Posted by: Jonathan Stepp | September 1, 2008

The Church as Priesthood

I’m not sure that all people are called to become active, card carrying members of the Church.

If you’re a died in the wool Christian that statement may seem radical to you. If you’re just tuning in to this conversation you may want to read my last two posts on this subject to get the background: Queen of the Sciences Part 1 and Queen of the Sciences Part 2.

I do believe that all people are called to trust the gospel. The gospel is the good news that when the Son of God became human he adopted humanity into the Triune Life. Through Jesus the whole human race has been recreated as children of the Father (Eph. 1:5, Rom. 5:18, Col. 1:20).

To believe the truth about ourselves – that we are adopted, forgiven children of the Father through the Son – is heaven, and to disbelieve it is hell. But I still think it’s possible to believe this truth, and to be baptized into the assurance of this truth, and yet still not be called or gifted to be a Charlie Church.

Consider the following analogy between the Church and the priesthood of Israel:

All of Israel was elected in Abraham to be the people of God in the Old Covenant. They were not all called to be priests. The priests were called to help Israel remember and celebrate their identity as God’s people.

Likewise, all humanity is elected in Jesus to be the people of God in the New Covenant. But it does not necessarily follow that all people are called to be priests of this New Covenant. The Church is called to that role. It is called to be the priesthood of humanity, helping the world to remember and celebrate their identity in Christ. As St. Peter said, we are called to be a “royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9).



  1. Jonathan,

    You might be interested to read T.F. Torrance’s book “Royal Priesthood, a theology of ordained ministry.” While his focus is the episcopate (ordained pastoral ministry), he does speak directly to the issue you raise, namely whether or not *all* believers are called and formed by the Spirit into the corporate body of Christ on earth. That forming has to do with the ministry of all believers in the work of Christ to fulfill the Father’s mission on earth.

    Torrance speaks of the ordained ministry as the “sign” of the priesthood of the *whole body* (not just a representative few), which corporately and charismatically is endowed by the Spirit for participation in the ministry of Jesus on earth.

    The view you seem to describe posits some believers as part of that corporate body (with its corporate ministry) and other believers as not a part. I don’t think Torrance would go there with you.

    According to Torrance (if I understand his view correctly), the episcopate is a sign of the whole body, which is gifted as a whole for ministry, with every person in the body having an important role. It seems to me that Torrance is following Paul closely in this thinking.

    Can there be some in Christ’s body not drawn together into this corporate ministry and gathered assembly for that ministry?

    A corollary question is this: What constitutes a meaningful “gathering” of the body in order to participate corporately as the body of Christ in the ministry to which it is assigned? No doubt, some of the expectations and preconditions that historically have been placed on corporate structures (which Torrance calls “scaffolds”) are overly narrow and have more to do with cultural norms than with charismatic gifting.

    So perhaps the issue is not that some believers are in the church/priesthood and some believers are not, but that all believers are placed by the Spirit within the corporate church which is (appropriately) expressed in multiple and inherently flexible forms (scaffolds).

    It might be a useful discussion to explore the defining and essential “marks” of a local church which is formed by the Spirit and into which the same Spirit draws all of Christ’s body on earth for localized community and ministry with Jesus.

    I think it’s good that we explore ecclesiology and missiology in the light of Trinitarian theology.

  2. Thanks for the comments, Ted! Maybe we do need to think more about how the Church may be expressed in multiple and flexible forms in order to better understand how all believers fit in. In other words, perhaps the problem has been that our definition of Church is too narrow. I haven’t read Torrance’s work on ministry but I’m going to try to do so.

    Some of my thinking is rooted in just defining what a priest is.

    By definition a priest carries out his office on behalf of non-priests. A priesthood doesn’t exist for the primary purpose of serving other priests. Since all believers are priests it would seem to follow that the only non-priests that our priesthood can exist to serve are non-believers – that is the majority of humanity.

    Also, the primary mission of a priest is not to recruit more priests but to help and serve non-priests. Certainly a priesthood has to have new members to expand and carry on its work but the recruitment of new members is not its primary function.

    Since the gospel reveals that all humanity is adopted into and is already participating in the Triune Life, and it reveals that we are the priesthood of this covenant (sharing in the ministry of Jesus, the High Priest) it seems logical to me that our job is to help the non-priestly majority of humanity to understand their identity without being overly concerned about whether they join us in our priesthood or not.

  3. I agree wtih your assessment that all believers are priests of God – that is to say that all are called as disciples of Jesus to active participation in the life and love of Jesus as it is extended within our world. And Jesus is the one priest of God (in whose priestly service we are called, gifted and sent to share).

    Thus there is no distinctive priestly “class” that is a subset of all believers. However, there are different parts/aspects of Jesus’ one priesthood that each believer shares by grace.

    And I think you are correct in seeing that the priesthood that includes all believers is sent to and for the world, not merely for itself. In other words, the church (the corporate body that includes all believers) exists for and because of mission.

    As one preacher I heard said it, the question is not, “does the church have a mission?” But, “does the mission have a church?”

    And that mission, for which the church is formed and called by the Spirit, exists to be an icon of the Trinity sent to a world included in Christ, through ignorant of this stunning good news.

    Do all believers know of this calling? No. Do they all participate actively in this calling? No. But it is the reforming work of the Spirit to constantly renew the church in this mission – not as religious “busy work” but as real participation in the very real work of Jesus in our world to call all people to embrace, experience and share the truth of who they are in Christ.

    Now, what form should a local church (assembly) of believers, take? I think that this is where an ecclesial/missional reformation is needed right alongside a theological one. For reformation (necessarily) includes both our being and our doing in Christ. The reformation must “infect” everything – our structures (what Torrance calls our “scaffolds”) included.

    As this reformation plays itself out, I suspect that the Spirit will lead us to erect some dramatically (radically?) different structures. In all this we seek to be faithful to who Jesus is in our world, including within his body, the church.

  4. […] are in Jesus, His Son!! Ha-Ha!! (You can find Jonathan Stepp’s blog posts right here and here!) Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Wednesday Extravaganza: Sabotage–Character […]

  5. I noticed Ted that you used the statement “corporate body of Christ”. Are you saying that the corporate body of Christ (the church) and the greater body of Christ (every human) are distinctly different?

  6. Gah, that was poorly phrased and there is no edit feature, bleh…

    What I meant to say is are you Ted saying the scripture defines the Body of Christ as the body of people that believe or is that the just the ‘corporate body of Christ’ term you used?

    Since Trinitarianism says all humans are taken up in Christ to participate with the Trinity, doesn’t that mean that we all are technically part of the body of Christ or is the scriptural venacular only appropriate to describe the church.

    It would seem to logically follow that all humans (of which Jesus is one fully God and Fully Human and has the supreme primacy) would make the body of Christ that partcipates in the Trinity. However, it is plausible that Paul had a different descriptive intent when he used that phraseology to describe the church.

    I’m posting out of ignorance having not studied this in depth.

  7. Hey Tim. It’s great to consider these questions together. We have many issues like this to think through. It’s a journey of discovery!

    We are certainly agreed that Jesus has included, by grade, *all* humanity in his communion (perichoretic union) with the Father and the Spirit. This is the gospel truth of universal reconciliation and adoption.

    Whatever we say about “the church” must rest on this truth. But does it follow that because all humans are included already in Christ, that all are, therefore, now part of “the church”?

    I think the answer is no, but not because Christians are included and non-Christians are excluded from Christ’ life. Rather it is a distinction which Scripture makes based on a definition of the church as the assembly of those who are believers – those who have come to know of and have personally responded to the truth of their union with God in Christ. This subset of humanity has a *personal and realized* relationship with God in Christ and are disciples (followers) of Jesus.

    Said another way, all humanity is included, but only some are active disciples (followers) of Jesus.

    In his sovereign work, which is perfect (though often mysterious) in its timing, the Spirit calls and then gifts individuals for discipleship, which is their personal, active participation in the life of Jesus as one of his followers. And these disciples are called and sent together, as the church, to the world (non-believers) to proclaim to those non-believers the truth of their inclusion and to invite their active participation in that inclusion (to repent, believe, and take up their crosses and follow Jesus).

    Thus ecclesiology (the nature of the church) and missiology (the work of the church) are integrally and dynamically intertwined. The church is formed and gifted by the Spirit for its redemptive mission to the world.

    So the operative question (as one author said), is not, What is the mission of the church? But, “Does the mission have a church?”

    Paul refers to the communion (shared life in mission) of Christ-followers (saints or believers) as the “body of Christ.” This body is charismatically gifted by the Spirit for its mission to the world as “Christ’s Ambassadors” sent to that world.

    J.B. Torrance notes that “The mission of the church in the world is grounded in the mission of the Son and the Spirit from the Father to bring us to sonship and communion” (“Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace”, p. 75).

    In a sense, this means that people who are included (already) in Christ’s life, are now being invited (called) and gifted to become “Christians” (Christ-followers/believers/saints).

    J.B. points out (p. 76) that there are three possible answers to the question: “When does one become a Christian”?:

    1. From all eternity.

    2. When Christ lived, died, and rose again.

    3. When the Holy Spirit sealed in my faith and in my experience what had been planned from all eternity in the Father’s heart and was completed once and for all in Jesus nearly 2,000 years ago.

    In “Participating in God, a Pastoral Doctrine of the Trinity,” Trinitarian theologian, Paul S. Fiddes, speaks of the church as the assembly of believers, participating (communing) actively and purposefully together in the life and work of the Son of God.

    Historically, distinctions have been made between a “visible” and an “invisible” church; the church on earth, and the church in heaven; etc. Some of these distinctions have been (in my view) based on a false distinction between believers and non-believers. But failing to distinguish appropriately (biblically) between believers (the church) and non-believers is (in my view) also a mistake because it obscures an understanding of the call upon Christ-followers to be active as Ambassadors for Christ to non-believers, sharing with them the good news of who they truly are in Christ, and inviting them to become active in participating in Christ’s fulfilling of the Father’s mission in and to the world.

  8. Cool, thanks for the precise clarification. I especially like the “personal and realized” relationship verbage because its precise reference to the subjective.

    So, if I am understanding, it would seem priest is used in a general sense by Ted as in the priesthood of all belivers and used in a more Ephesians 4 sense by Johnathan? Or is it as incorrect to use priest in the eph 4 sense as it is to use Body of Christ to refer to those who have not realized their relationshi.

  9. This might add some clarity to what I’m saying (this is sort of “thinking out loud” on my part, not set in stone).

    First a few definitions (again, “thinking out loud”):

    Human: a child of the Father adopted in and through the Son, Jesus Christ. This is what all human beings are, it is the definition of a human being.

    Non-Believer: a child of the Father (i.e. human being) who does not know or doesn’t believe the truth that he is a child of the Father in Jesus. This would describe most people today.

    Believer: a child of the Father (i.e. human being) who does believe the truth that he is a child of the Father in Jesus.

    Church Member: a Believer who is actively participating in the priesthood of Jesus to help Non-Believers become Believers.

    Priest of the New Covenant: another term for a Church Member, emphasizing the way in which a Church Member functions within Jesus’ high priesthood.

    Based on these definitions I would argue that when Paul speaks of the Church (as in Ephesians 4) he is almost always talking about Church Members (a.k.a. the new covenant priesthood) and contrasting Church Members with Non-Believers. In Paul’s thinking there is no such thing, really, as a Believer who is not a Church Member.

    Partly I am suggesting that even Paul’s definition of the Church was somewhat culturally conditioned by the situation in which he lived. In the early days of the faith, under intense persecution, it would’ve have been almost impossible for the apostles to imagine a situation where you could have Believers who aren’t fully committed and active Church Members.

    What I am wondering about in both this post, and in Queen of the Sciences Part 2, is whether we are now on the verge of a further development in the way we understand humanity’s interaction with the Trinity. After 2,000 years of the gospel of Jesus penetrating humanity’s existence we might be able to envision a society – or even a world – where Believers comprise 70-80% of the population but where Church Membership runs more like 20-30%.

    In a such a world it might be possible for many Believers to not be Church Members. This possibility would have been unthinkable in the early days of the Church when the scripture was written. But, I would argue, in such a society the Church would truly function as a priesthood on behalf of the whole human race.

  10. Hey Tim.

    My understanding from Scripture it that there is one high priest (Jesus) and one priesthood (that of Jesus). And that priesthood is active in the lives of all people and, indeed, in all of creation because all creation (all humanity included) is included in Christ.

    So we’re talking universal inclusion. Therefore, in a universal/objective sense, all humans are participants in Jesus’ priesthood, because all are included in Jesus and are recipients of his priestly grace.

    But in a personal, subjective sense, only those who have awakened to this grace, and have shed the alienation of their own minds (Col 1:21), are personally active in their participation in this priesthood with Jesus the one priest.

    I understand Scripture to be saying that it is the saints – the believers or Jesus-followers (called disciples) who constitute, in their assembly, the “church” that Peter calls a “royal priesthood.”

    The Spirit is building this church into a “holy priesthood” (1Pet 2:5a) so that believers – those who “call on the Father,” (1Pet 1:17) – may be equipped to offer through Jesus “spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God” (1Pet 2:5b).

    Again, a distinction is made between believers (who are actively participating in Jesus’ one priesthood) and non-believers who are a primary concern of this priesthood that is called to declare to non-believers (who continue to live “in ignorance” – see 1Pet 1:14), the “praises of him who called you [believers] out of darkness into his wonderful light” (1Pet 2:9).

    In Eph 4, I find Paul making a similar distinction between believers and non-believers (he calls non-believers, “gentiles” to refer to a particular subset of non-believers who’s behavior is particularly onerous). These gentiles are “darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts” (4:18).

    In contrast, believers have had their minds opened and have repudiated the darkness – separation – alienation that was prevalent within their own minds, and have now turned in trust (faith) to follow Jesus and in doing so have become active participants (disciples) in Jesus’ one ministry (which Peter calls a “priesthood”).

    In this ministry, there are various roles (according to the Spirit’s gifting) – each role geared toward building up the universal body of Christ (all humanity), including the church, until Christ who is already “in all” is seen in his maturity through all.

    A key issue in understanding the nature of the church and of its mission, and how this relates to (and is also distinct from) all humanity, is to define our terms, acknowledging that some of these terms are used rather fluidly by different biblical authors. Careful exegesis is in order.

    But in a general sense, I suggest that the following summaries are generally in sync with how these terms are used in the New Testament:

    Church = believers assembled in community
    Royal priesthood = church
    Mission of the church = declare God’s praises to all humanity, both believers (the church) and non-believers (those not yet called to active participation in the priesthood of all believers).

    One last issue. We should not think of the church (priesthood) as the only group of people on earth being used by God to advance his plan and will. The Jews continue in covenant with God – and thus have a particular role in God’s will (and might even be included in a definition of “the church” depending on how the term is defined). And God has appointed many people who are non-believers to be his ministers (Romans 13). One might also argue that all parents (both believing and non-believing) have a certain ministry that is ordained of God.

    So we have to be careful to avoid the erroneous idea that only believers are being used of God and that non-believers are ignored by God who is separated in his mind and ministry from them. The gospel truth is that He is not separated from them at all (though there are various gradations of alienation toward God in their minds).

    Jesus is present and actively ministering everywhere including within all people, believers and non-believers alike. But there is a particular way that he is ministering to and through believers, who in assembly are “the church” and as the church have a particular ministry (priesthood) which is tied to a particular mission.

    There are many related issues to consider. Note, for example, how Paul uses the term “outsiders” in Col 4:5; 1Cor 5:12-13; 1Thes 4:12; and 1Tim 3:7. He is not positing that they are disconnected from God by being ‘outside’ but they are ‘outside’ the communion/fellowship of the church which is the body of believers, assembled for mission.

    Some ideas to consider.

  11. Wow, most excellent.

    It seems like most of the time lately when there is a disconnect between the meanings in conversations, those differences have their roots in the speaker and hearer not being on the same subjective or objective page. Both you guys clarifications were most helpful.

    Thanks and loving it.

  12. I have reread and thought about this for a couple of days. As I was riding to work contemplating this post the other morning, I suddenly thought about getting my oil changed. I was thinking how it would be cheaper to do it myself but I really didn’t have the time. I was thankful there was a place near my home where I could have them lube it, check all the fluids and wash it for a reasonable amount. I was thankful there was someone else I could get to do it who does quality work and I could trust to quality work.
    I then thought about how it seems the majority of christians fall in this same category in regards to their theology. They don’t have the passion that the theologians do to duke it out in semantic boxing matches, they just want good answers that they can trust and that help them grind their lenses out better to see God clearer. THat is the way God molded them and shaped and gifted them. The theologian is no more superior to the auto mechanic as each has their passionate area of expertise. Each also can tell you what the squeaks mean in each of their respective areas of expertise.

  13. Good analogy Tim.

    Indeed, there are different gifts; but one Lord who is the fullness of God and united to us through his incarnation fills us all with that fullness.

  14. With thousands of denominational Jiffy-Lubes to choose from, how does one choose a reliable one?

  15. This has been a fascinating discussion. I have just plugged into it. You guys are addressing issues that are dear to me. As a result of the gospel being misunderstood and miscommunicated, all other aspects of humanity’s life in Christ have also been misunderstood and miscommunicated, i.e. ecclessiology and missionology. I lean toward those who believe that ecclisiology flows from missiology. that is: the nature, purpose and work of the church is derived from mission because mission – the mission of the Father to and in the world, through Jesus, by the Spirit – originates with the Trinity (is rooted in the nature of God) and contributes to the self-revelation of God

    So for the church (and I’m OK with Ted’s definitions provided in his previous contribution) to understand itself, its mission. its purpose, and its function, it needs to look to the nature and work (being an doing) of the Trinity. The Father is love and loves. His love is outwardly expressed through Jesus by the Spirit in word and deed. Instead of asking “What would Jesus do?”, the church needs to ask, “What is the Trinity being/doing?” (being and doing cannot be separated).

    God has never ceased engaging and including people in his life. In Acts we read of the Spirit calling, gifting, and sending believers “into the world” to “declare God’s praises to all humanity, both believers (the church) and non-believers.”

    But that is not all. Jesus’ life, and the account of the church in Acts, demonstrate that the church (priesthood) does more than proclaim. It gathers believers for communal worship, instruction in Christian living, “repair work” (what we often refer to as “equipping”), mutual accountability, service, etc., etc. This is not the work of an elite class of “high priests” – but something all believers should participate in for the good of the body as well as “the world”. Ephesians 4 also expounds this aspect of the church’s purpose.

    Following the logic (it seems to me) of the Trinity, we were created to function in community. Scattered, sporadic, individualistic effort can be very effective. But when people work together their efforts are generally more productive – the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

    A major problem with modern Christianity is that it has developed a narrow definition of church as well as a limited concept of how it can function. We do not have to have large buildings or large organizations. You do not have to participate in “church work” to be a Christian. We CAN have these structures them and they can be very effective. But often they are not. What we have today was suitable for previous generations and cultures. This does not mean that these structures have to be completely dismantled. Some will continue to serve effectively.

    But we do need “new kinds of churches, for all kinds of people, in all kinds of places.” [Sound familiar 🙂 ]. We need new forms of gatherings in which believers can pool their resources to proclaim the gospel and prepare others to participate in Jesus’ mission to the world.

    Just a few thoughts as I continue to clarify my thinking on these issues. I look forward to your helpful input – iron sharpening iron.

  16. Thanks for the comments, Randy.

    I totally agree with your point that we are called to live in community as a reflection of the Triune communion.

    I’m suggesting that the community we’re called to live in is the community of the human race. It’s all of humanity that the Spirit is forming into the image of Christ.

    Therefore, the Church isn’t separate from humanity, but is one distinct organization within the larger community of humanity in Christ.

    In that regard it is like other distinct organizations within the human community, such as hospitals or schools. It serves its distinct purpose for and in community with the whole of humanity.

    From that viewpoint the purpose for which we gather in worship and discipleship is to help the whole community of humanity to understand their identity in Christ. So, I would define “making disciples” not as “making church members” but as “making people who know who they are as adopted children of the Father in Jesus”.

    In that respect I don’t see any reason why a person couldn’t be a disciple without being an especially active church member. Such a disciple isn’t an isolated lone ranger because he’s a part of the community of humanity in Christ and playing his role within the community, whatever it might be – doctor, politician, janitor.

  17. Hi Jonathan,
    It’s good to think this through together. Here’s more food for thought. I look forward to more discussion to clarify things.
    All people are a part of the community of the human race in Christ – at birth, so to speak. We aren’t called into this community. We are born into by the grace and will of God.
    By the Spirit, through the church (and yes, sometimes the Spirit works without the church), people are called into “more of what they were created to be” – to knowingly participate in the life, mission and ministry of Jesus through the Spirit and his body, the church. People, members of God’s human family/community, who hear and accept the invitation (call) to participate in Triune life are referred to in the NT and by historic Christianity as the church. These people are, of course, a part of the universal human community of God in Christ. In that sense the church isn’t separate from humanity.
    But the church, in its various organized forms, is distinct from other organizations in that it is comprised of a distinct people (believer/disciples) who have answered a call to believe and follow Jesus. As you state, the church also has a distinct purpose, a mission (Jesus’ mission), within the human community. Authority was given by Jesus to the church, not to other organizations or people, to fulfill this mission. This distinguishes the church from other people and organizations that do good works. The mission has a number of aspects to it.
    The primary mission in which the church participates is to make disciples (as you say, not to make church members). Participation with Christ in this mission entails proclamation of the gospel – helping humanity understand its adoption & identity in Christ. But it entails much more as well – equipping disciples for living their life in Christ in their context – in hospitals, schools, etc. Disciplemaking entails more than singing, praying, etc. Churches (should) provide also provide encouragement, accountability (hopefully positive accountability), and a model for Trinitarian life. These are benefits that are difficult to come by for those who may be participating in Christ’s life in the world (hospitals, schools, etc.) but who are not “joined” to a group of other believers. In addition, as the incarnated Christ lives in them by the Spirit, churches should participate in Christ’s mission in active, practical service to the world as Jesus did and does.
    Questions regarding those who may be considered as participants in Jesus’ life/ministry without being connected to a church include: 1) Are they knowingly participating with Jesus? If so, why do they not do so within the community of a church (with other followers of Jesus)? And 2) If they aren’t knowingly participating with Jesus, wouldn’t it be wonderful if they knew it and could benefit from working in communion with people of the church? In other words, the Spirit will work within and without the church, but doesn’t our relationship with the Triune God teach us that everyone might be better off if they could participate with others who knowingly participate with Jesus rather than on their own? It can be done – in fact, I’m sure it does. But you can still be a lone ranger even when surrounded by people. And Christianity is life of communion, not isolation.
    Hey, have you read, The Present Future: Six Tough Questions for the Church, by Reggie McNeal? I think you’ll find it interesting.

  18. I’ve read about half of McNeal’s book, I found it very disappointing.

    He says he’s going to deal with the tough questions but he completely misses the one tough question that counts: who is Jesus?

    On p. 19 he says “That’s the church’s mission: to join God in his redemptive efforts to save the world. . . They are going to die unless someone finds a way to save them.”

    I don’t agree with that theology. I think the Father saved the world in the incarnation of the Son and the work of the Spirit is now the education of human race to enlighten us to what we already have as children of the Father.

    If McNeal had asked the one tough question that really matters, “who is Jesus?”, then I think he would have written a book that dealt with the root causes of the Church’s modern decline. The root cause is that we don’t properly understand who Jesus is or who we are in him as children of the Father.

    Since McNeal starts from the premise that the Church is doing the wrong things, and never seriously questions whether our problem might be that we are believing wrong things about God and ourselves, he goes on to create a long to-do list of all the ways we need to do a better job so we can be a better Church.

    Here’s the image his book brings to mind: I imagine a married couple going in for counseling. “Well, doc,” they say, “we want to have kids but we don’t have any.” Doc says, “why not?” Reply: “Well, we never have sex.”

    At that point “doc” McNeal goes into a long lecture on the mechanics of sex, how to do it, and how to do it better, the right positions, etc., etc.

    What he really needs to ask is “why is your relationship so loveless?” I believe the Church is in trouble because we don’t feel loved and accepted by the Father, Son, and Spirit because our theology of the gospel is so screwed up. It’s based on ideas of contract and conditional acceptance and a Father who beats the Son to death because he’s so angry about sin. If we’d really ask the tough questions about what we believe about the gospel I think it would fix 90% of the stuff that McNeal thinks will be fixed by piling another to-do list on top of us.

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


%d bloggers like this: