, and also his admiration for noted biblical scholar N.T. Wright, himself an Anglican and former Bishop of Durham.  I wonder what role did an N.T. Wright played in the eventual conversion of a Mike Bird into the Anglican tradition?

This entry was posted in Anglican, Baptist, Michael F. Bird, N.T. Wright, Presbyterian, Scot McKnight and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to From Baptist to Anglican: What is the Appeal?

  1. Brian LePort says:

    I think it offers liturgy and the high-Church atmosphere for those not willing to commit to everything taught by the RCC and/or EOC. In some sense I can see the appeal. In another sense, there is a curiousness to Anglicanism in the United States in that it seems to attract a certain type of similar people. I know “diversity” for diversity’s sake can be sort of patronizing, but my impression is that American Anglicanism suffers from the opposite problem. I could be wrong.

    • TC Robinson says:

      I can see how liturgy can be an appeal, since I crave the same and agrees with Bird’s critique of the Baptist tradition here. Yes, the attraction of a certain type of similar people is worth exploring.

  2. Jon Hughes says:

    Robin Parry has made a similar journey recently here in the UK:

    Shall we jump ship, TC? 🙂

  3. Simon says:

    Many are making the Church of England a half way stop on the way to either Rome or Constantinople.

    There are four places evangelicals who truthfully seek the Apostolic Church can go – Rome, Constantinople, Canterbury or Alexandria. They represent the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Oriental Orthodox Communions respectively. Canterbury has gone a bit bonkers on a few things, but their worship remains one of the most beautiful things in the world. Good luck to both Scott McKnight and Michael Bird. And, by God’s mercy, may Rome, Constantinople, Canterbury and Alexandria be united once again!

    • Jon Hughes says:


      At the risk of being overly simplistic, what you write above could be countered by saying that what you regard as “Apostolic” resembles the Old Covenant, and that those expressions of the Christian faith outside the centres you mention align far more consistently with the New Covenant.

      For example, should there be the divide between clergy and laity that we find in the centres you mention? What about holy altars, holy vestments, holy water, holy incense? Is it really “Apostolic” to import Old Testament categories into the New Testament. There simply are no longer the same distinctions between holy and unholy, sacred and profane.

      What type of churches would the apostles really feel at home in?

      • Simon says:

        John, I’m not a Marcionite 😉

        Last time I read the NT, there was plenty of stuff on deacons, presbyters (priests) and bishops 🙂 Furthermore, the sacraments were front and central – with Christ even giving the Apostles the power the forgive (John 20:23)

        I don’t want to strip the faith down to bare bones as low church traditions do. The Apostles never said that the New Testament would be an all encompassing document when considering worship, church polity and so on. Moreover, only the sacramental, liturgical life of the Church guards it against heresy, nourishes the church spiritually and connects the Church with the saints past and present. Biblical phrases are always used. And non-Biblical language is foreign – like “Jesus is my personal saviour”, “invite Jesus into your heart” etc. Where would you go to look at what primitive Christian faith looks like? I can give you the tip, it would be Dallas or Atlanta! I’d be looking at Ethiopia, Syria, Alexandria and so on.

    • TC Robinson says:


      You have just ignored a large sector, if you will, of Christianity. How can this be right?

      • Simon says:

        TC, I think the North American evangelical world has excluded an even larger sector or Christianity. Let me give you the tip, Christianity in Montgomery Alabama is not what the ancient faith looks like!

  4. Mike Gantt says:

    How does a historically-aware person take refuge in a tradition whose roots lie in the lusts of an earthly king?

    Even aside from the history, however, I don’t think it would have helped a passenger to change compartments on the Titanic. Salvation (both eternal and daily) is in Christ alone.

  5. Jon Hughes says:


    The actions of Joseph’s brothers in the O.T. – and Judas in the N.T. – come to mind.

    But on the subject of kings, consider this: It wasn’t even God’s will for Israel to have a king, but in allowing them to have one (not God’s best for them) God used their greatest king (albeit an adulterer and murderer) to be a type of the coming king, Jesus the Messiah, who came from the same line. God always works with imperfection, even in bringing about glorious things.

    • Mike Gantt says:


      To me, church history after the apostolic generation is the story of King Saul trying to prevent David from taking his place.

      • TC Robinson says:

        I like your analogy, and it does resonate. But we do have the Lord’s promise of Matthew 16:18. And to reference Jon’s comment above, the Lord can even use an earthly king in the process.

    • Mike Gantt says:


      Henry VIII as a type of Christ? That doesn’t immediately resonate.

      • Jon Hughes says:


        I think you know I wasn’t suggesting Henry VIII as a type of Christ.

      • Mike Gantt says:

        Of course, you weren’t, Jon – and that was precisely the point I wanted to convey: that is, I don’t think you are sufficiently considering the implications of your stance.

        I take your point that God can use the actions of unrighteous people to advance His cause, but in the case of Joseph’s brothers and Judas we have a reference point – Joseph and Jesus, respectively – to validate our view that this is what was taking place. I haven’t heard you articulate a rationale for assuming King Henry’s actions were something God used to create the Anglican Church. And we haven’t even discussed the current mess of the government of England sanctioning marriages that the church of England does not. That is, both report to the Crown, but are at odds with each other..

        Nevertheless, you needn’t trouble yourself further. I have no more objection to the Anglican church than I do any other post-apostolic church. Morever, I was married in an Episcopal church almost 42 years ago and I am happy to testify that the marriages which they officiate turn out very, very well – at least speaking from my own experience.

  6. TC Robinson says:


    Yes indeed. But what does that look like throughout church history and up to the present? That’s the grind for me.

  7. TC Robinson says:

    |TC, I think the North American evangelical world has excluded an even larger sector or Christianity. Let me give you the tip, Christianity in Montgomery Alabama is not what the ancient faith looks like!|

    Simon: I see that you’re putting a particular church tradition before Christ. Please correct me if I’m wrong here.

    • Jon Hughes says:


      One can only agree with you about the individualism of Evangelicalism in the West and all the lingo, but disagree with you about the only “places” where the “Apostolic Church” can be found. The Great Commission and its accompanying authority applies to all genuine believers/disciples EVERYWHERE – be it in house churches, caves, cathedrals, back rooms, street corners, underground movements, Baptist churches, Pentecostal churches, evangelical free churches, or the places that you mention.

      I’ll freely take Communion at home with my own family, if necessary, as a believer-priest without any sense of anxiety that it is not associated with the right “place”.

      Problematically even from your own perspective, the circle narrows… the official position from Rome is that Canterbury doesn’t have the Apostolic Succession either and therefore has no valid Eucharist; a theologian coming out of Constantinople claimed that all Protestants are Crypto-Papists, thereby implying a huge difference in self-perception between that particular place and ALL places in the Western Church, Roman Catholic or otherwise; Rome believes that Constantinople should recognize its particular primacy; and so on….

      As for your comments about Montgomery, Alabama, next you’ll be saying that nothing good can come out of Nazareth 😉

  8. Simon says:


    Point taken about Apostolic succession. However, realise that at one point in time all these churches were in communion with one another. All these churches can demonstrably trace their heritage directly to the Apostles. This is important. True, a Catholic cannot take communion at an Anglican Church and an Ethiopian can’t take Communion at a Russian Church. But this only goes to show that the theology of the Eucharist and ecclesiology is very high. Our hope is that these churches can once again join in Communion. That was my point. As for free churches and Bible churches etc, there is almost no possibility of entering back into communion with the Traditional churches.

    By the way, I never said that nothing good comes out of Montgomery 😉 I suspect that I’d really like the BBQ that comes from the South 🙂 Just that it is not where you’d look to find the Apostolic Church.

    • Jon Hughes says:


      I totally respect your convictions. For me, you and I are in communion without the politics, and I would gladly take the Eucharist with you along with any believer of any stripe, loose cannon that I am! (What you say about an Ethiopian not being able to take communion at the Russian Church is just as ridiculous as the differences between Open Brethren and Closed Brethren, and all sorts of other introspective nonsense. They take things very seriously too, although I’m not sure what Jesus would have to say about that.)

      God bless.

      • Jon Hughes says:

        Sorry, I meant to say “Exclusive Brethren”.

      • Simon says:


        It is scandalous that an Armenian Christian can’t have Communion with a Serbian. However, what we hope for is true unity. I hope we can achieve this. In the case of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Communions, there is real hope that full Communion can be restored perhaps in our lifetime, God willing.

        Blessings to you!

  9. Simon says:


    I’m not putting the Church before Christ. I’m saying that the Church is mystically Christ himself, following St Paul’s statement that the Church is the body of Christ 😉

  10. Simon says:

    No TC. This is a mystery. I don’t want to exclude anyone from the Church. However, I do reject the “invisible Church” doctrine as anti-biblical. How can the Body of Christ be “invisible”? It is not possible. There is no hard and fast answer for me here. Orthodox would say that Catholics and every other ecclesial body is not the Church. The Catholics would say likewise. But we don’t take this to it’s logical conclusion – because it does not conform to our logic. The status of those outside the Church is a mystery. What we hope for is unity of the Church.

    • TC Robinson says:

      Simon, I understand. But theologians have been using the term “invisible church” to refer to those who make up the true church of Jesus Christ, those who are truly regenerate, in contrast to the visible church of those who claim to belong but may not, in the end. Like the Trinity, though the expression is not found in Scripture, the concept is actually there, and therefore biblical.

      Am I outside the Church and therefore making my status a mystery?

      • Simon says:

        I think, following the Roman Catholics, Protestants would still be call brothers and sisters in faith. But Protestants themselves have a very elusive ecclesiology. Some don’t even refer to themselves as a church, but some kind of para-Church entity. So I’m not sure how to answer your question. The Protestant conception of Church is ultimately deficient I think and a clear weak point of their theology. It breeds relativism and pluralism that mirrors secular society. If what you mean by Church is “invisible Church”, then yes perhaps you are inside the Church. But I cannot say. I simply don’t know. We are not working with the same assumptions. However, I would never speculate as to anyone’s standing before God or the sincerity of their faith.

  11. TC Robinson says:

    Simon, with the freedom of religion in the West, the concerns of relativism and pluralism are inevitable. But it’s the price that we must pay for this freedom.

    As to deficiency in ecclesiology and weakness in theology, while I agree to the charge, I must disagree as to specifics.

    • Simon says:

      TC, fair enough.

      Interesting that you do agree that the notion of religious freedom has, in some important ways, led to relativism and pluralism. Because usually evangelicals decry the relativism and pluralism in society. But here you seem to be saying that relativism is worth it because religious freedom is a higher ideal. I, myself, have given up on the idea of religious freedom as functionally unworkable. It is far more harmonious when people live with the same worldview. I actually think religious freedom can be quite harmful.

      • Jon Hughes says:


        It depends on the worldview. Would you find it harmonious living with someone else’s worldview? As for religious freedom, would this blog be able to function without it?

      • TC Robinson says:

        Yes, as something of a student of church history, I had to acknowledge the same. No conflict here. While having the same worldview is ultimately the goal, such will and never be realized here. Human nature as lived out on the world stage of history is our unquestionable teacher here.

  12. Simon says:

    Jon/TC, The Reformation has let the cat out of the bag – particularly the radical Reformation and the establishment of the US experiment in religious freedom (Luther and Calvin quickly realized that they had to legislate for religion otherwise society was going to breakdown). So Jon I understand where you’re coming from. We now live in a world where there is plurality, so therefore religious freedom is viewed as human right. There really is no going back now.

    However, you go back to Byzantium where there was state backing for orthodox Christianity. This doesn’t mean that there was always harmony between church and state far from it. But it did mean that people had a shared life. Everyone did Church together, lent and Easter together, Christmas together. The key word is together. And this is reflected most in countries today where this is State religion – like your England, Greece and so on. And even in countries where the overwhelming majority of people belong to same Church like in the Philippines with the RC Church. This lack of “togetherness” is the hallmark of Western secular religious freedom. As I said above, we have let the cat out of the bag now and there’s no turning back. However, I do have faith that the Holy Spirit will guide his people into one visible, holy, catholic and apostolic Church despite the challenges of the modern world.

    Following this, I am in complete agreement with the Russian Church who has banned proselytizing by Mormons and certain evangelicals. I am in full support of Greek Bishops who do the same. These men are shepherds protecting the flock against those people who would use the ignorance of the people to deceive. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. In fact it is the right thing to do. Our world, following the denouncing of proper ecclesial authority at the Reformation, scorns the notion that wiser people can tell us the correct way to live. Everyone chooses for him or herself these days, no matter if they want to believe stories that stretch credulity about Jews sailing from Palestine to America for instance. I think the Church and State together has the divine right to stop this from happening.

    • TC Robinson says:

      Simon, as I mentioned above, I will take the path of the Reformers any day over your proposal. I thank God I don’t live in one of those nations. We also know the bloody history of your proposal. There is absolutely no guarantees. Must I furnish you examples? So I maintain what Jon and I are arguing here, even with the price had to and have to be paid.

      • Simon says:

        TC, as I said in my post, the Reformers did impose state religion. You need only look at your great hero Calvin in Geneva to see this. He realised that things were getting out of hand.

        Unfortunately, there has always been bloodshed. This is not only because of state Churches. It would be a fallacy to say that it is because of this that there was bloodshed in the past. Furthermore, Church abuses were far more prevalent in the Western Church. In the East it is far more common to endure persecution. Look at the Orthodox Churches in the Communist era. Look at the Middle Eastern Churches with the advent of Islam. Additionally, Western pluralism and secularism is also guilty of bloodshed. Look at the wars, the abortions and so on. It’s not so simple. I think it’s a fallacy to separate church and state. It’s an impossibility in fact. What this separation has done is to privatize religion to make way for secular takeover of the world. I don’t think this is a good state of affairs.

  13. Colin says:

    I have followed this thread with some interest. A brief background. I was brought up in a Baptist church (Baptist Union of Great Britain) in a NW suburb of London. In the early 70s, in my late teens, I drifted away. A few years later God caught me again and turned me sharply round. Never understimate a deeply prayerful potential mother in law. Once married I commited to Christ and we have worshiped in evangelical Anglican Churches for most of the time since. In 2004, I was admitted as a Reader (episcopally licensed lay minister for those not farmiliar with the term).

    That sort of background perhaps results in me holding more lightly to some of our more “Catholic” traditions than do others. I happily submit to the disciplines order and structure of the CoE , but not because I feel they are the only true manifestation of Apostolic Church, but mostly they work, and are not un-Scriptural.

    I agree with Simon that the NT is not a complete manual on polity, practice etc. But we need to unpack that comment and probe its implications. Here is a situation where Scripture gives us guidance and core principles but not detailed requirements. In that context, the explicit references to Bishops etc which he seems to have in view, surely relate to functions which are needed, not the precise structure by which they are performed. And of course in1 Timothy, Paul refers to 2 levels only, Elders/Overseers being one and the same, and Deacons, not the specific 3 fold version we have evolved in the Episcopal Denominations such as my own. By contrast, Methodists, URC and others have their own way of handling those functions . In the UK at least most Baptists have a more congregational polity.

    As to the Sacrament/Oridinance of the Eucharist/Lords Supper, TC himself has reflected in these pages on whether we should give it greater prominence than many Protestants do. John Wesley and John Calvin would surely approve!. That said Jesus himself made it clear that preaching the word was central to his ministry. The Emmaus episode in Luke 24 indicates that Word and Sacrament belong together.

    I would accept Simon’s support for liturgy in that it has potential to guard against heresy; it can also help to give balance and shape to worship. However it is not liturgy on its own which does that. What about adherence to the Word, the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles . Cranmer was a genius in giving the CoE services so solidly rooted in Scripture, notably the Daily Offices, but it is surely that Scripture which is our ultimate safeguard? For me being truly Apostolic is about being true to that Deposisit of Faith (I know that sounds Roman ) given by Jesus and the Apostles (see Jude v3), not about how we structure ourselves. And that Deposit is found first in Scripture, with tradition (which includes the Creeds), reason and also experience guiding us in understanding and applying it. Having been getting into Tom Wright’s new magnum opus on Paul, I see he shares Simon’s concerns that some Protestants have a weak theology of Church. But see James Smith’s “Letters to a Young Calvinist” , in which he shows how to be Reformed is to be catholic. And Calvin had a strong ecclesiology, setting out that where the Word of God is faithfully preached, and the (2) sacraments properly administered , then you have a gathering of God’s Church .

    Sorry this is so long.

    • TC Robinson says:


      No need to apologize (we appreciate your input around here). Regarding church polity, that Baptists got it right. 🙂 The Bishopric as we know it today was only to be a temporary measure but became permanent, in the face of growing heresies, immediately post-apostolic times.

      Yes, I’m a closet liturgical Baptist, waiting to come out in full, but no outlet, given my current context of ministry.

      Yes, historically part of the free church movement is its weakness in its ecclesiology. This has been duly noted and a growing number of literature has resulted to adjust the issue. Even Calvin’s ecclesiology is not the answer, unless we are willing to concede the part the Geneva council played. But alas, even Calvin scholars are divided on the matter.

  14. Colin says:

    I was intrigued by Simon’s comment about supporting the Church and Stae combining to ban so called proselytising. I had heard about this and personally find it deeply disturbing, though given current politics in Russia not surprising. I would be horrified if the CoE sought a similar measures from Parliament. Not much chance if we did! I struggle to relate this to Paul’s warnings to the Corinthians about going to court to resolve issues with our brothers.

    In saying “brothers”, I am not suggesting that Mormons, JW, Moonies or any similar cults are brothers in Christ. But while I would question the atitude and balance of some more dogmatic evangelical churches, most are still Church. Where is Russia and Greece drawing the line? Then if the people are ignorant that is surely more a reflection of our own teaching and discipling, or the paucity of it? Are they meeting Christ among us, and if not why not? And where we are considering those who have no current church connections (in Russia brought up as Athiest Communists perhaps) rather than hiding behind legal bars, should we not work together so that they meet Christ? It is down to us to show up the errors of the cults and the truth of Christ

    For my part I cannot see this as something the State and Church should be doing. If we are being traditional, the church was born in adversity and opposition from the state. Some would say we started going off course after Constantine converted.

    • Jon Hughes says:


      It’s great reading posts by you and Simon. Yes, the situation that Simon describes in which the church and state combine to ban proselytising disturbs me as well – especially if evangelicals are effectively lumped in the same category as cultists.

      This sort of thing is completely foreign to the New Testament scene. Clearly things did change (for better or for worse) after Constantine converted. If only Paul could have appealed to Caesar to ban those pesky Judaizers…

  15. Jon Hughes says:


    You’re right to touch on Calvin’s Geneva. It was wrong. What always resonates for me in this type of discussion is that the faith of the New Testament is invariably subversive, and it’s hard to have that with a Christian state religion.

  16. Simon says:


    I am more disturbed by a situation, like in the US, where anyone can start their own church. These are usually rackets and they are proselytising in places where ignorance and poverty abounds. This is not right. For example, it is absolutely wrong for evangelicals to be going to Ethiopia, a country that has been Christian from the 5th century, to proselytise. That is unacceptable, divisive and simply wrong. Often they exploit the poverty of these people to entice them into the evangelical or a cultic faith. It’s a relief that Orthodoxy is so ingrained into the community that any success in proselytising is limited.

    Jon, the difference between Caesar of Paul’s time and Byzantium was that Caesar was setting himself up as a rival to Christ. Conferring on himself divine honours. This needs to be distinguished from when we have a truly Christian empire or government. There is a big difference.

    Colin, in the NT there are offices of Bishop (Greek: episcopus – translated by Protestants as “overseer”), Priest (Greek: presbuteros) and Deacon (Greek: diakonos). Very, very early on in Church history you have Ignatius of Antioch stating this in his epistle to the Magnesians:

    “Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed.”

    Ignatius, coincidentally, had direct contact with the apostles. He was writing in the late first century and early second century. This is truly a very close witness to what the NT meant by the offices of the Church and Ignatius writes extensively on this topic. Furthermore, in every single ancient communion, bar none, we see the exact same hierarchical structure in the Church. Whether you are talking RC, CoE, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Nestorian Church of the East. For me this is a very strong witness as to how we should view the NT writings that refer to offices of the Church and how this works out in practical terms.

    • Jon Hughes says:


      I hear you, and many see it that way. I may well be wrong, but my instincts take me in a different direction.

      Regarding missionaries going to Ethiopia, perhaps they sense that many Orthodox Christians there have been baptized as babies but simply don’t know Christ. I’ve had a number of conversations over the years with Orthodox believers and frankly have felt the same. There’s a witness of the Spirit when you meet believers from various Christian traditions; but there’s also the sense at times that those who’ve been brought up in a state religious system most certainly do need evangelizing.

      This comes back to the question of baptism. You mention proximity to the apostles. We don’t read of infant baptism until the middle of the third century (if what I’ve read is correct); and I strongly feel that it is problematic in terms of people coming to trust in Christ personally – especially the way Catholics and Orthodox understand it.

      • Simon says:

        Jon, evangelising in an already Christian country is simply wrong. This is not mission work. Mission work is to go to peoples who have not heard the Gospel. What should be happening is collaboration between Christian communions to tackle poverty, AIDS and other issues they face. They should not be leading people away from the faith of their ancestors.

        If there are Catholics, Anglican and Orthodox who don’t have a sense of their faith, what they need to be reconfirmed in their faith, not to be evangelised. They certainly don’t need a Billy Graham style “revival”. Often these nominal are not educated in their faith and are very susceptible to charismatic proselytizers like Graham and others.

        By the way, if you’ve ever seen Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, you’d realise that the faith of these people is far from nominal 😉 The only saving grace for evangelists going to Ethiopia is that there is a significant Muslim population there. However, I strongly condemn any attempts to convert Christians.

  17. Colin says:


    “What always resonates for me in this type of discussion is that the faith of the New Testament is invariably subversive, and it’s hard to have that with a Christian state religion.”

    I have not really given any serious thought to the arguments for and against disestablishment of my own Church. Amusing that such opposites as the Thatcherite Tebbit and now Clegg have advanced it. However, I suspect like me you have been getting into Tom Wright again? One of his dominant themes on Paul is how subversive was the Gospel of “King Jesus” to an emperor with visions of his own deity.

    Meanwhile what Simon has shown is that there is bloodshed whether there is establishment or not; whether the state is secular , other religion or otherwise. Which perhaps shows that it is a consequence of out shortcomings as fallen humanity. Christians of any denomination, East, West, or middle, are hopefully being transformed into Christ’s likeness, but sadly do sometimes succumb.

    • Jon Hughes says:


      It’s not a problem in the UK these days. But historically, consider the Great Ejection, following the Act of Uniformity in 1662… that was a total disgrace, as the great evangelical Bishop, J. C. Ryle, acknowledged in the 1800’s. (Ryle was a lot closer to the likes of Spurgeon than many of his fellow Anglicans.)

      Tom Wright is great, and also Anglican!

      But Simon describes a situation where the state church still wields considerable power and influence. That sends shivers up me timbers.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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