Kierkegaard: Reintroducing Christianity into Western Culture

Søren Kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher in the early to mid-19th century. What’s interesting to me is that he predicted the cultural Christian problem we have even to this day and talked about how to reintroduce genuine Christianity back into the culture.

I’ve included a short video clip about Kierkegaard’s thoughts on this that I believe would be a good follow-up to my last post. Kierkegaard was basically saying the same thing over 150 years ago (only more brilliantly) that I was trying to say in my post, where I was contrasting Christendom with following Christ.

As I said last time, there’s more than one way to define “Christendom.” In the following short video clip, Dr. Steven Blackhouse says the following about how Kierkegaard used the term and his thoughts on reintroducing Christianity into Christendom:

“For Kierkegaard, Christendom didn’t mean some legal relationship between state and church, it meant the habitual assumption you could be born into a Christian culture and that is what made you a Christian…. And, for Kierkegaard, he said again and again, that is precisely what destroyed Christianity…and what I [Kierkegaard] want to do is awaken and shock and even offend people who think they are Christians who are living in Christendom into a relationship with true Christianity.”

That pretty much sums up what I’m saying and believe needs to happen today. Cultural Christians in the West need to be awakened, shocked, and offended so we can clear up the confusion over what it means to be a Christian. This doesn’t mean that only those who follow Christ perfectly are true believers. We’re all imperfect and need grace. I’m also not talking about being a legalistic religious prude, which would be more Stoic or Pharisaical than Christlike. But it does mean our allegiances must change when we follow Christ which, according to Kierkegaard, will make us more authentically human. Dr. Blackhouse explains this later in the video:

“Kierkegaard also pointed out about humans that their glory is that they feel anxious. How could that be? Because he said, animals don’t feel anxious, they just do what they do instinctively. The human stands on the precipice and knows they can make a decision. There’s God standing in front of you saying, “Come to Me, all who are weary and I will give you rest,” and we now have a choice. What are we going to do? Are we going to step toward this God or are we going to step away fearfully. And it’s at that point, to Søren…where you have anxiety, because you are sure if you take that step towards God you’re going to lose large parts of what you think are core elements of your identity. You’re going to be asked to step away from your family, your church, your nation, your group, your institution, and you’re going to be asked to step towards this Person.”

“So, it’s with Kierkegaard that we have a lot of tools, I think, in the modern age for learning to live like authentic human beings in a culture that so values being part of a mob, being part of a crowd, being a good citizen, or being a good patriot, or a good member of your church. Kierkegaard comes along and he throws a brick into all of that and suggests that maybe being a Christian might make you a less reliable citizen, maybe being a follower of Christ will make you a less obviously common sensical member of your society. Maybe it will mean that you’re going to be taking steps toward something which unsettles and upsets the people around you. BUT, says Søren, because the Incarnation is the most important event in the history of events happening, because this is God who says this is what it looks like to be human. When you step away from the less authentic parts of your identity and you’re stepping toward the Incarnation, you start to find something that is truly human and truly authentic.”

Kierkegaard sounds a bit like Morpheus explaining the Matrix to Neo here. But Jesus and the New Testament seems to concur with Kierkegaard’s assessment:

Don’t become so well-adjusted to your culture that you fit into it without even thinking. Instead, fix your attention on God. You’ll be changed from the inside out. Readily recognize what he wants from you, and quickly respond to it. Unlike the culture around you, always dragging you down to its level of immaturity, God brings the best out of you, develops well-formed maturity in you. (Rom.12:2 MSG)

3:18 The days of window-shopping are over! In him every face is unveiled. In gazing with wonder at the blueprint likeness of God displayed in human form, we suddenly realize that we are looking at ourselves! Every feature of his image is mirrored in us! This is the most radical transformation engineered by the Spirit of the Lord; we are led from an inferior mind-set to the revealed endorsement of our authentic identity. You are his glory!” (2 Cor.3:18 MIRROR)

It may take 100 years to make this transition, maybe more, but Kierkegaard has a point.  Now would be a good time to start reintroducing authentic Christianity to a culture that’s been dominated by cultural “Christianity” for many centuries.

Here’s the clip.

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 40 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Faith, Reformation, The Shift and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Kierkegaard: Reintroducing Christianity into Western Culture

  1. Mel, I was first introduced to Kierkegaard as a new believer and a student in a very secular philosophy of religion class. I was fascinated with this idea of Christendom and I have used his framework loosely in how I approach Christian leadership. He Is quoted as saying something close to (not exact), “If everyone is a Christian than no one is.” This idea is very challenging because we want to win over everyone, and we should want that, but if everyone is won over did we water it down to get there.
    It has also served me in understanding two very different contexts I have ministered in. In the Northeast being a Christian doesn’t help your business or your social networks in the same way as it does in TX.
    During persecuted times and in persecuted places we see some of the giants of the faith really emerge and shine. When and where it is easy to be a Christian, maybe we should be a little fearful.
    Kierkegaard is a thinker we need to keep in front of us. Great post.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Thanks. You make some great points here. I agree, where cultural Christendom is strongest actually works against authentically following Jesus, which seems odd but true, nonetheless. Christianity actually thrives when it’s not the dominant geopolitical institution (which contradicts the very core of Christ’s teachings) and even under persecution.

  2. Salvageable says:

    I’m a huge fan of Kierkegaard, and this post represents his position well. Some Christians think that he was opposed to Christianity, and others think he’s just too hard to understand, so they don’t bother. But Kierkegaard was very faithful, and what he wrote–as you point out–remains relevant today. J.

  3. Brilliant, Mel! Well done. This cracked me up, “Maybe it will mean that you’re going to be taking steps toward something which unsettles and upsets the people around you.”

    You don’t say??! Like our faith should be radical, scandalous, counter cultural, and sure to take us out of our comfort zone? Yes!

    • Mel Wild says:

      Yes. Faith is all those things except comfortable. All you would have to do is follow Jesus’ teachings and you will stick out like a sore thumb in our culture, even in the church culture. What always amazed me, and still does, is how we totally ignore Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and the New Testament on other-centered, self-giving love and, instead focus on telling everybody else what’ wrong with them. We self-appoint ourselves as the moral police instead of removing the log in our own eye. But that isn’t just Christians doing this, so we would stick out in every part of our modern Twitter culture.

      • There is no doubt in my mind that Christians can be the absolutely worst when it comes to judgment and refusal to change, refusal to embrace the radical, scandalous, reckless love of Christ. Christiandom really is twitter culture. BUT, the flip side of that is that many Christians really do stand out, that there is just something counter cultural about them, something radical and different. You can catch glimpses of that on the internet too, even on twitter, and without even a word being spoken about it, you just instinctively know Whose they are.

  4. Good day and a couple of important points regarding your post and Kierkegaard for your readers to consider, fairly consider I might add. 😉 And apologies first for the probable formatting errors here — since you moderate links, this extra work was necessary.

    Alright, aside from the fact that Kierkegaard was well-known for being highly biased to strictly his own Prostestant ideals, ideology, reforms, and their promotions — no surprise at all in that part of 19th-century northern Europe — the Danish philosopher was also working from a flawed and Hellenistic amalgamation of another flawed interpretation (or as you poignantly & correctly stated before Mel: an INTENTIONAL REinterpretation by early Hellenistic Church Fathers) of Second Temple Judaism/Messianism. Hence, when anyone bases their premises and world-view on an already faulty and little understood context, Kierkegaard especially, everything they construct and which follows is still based on erroneos and confused foundations. As you might guess, I can definitely show/offer this sound and expansive support and evidence for this immediate Kierkegaard problem and false Judaism/Messianism. These two points are immediately glaring, problematic misunderstandings you’ve skipped over or ignored that should be at least mentioned.

    Next, many contemporaries of Kierkegaard opposed and disagreed with his theological-philosophical “neo-truth” postulations and soundly dissected them and revealed them to be faulty and unsupported. For example, starting with Martensen, then Schrempf’s reinterpretation of Kierkegaard for “disbelief” in his “subjective truth,” and there is also the recent William C. Barrett and Paul Edwards who examine and scrutinize in a more neutral fashion Kierkegaard’s theories. For fairness, these are also important opponents to note here.

    Edwards has an execellent rebuttal of Kierkegaard’s misgivings. He asks:

    Has Kierkegaard’s theory that truth is subjectivity really an important discovery? Does it embody any significant insights? Has Kierkegaard provided Christians or other believers with anything that can be regarded as a justification? And if Kierkegaard has not provided believers with a justification has he at least supplied a new method of warding off the objections of unbelievers?

    The answers, Edwards shows, are no. His explanations against Kierkegaard were published in The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy April 1971 issue. He dismantles Kierkegaard in five ways demonstrating his flaws and ambiguity about “passionate” and “subjective truth” as the behavior to finding God and Christ. What is remarkably bizarre about Kierkegaard is that he acknowledges the value of objective truth, but ranks it below his ‘subjective passionate truth’ as the end-all-be-all of mankind’s capacities to truly find God/Christ. Several opponents labelled this construct as clearly paradoxical or ambigious. LOL Here are Edwards’ five contentions. I’ve abbreviated them for the sake of space, but #3, #4, and #5 are particularly compelling.

    1) Reason and Eternal Happiness:
    Kierkegaard has frequently been described as an irrationalist but he evidently was not opposed to the use of reason and science in the treatment of factual questions about the ordinary or secular world. He would not have denied that by the use of scientific techniques human beings have accumulated a great deal of knowledge. However, when it comes to religious questions Kierkegaard denied that reasoa and science are of any use. He himself was primarily concerned with his own eternal happiness and with his relation to Christianity as a means of securing this happiness.

    [now it begins to get bizarre with Kierkegaard]

    2) Truth is Subjectivity:
    Since reason cannot give us the required certainty we have to turn elsewhere. Instead of trying to defend religious doctrines by an appeal to evidence, we must become ‘passionate’ and ‘subjective’. ‘The conclusions of the passion,’ Kierkegaard writes in one place, ‘are the only reliable ones.’ In any event only by becoming passionate and subjective can we achieve the truth and the certainty that reason is unable to supply:

    It is subjectivity that Christianity is concerned with, and it is only in
    subjectivity that its truth exists, if it exists at all; objective Christianity
    has absolutely no existence.25

    This is a dark saying, but Kierkegaard makes a fairly elaborate attempt to explain himself. […]

    3) Kierkegaard’s Two Positions:
    Was Kierkegaard mistaken about the nature of God? What if God prizes intellectual rectitude that was God-given and not the feverish “inwardness” that Kierkegaard valued so highly. Let us suppose that when Kierkegaard comes up for judgment God addresses him with these words: ‘You led a miserable and contemptible life. The last man I judged was a Scottish philosopher by the name of David Hume and I rewarded him with eternal bliss. He did not believe in immortality, he did not believe in my existence, and he most emphatically rejected the doctrine of the incarnation. He was right on the last point — for your information Jesus was just a man, in many ways an admirable man, but he was not my son. Hume’s unbelief in immortality and my existence were errors, but they were most creditable errors since he followed the best available evidence which is all that a human being can do. He followed the available evidence although it took great courage to do so since the conclusions were anything but pleasant. You [Kierkegaard] on the other hand were a coward. You refused to follow the evidence and concocted all sorts of crudely fallacious theories to make yourself believe the pleasant conclusion that you would live happily forever. I detest such cowardice. Because of my merciful constitution I will not sentence you to eternal damnation but will extinguish you anon. Before I do so I will let you make a final statement. What do you have to say for yourself, you wretch?’

    I very much doubt that Kierkegaard would reply, ‘I stand vindicated. The fact that you are about to annihilate me and that unlike David Hume I shall miss out on eternal happiness is of no importance. I believed what I did without reservations. Hence I was in the truth. Hence I achieved the highest kind of life. The rest is of no consequence.’ On the contrary Kierkegaard would regard himself as defeated and refuted—defeated and refuted because although ‘in the truth’ in the subjective sense it would now become apparent that he was not also in the truth in the objective sense. In spite of his numerous declarations to the effect that ‘every trace of an objective issue should be eliminated’, Kierkegaard just as often realized that as a Christian he could not do this. When Kierkegaard reverts to the objective issues he has a tendency to bring up passionate involvement as some kind of evidence for the objective truth of the religious assertions.

    Now, whatever may be true of other contentions that are also found in Kierkegaard and may be regarded as part of his defense of Christianity, the position just sketched is a glaring and horrendous non-sequitur. Once we revert to the objective questions, references to pitches of inwardness, to genuineness and unreserved commitment are totally irrelevant, as Kierkegaard himself indeed recognized in several places: our interest is not any kind of proof that we are immortal; the fact that a proposition was suggested by the ‘passion’ does not make it reliable; and no how, regardless of how truly it is given, guarantees that its what is also given, i.e. that what is asserted is true.

    4) The ‘New Interpretation’ of Truth:
    William Barrett maintains that Kierkegaard has provided us with a ‘new interpretation of the idea of truth’; and this, as we saw, is claimed to have been a major turning point in European philosophy. The clear suggestion is that Kierkegaard has made a great discovery of some kind. In actual fact, Kierkegaard’s ‘new interpretation’ of truth is not a discovery of anything whatever, but an exceedingly misleading redefinition of a familiar word which is then made, by some of Kierkegaard’s admirers rather than by Kierkegaard himself, the basis of a fallacious reply to the critics of religious belief.

    5) Chaotic Implications:
    I have so far omitted one important feature of Kierkegaard’s position. In the famous passage quoted on page 14 Kierkegaard implies that he can tell who is worshipping the true God and who is merely worshipping an idol. The question that immediately arises in one’s mind is whether such a discrimination is possible on Kierkegaard’s principles. More generally, it appears that if a person is ‘in the truth’ simply because he believes something sincerely and without reservations then the adherents of the most diverse and contradictory philosophies, religions and ideologies would all be equally in the truth so long as the how of their beliefs was of the appropriate kind. Christians (whether Protestant or Catholic), Jews, Mohammedans, Hegelians, Platonists, Stalinists, Hitlerites, Trotzkites, the followers of Ayn Rand, Scientologists, and many more would all be in the truth provided only that they displayed the right inwardness. Even the sincere and committed atheist could not be excluded from the list.

    [now his litmus test for ‘Truest Christians’ gets even crazier bizarre!]

    There is little doubt that Kierkegaard had some awareness of this difficulty and that he attempted to meet it. Thus he notes in one place that we must distinguish the inwardness of the religious believer from the ‘aberrant inwardness’ of the fanatic and the type of ‘subjective madness’ illustrated by Don Quixote. […]

    …it is quite clear that Kierkegaard has failed to offer a criterion that would achieve the desired result of excluding all non-Christians from the class of those who are in the truth. […]

    There is, however, a much more basic objection to the first of Kierkegaard’s efforts to answer the charge that his doctrine [does indeed involve] chaotic consequences. The point here is exceedingly simple. We are told that the infinite concern felt by fanatics and by those who are subjectively mad does not put them ‘in the truth’ because their infinite concern is inappropriate to the objects to which it is directed. Their infinite concern is inappropriate because the objects are finite and unimportant. Such remarks make good sense, but they clearly imply that the passion of the fanatics and the madmen are inappropriate because in fact the objects of their concern do not possess certain characteristics. By the same token, if there were no God or no God of the kind the Christian believes in or if Jesus never lived or if he lived but was in fact just another human being, the passion of the Christian believer would also be misdirected or ‘aberrant’. That the objects of the fanatic’s and the madman’s passion are not what they take them to be (e.g. that Stalin was not as wise and beneficient as his worshippers believed) is something we know from observation, i.e. by appeal to objective evidence. But if the door is once opened to objective evidence then any evidence that atheists and other unbelievers might be able to bring up against what the Christian believes in can no longer be ruled out as irrelevant.

    One of the reasons Kierkegaard’s neo-truthiness never succeeded back in the early 19th-century is that his redefining of what truth was and what “true” Christianity/Christendom or subjective Christian-behaving was supposed to be essentially meant intellectual suicide in order to allow/justify 400-years of convoluted, Hellenistic Christain theology based on inaccurate portrayals of Second Temple Judaism/Messianism… AND of Jesus’ true nature and purpose to be allowed in arenas of logic, reason, and fact-based evidence. No wonder it died then and will not resurrect today (pun intended). 😉

    About your Stephen Backhouse, he states —

    Theology is not objective. It is worship. Theology is not serious. It is fun. Theology is not dry and academic. It is life and health and Spirit filled. (from his Tent Theology “Why” page)

    This is big-time Kierkegaard philosophy, which is that risky or chaotic consequences of “passionate” and an “inwardness” that blerts out ‘suitable for crazy, fun fellowship!’ This sort of behavior can easily be found in psych-hospitals. Sales & Marketing firms and their tactics use the exact same “energy” to illicit impulsiveness to snare emotional purchasing or investing HUGE amounts while throwing any fear of Buyer’s Remorse out the window. LOL Plain and simple.

    So, just some very relevant objectivity for your readers Mel. A better balance of a topic or controversy is always a good thing.

    • Mel Wild says:

      You didn’t need to spend the time creating 2,000+ word comment (twice as long as my post) in order to say that people disagreed with Kierkegaard in his day. People who come here are intelligent people and they can look this kind of stuff up themselves. They don’t need you to “educate” them. Of course, these people disagreed with Kierkegaard! He was challenging their deistic Enlightenment version of Christianity. And, besides, one does not have to agree with everything someone believes to see that they have a good point in some areas. And the “neo-truth.” as you put it, that was expressed in this post is a very ancient truth, but it did challenge the version of Christendom that had long veered off the path since Constantine.

      The bottom line is, your attempt to discredit a brilliant philosopher does nothing to refute the point of this post. Have a good weekend.

      • You didn’t need to spend the time creating 2,000+ word comment (twice as long as my post) in order to say that people disagreed with Kierkegaard in his day.

        I disagree. You have a habit of conveying only one narrow viewpoint in every single post you publish — 2,000+ words or 20 words. As I stated at the end… a fair balance from various angles and valid viewpoints are grossly needed here in your House. Thank you for not deleting my contribution to a broader perspective that I think you overlooked and portrayed unfairly. 🙂

        • Mel Wild says:

          But your pedantic tome did not add anything to the conversation. Of course, when the subject is about “Reintroducing Christianity to Christendom” there’s going to be pushback from status quo Christendom! That is implied in the subject. Listing people who disagreed with him is saying nothing relevant to the subject. But Kierkegaard’s salient point here is, Christendom had become more cultural (besides its geopolitical history) and not following Christ’s teachings, which was hardly arguable back then and much the same today in parts.

          And, of course, I’m giving my view! And your point is? This is not Wikipedia or a courtroom. Every post is giving my view. Anyway, you’ve given your particular slant. People can make up their own mind, but it’s hardly relevant to the subject at hand.

        • And your point is?

          Silly question Mel. You should already know the answer because I’ve told you many times: to offer a more equitable, balanced, alternative viewpoints and arguments to your lopsided blog-posts. You omit or ignore way too much of an entire controversial subjects that are reasonably, or compellingly, or debunk much of what you write here.

          Hahaha, you always throw in “irrelevance” when you cannot find a rationale response; dismissal, another weak tactic.

          Nonetheless, my comment at least shows your readers a more balanced portrayal of Kierkegaard’s irrationality… the whole reason why he is no longer popular. His self-serving arguments are antiquated.

          Have a great Labor Day weekend. 🙂

        • Mel Wild says:

          Hahaha, you always throw in “irrelevance” when you cannot find a rationale response; dismissal, another weak tactic.

          I use the words I mean. I say “irrelevant” a lot to you because your comments generally are not addressing the subject of the post but just promoting your own very slanted agenda. There is nothing by your offering your Kierkegaard detractors that addresses whether Christianity has become cultural and the authentic needs to be reintroduced. So, yes, you are offering irrelevant comments here.

          We’ll just have to leave it there.

        • Myself and others would NOT see it your way at all — YOU say they are irrelevant when in fact if anyone thought a little more broadly and outside your bias and tunnel-vision here, they’d disagree with your choice of words like irrelevant.

          As I’ve said many times, you begin your blog-posts with gross presuppositions that are nowhere near established. I want to make sure your readers know that. I’m not and no longer interested in arguing with you Mel; you dismiss too much, and your tone/pedantics are “infallible”… in your mind. 😉 🤭 We waste each other’s time. But…

          I agree. Let’s leave it there. My initial comment was for your readers. Thanks for not censoring it.

    • “It is subjectivity that Christianity is concerned with, and it is only in subjectivity that its truth exists, if it exists at all; objective Christianity has absolutely no existence”

      I’ve made this precise argument myself because there is great truth there and I believe it is reaffirmed in the bible. “Whether you believe you are saved or you believe you are not, you are right.” Think about that one. It’s really true. It’s even biblical.

      Faith is a subjective state of being that must be subjectively received. Jesus answers what must we do to be saved? “Believe in me.” Not objectively reason your way to faith, not intellectually rationalize the existence of God, none of that. Simply believe. Believing is a subjective response.

      As to ” this sort of behavior can easily be found in psych-hospitals,” well you know, insanitybytes. It is far more pleasant to be insane with the Lord then sane without Him. Your sanity, your alleged ability to reason is actually a temporary state of being that will not last. It is terrible thing to put your faith in, a sad consolation prize, because you are going to lose it,either due to stress, old age, or death. Either way, self righteous pride and congratulatory praise for your own intellect will be lost someday and then you will have nothing because you have spent a lifetime afraid to surrender your faith to Someone greater then yourself, to Someone eternal, who is so much bigger then the grey matter living between our ears. As our we! We are far more significant and vast than our own alleged or perceived “sanity rating.”

      • IB, you are definitely in a very small minority with your personal posture and belief. But I do know that many elitist Xians (“True Christians ™ “) enjoy setting themselves apart from the mediocrity and crowd. Bible passages to support this attitude can be cherry-picked as well, which further convolutes the problems. That mentality and attitude is frowned upon by thousands-millions of other Xians, btw. And that’s the essence of this post (and Kierkegaard) and is exactly what has been happening to Christianity and Christendom for over 2,000 years. There is no unanimous unity on practically every single tenet. Kierkegaard did nothing to rectify or help this, he actually made it worse as can be seen today.

        Have a fun, safe Labor Day weekend. 🙂

        • Speaking of convoluted, I’m uncertain if I am being accused of being “part of a small minority” or accused of being one of those “elitist Xians” who enjoy “setting themselves apart from the mediocrity and crowd?”

          Then you proceed to declare, “That mentality and attitude is frowned upon by thousands-millions of other Xians, btw.”

          Well, which is it??

          So let me attempt to clarify here, Christians are “set apart,” meaning Holy, and Christians have been rescued from mediocrity, and rescued from the crowd, “the crowd” meaning the world.

          Ironically it is actually atheism that strives for mediocrity, a refusal to be set apart, and constant crowd support.

          “There is no unanimous unity on practically every single tenet”

          It seems as if there is and we see it right here. It seems as if most Christians, especially those reading the bible, are going to agree with me on some level, that being a Christian actually is about having escaped “mediocrity,” having been “rescued from the crowd,”and having been “set apart.” That is pretty much a tenet of our faith, no matter how you word it.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Convoluted pretty much says it all, IB.

        • Well, which is it??

          Both… to borrow a technique Kierkegaard utilizes in his elitist discriminations. 😉

      • Mel Wild says:

        Faith is a subjective state of being that must be subjectively received. Jesus answers what must we do to be saved? “Believe in me.” Not objectively reason your way to faith, not intellectually rationalize the existence of God, none of that. Simply believe. Believing is a subjective response.

        Yes, exactly, IB. This is how Kierkegaard was “throwing a brick into the window” of Enlightenment rationalization that had infected Christian theology in the West. And this idea that faith means certainty is not even faith. Reasoning and logic can certainly lead us toward faith (or give us reasons for our existing faith), but it can never save us or make us believers. That’s an impossibility because you cannot prove or disprove something that transcends the natural realm. You can only infer to the best explanation. Ironically, it takes just as much faith to believe in materialism because it’s ontologically incoherent, among other problems.

        This is very difficult for people who only entertain the echo of their own intellect to grasp. Taboo will never accept or even understand what you’re talking about from what I can tell, he will just dismiss it as a pyschological condition or whatever, nothing new there. But you are spot-on here, IB. Great comment!

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.