Teach Us To Number Our Years

I have never understood the festivities surrounding the change of the annual calendar, especially when academic and fiscal calendars so often fail to align with the solar year. Mind you, an excuse to party is always welcome, though the advance of years means that New Year’s Eve parties throw a big wrench into the biological clock works. Why the party for the New Year begins in the old one is also a curiosity. Perhaps the fondest memories of New Year’s holidays come from the days when a Watch Night service at Calvary Baptist functioned as the congregation’s party — though merriment ended at midnight when the worship service began — and the holiday itself was filled with college football games, the last of which we would watch at my uncle and aunt’s who opened their home late in the afternoon for a buffet and fraternizing. These days, the new year brings the annoyance of having to tear up erroneously dated checks for the first few weeks of January.

Perhaps, the Coen brothers — the font of so much boomer wisdom — captured the existential resonance of calendar changes in the opening lines of what is the best New Year’s Eve movie — Evveh — Hudsucker Proxy:

The’s right… New York.

It’s 1958 — anyway, for a few mo’ minutes it is. Come midnight it’s gonna be 1959. A whole ‘nother feelin’. The New Year. The
future…

… Yeah ole daddy Earth fixin’ to start one mo’ trip ’round the sun, an’ evvybody hopin’ this ride ’round be a little mo’ giddy,
a little mo’ gay…

Yep… All over town champagne corks is a-poppin’.

… Over in the Waldorf the big shots is dancin’ to the strains of Guy Lombardo… Down in Times Square the little folks is a-watchin’ and a-waitin’ fo’ that big ball to drop…

… They all tryin’ to catch holt a one moment of time…

… to be able to say — ‘Right now! This is it! I got it!’

‘Course by then it’ll be past.

Advertisements

64 thoughts on “Teach Us To Number Our Years

  1. Good points, all. Further, it’s a time to forget the past year’s debts and look forward to another year of aggregating one’s earnings and expenses in order to reconcile with the state, insurance premiums of various kinds due, and (of course) a postal influx of EOY credit card bills. Happy New Year, one and all! And be sure to toast some of the finest micro distilled whiskies you can find (while you can afford to do so).

    Like

  2. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/protestprotest/2015/12/we-are-running-out-of-time/

    Psalm 90: 3 You return mankind to HEAVEN
    saying, “Return, descendants of Adam.”
    4 For in Your sight a thousand years
    are like yesterday that passes by,
    like a few hours of the night.
    5 OUR LIVES WILL NEVER END AND CANNOT END.
    They are like grass that grows in the morning—
    6 in the morning it sprouts and grows;
    by evening it withers and dries up.
    7 For we are consumed by Your anger;
    we are terrified by Your wrath.
    8 You have set our unjust ways before You,
    our secret sins in the light of Your presence.
    9 For all our days ebb away under Your wrath;
    we end our years like a sigh.
    10 Our lives last seventy years
    or, if we are strong, eighty years.
    Even the best of them are struggle and sorrow;
    indeed, they pass quickly and we fly away.
    11 Who understands the power of Your anger?
    Your wrath matches the fear that is due You.
    12 Teach us to number our days carefully
    so that we may develop wisdom in our hearts

    Like

  3. DG @ OL:Protestants see the difference between heaven and earth (at least sometimes).
    DG @ patheos: January hits like a ton of bricks. This leaves the average American Christian on January 2 facing a low .. We are going to have to go back to work soon. It will be cold (in most parts of the country). The days will be short. And eventually we will all die (unless Jesus returns).

    sheesh DG. The greeting is :HAPPY New Year

    Hebrews 12:27 This expression, “Yet once more,” denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken, as of created things, so that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe;

    Like

  4. Ali, try being more biblical: “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”

    Larry David says have a pretty, pretty, pretty good new year.

    Like

  5. D. G. Hart: Ali, if you want mirth, why the hades are you here?

    what do you ? you made me laugh….that one time; same with cw one time.

    Zrim: Ali, try being more biblical: “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”

    and new year resolution for you too, zrim, be more biblical 🙂
    biblical = hafta provide text = hafta apply context= hafta apply to post = and finally, biblical = honor God w/gratitude

    Like

  6. DG-

    Not even Ascension Thursday- Biblically 40 days after Easter?

    (Even if only 4 US dioceses, mine thankfully included, refrain from transferring it to Sunday)

    For that matter, do you celebrate Easter? Are all Sundays equivalent? (I’d be happy to peruse a link for answers)

    Love “the sæculum” = “age” = “æon/eon” (although I’m more used to it in the accusative/ablative and genitive plurals – “per omnia sæcula sæculorum”).

    Like

  7. Susan –

    I liked it better when Western Culture celebrated the New Year on March 25th – arguably the single most important day in the history of the universe, 9 months before Christmas, on the Feast of the Annunciation (the date of the Conception of our Lord – when Incarnation occurred in truth).

    Today most can’t even be bothered to know care what March 25th is (not a day off work, ’nuff said).

    DG –

    Ok, np. Is it considered acceptable by Reformed standards to celebrate Christmas, Ascension, the Annunciation in “a way fitting the sæculum” -?

    My knowledge on the subject is quite limited – basically encompassing that Christmas was a school day in Massachusetts until the late 19th century, and giving Christmas gifts legislated as satanic there in the 17th.

    That’s not much knowledge to work from, and in any case I’ve gathered that Puritan New England is far from your ideal historical embodiment of Reformed theology (although I’m not sure how).

    Like

  8. Ali
    Posted January 1, 2016 at 12:05 pm | Permalink
    D. G. Hart: Ali, if you want mirth, why the hades are you here?

    what do you ? you made me laugh….that one time; same with cw one time.

    I get endless laughs out of Old Life. ;-D

    Like

  9. Hi Kevin,

    I agree that western culture should appreciate that the incarnation begins at conception.
    The culture should also thank us that it gets the first day of the week off from work, but it doesn’t have a clue how much the faith is ingrained into the calendar. If they did maybe the atheists wouldn’t be so eager for a separation of church and state.
    Speaking of….glad to see Darryl( a 2K guy) quoting Eliot, a man who was in favor of a Christian culture.

    Patton was a great general but he thought too much of himself, it looks like.
    Who can’t talk with all that bravado? It’s easy to do but is it prudent?

    Like

  10. Kevin, historically, the Continental Reformed churches have included Christmas, Epiphany, Good Friday, Pentecost, and Ascension (as I recall). The Brits have not. Explanations for the difference vary. But on regulative principle grounds, the Continental churches have had to wiggle.

    Like

  11. DG – thanks, so you see Reformed theology in Continental Europe as being less consistent than in the American golden age you once laid out (post-Rev to pre-Civ War)?

    (Also, I note the Annunciation isn’t on the list).

    Susan – Dawkins is an odd one in that he enjoys singing “The Holly and the Ivy.” My guess is he would prefer to think of Christianity like a Brothers Grimm fairy tale.

    The brand of atheist who sees the social benefits of Christianity and advocates it as such seems to be on the wane, if it isn’t all but dead. Atheists have little gratitude- they thank no one for their own creation, for a start.

    And perhaps not oddly, it seems to me to be the American atheists most interested in eliminating as much religion as possible from the public space.

    Did you get my post about marriage on the other thread before it died – about arranged marriages, freedom, and recommending the book by Georges Duby?

    Like

  12. “And perhaps not oddly, it seems to me to be the American atheists most interested in eliminating as much religion as possible from the public space.”
    I wonder. Atheists such as George Will, John Derbyshire, and Karl Rove all seem quite happy with a sort of cultural Christianity.

    Barry Lynn may not be particularly orthodox (or meaningfully Christian), but he doesn’t seem to be an atheist either.

    That being said, we don’t have the same burden of a cultural Christian establishment that makes “Christian” atheists not only think able, but common. Perhaps remnants in the deepsouth, some waspy enclaves, and ethnic catholic pockets in the midwest?

    Like

  13. Kevin, yes on less consistent.

    No on your periodization. Every Presbyterian congregation I’ve been part of has not observed all of those “holy” days. Usually only Christmas and then it gets merged with the closest Lord’s Day.

    Like

  14. Hi Kevin,
    No, I didn’t see that post, but I will look up Me. Duby.

    I am very intested in this topic, for many reasons. I always heard marriage called a “creation ordinance”( I may be wrong about the terminology), hence no need to see it as a sacrament since God sees all and joins every couple. And so, from this I understand that the Reformed don’t think that a religious authority is necessary to witness the vowing of two people as they join their lives togther( anti-socardotal).
    But what does this mean for those who had sexual relations before they were married? Are they “joined” in God eyes by virtues of consumation of their young adult vows of love and commitment?
    The woman who Jesus met at how the well, was she “officially” married or did she have five men that she shacked up with?
    Moral law is very intriguing.

    Btw, happy almost birthday to your little son. My son will be 21 on the 31st.
    I know you hear it all the time and, by what you’ve said you take it to heart, but do enjoy the little fella while he’s young because they do grow so fast.
    My own son has never been anything but a joy.

    Like

  15. It was obvious to anyone with half brain which podcast you meant, Susan. Which leaves us with the problem of our dear brother Darryl, who seems to blame others for what he does not understand.

    Like

  16. I didn’t realize that the link led to more than one podcast, so I take responsibility for not making it easier to find. Afterall, I’m the one asking him to listen to something he’s not overly anxious to pursue. (Though I wish he was serious about understanding.)
    Even though I think he gets a kick out of the banter, he is the drill sergeant, I mean professor , I mean owner of this blog. 🙂

    Like

  17. Tom,

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not condoning his usual Archie Bunker-ish-ness, I just don’t think he did anything criminal in this latest instance. Call me just trying to be reasonable and fair.
    Besides, I’ve heard you say that you like him sometimes yourself.

    Like

  18. You didn’t have a THINK! coming. He did. You’re just so used to the abuse it didn’t move your meter.

    And ‘like’ might be too strong a word. 🙂

    Like

  19. D. G. Hart: Ali, what’s a good pietist gal like you doing watching Seinfeld? My cheeks are rosy.

    hmm, Seinfeld links are provided – but a ‘pietist’s’ viewing of them generates rosy cheeks;
    what kind of cheeks are generated as a result of ‘non-pietists’ linking/viewing them?
    inquiring minds also want to know – what really is meant by ‘pietist’ and if there are ‘good pietists’, are there also ‘bad pietists’ or is the opposite a good non-pietist.

    Like

  20. sdb-

    I wonder. Atheists such as George Will, John Derbyshire, and Karl Rove all seem quite happy with a sort of cultural Christianity.

    Barry Lynn may not be particularly orthodox (or meaningfully Christian), but he doesn’t seem to be an atheist either.

    That being said, we don’t have the same burden of a cultural Christian establishment that makes “Christian” atheists not only think able, but common. Perhaps remnants in the deepsouth, some waspy enclaves, and ethnic catholic pockets in the midwest?

    Very good points all. I wonder how long it will take before being an open atheist (I don’t mean a hostile one) is perfectly acceptable for being elected governor, senator, president. (Maybe there are current cases?).

    If I believed in a man’s integrity and thought he were the least likely to do harm (or even a modicum of good), I’d have no qualms voting for a non-Christian (I take that to be true for most here- although I’m not looking for a commitment to Classical Liberalism, which I expect many here would be).

    I wonder what percentage of the country this is true for (putting Jews aside for the moment, who are more broadly electable).

    Like

  21. George Will—“Morality evolves. Religious and other moral instructors base their moral codes on the way people who are considered moral behave — people who are deemed moral because they exemplify rules conducive to human prospering. Legal systems evolve: The common-law basis of the system under which Americans live had no inspired lawgiver.”

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will122615.php3

    Like

  22. Sdb: Atheists such as Karl Rove

    really, or slander sdb?

    D. G. Hart: Ali, knock it off. Just explain why you watch Seinfeld. Do you have a Bible open while you watch?

    what do you think DG means in saying knock it off, Jeff?

    Like

  23. Susan –

    My prior post was basically to say that even in an arranged marriage, the couple can choose:
    1) to state vows without meaning them;
    2) to state vows with meaning;
    3) to rebel in public or private.

    We’ll never know the incidences of these, but I suspect #2 was most common in medieval Europe amongst the upper classes: making the best of a situation which is not perhaps ideal. But the key point is they did indeed have choice. And choosing #1 is clearly not “freedom” in the sense of liberty to follow the law of God- it is duplicitous, and the moral theology of the day (observed or not) would have been clear that it is such, at least from the 11th/12th century or so.

    The Church in the High Middle Ages was at war with the older, pagan understanding of marriage, basically that it conforms to the convenience of those engaged in it (to be fair, the motives of convenience could be respectable ones such as a desire for social stability, ability to care for one’s family, desire to establish a legacy).

    The Church won this battle (with marriage theology as Catholics know it now), at least as well as any battle can be won in this world. Georges Duby (brilliant scholar) in Medieval Marriage focuses on Philip I of France (“the Amorous,” if that gives you a sense of the issues he was dealing with) versus the admirable St. Ivo of Chartres.

    I always heard marriage called a “creation ordinance”( I may be wrong about the terminology), hence no need to see it as a sacrament since God sees all and joins every couple. And so, from this I understand that the Reformed don’t think that a religious authority is necessary to witness the vowing of two people as they join their lives togther( anti-socardotal).

    There’s a very funny scene in Manzoni’s the Betrothed which I’d rather not spoil (it’s one of the greatest of novels), but basically a young couple tries to ambush a priest to unwillingly witness their vows- following the belief a priest as witness must be necessary.

    I’ve heard various views in Catholic contexts by those I respect and haven’t studied the issue deeply, but seems to me any man and woman not otherwise impeded who state vows to one another are married by God.

    But what does this mean for those who had sexual relations before they were married? Are they “joined” in God eyes by virtues of consumation of their young adult vows of love and commitment?

    Well, if they haven’t made explicit vows, I don’t see how they can have even a natural (non-Christian) marriage, although they have taken an essential element from its natural place and misappropriated it. Lots of saddening issues here when dealing with, e.g., loved ones, but I don’t think it is as complex as people make it out to be.

    I take the vows to be essential to Christian marriage- feelings of love, demonstrated commitment, extra-ceremonial statements of love for one another, even the raising of children together don’t take the place of stating a promise before God of the relationship entered into. Essential to natural marriage? I’d incline to yes.

    The woman who Jesus met at how the well, was she “officially” married or did she have five men that she shacked up with?
    Moral law is very intriguing.

    As the one she has now is not her husband, she’s been shacking up. And it seems to me quite possible she’s been feeling guilty about it, at least if we search for a human reason behind her readiness to embrace Christ and serve as an evangelist, despite not being Jewish.

    Btw, happy almost birthday to your little son. My son will be 21 on the 31st.
    I know you hear it all the time and, by what you’ve said you take it to heart, but do enjoy the little fella while he’s young because they do grow so fast.
    My own son has never been anything but a joy.

    Thanks! It is indeed a great joy.

    Like

  24. @Ali I could be mistaken, but slander seems quite harsh. The quote I recall from Rove when asked about his faith was something along the lines of “I’ve never had the gift of faith”…or something along those lines. I think I read that in a CT interview a few years ago…I recall as it surprised me. I knew Cheney was not particularly religious, but Rove was a surprise. Of course it is possible he has clarified or perhaps even better, found Christ. But there was a time when he was an influential public servant and nonbeliever who did not want to banish belief from the public square.

    If you are interested, Derbyshire’s account of his loss of faith was particularly heart breaking.

    Like

  25. Dr. Hart

    🙂 Since you are always around youth, I thought you’d enjoy discussions from young, bright seminarians.

    Like

  26. Susan, read Francis Oakley on medieval political theory and you’ll be much better informed about what “changed.” A priest and a seminarian really should make use of one of your communion’s most accomplished scholars.

    Like

  27. sdb:@Ali I could be mistaken, but slander seems quite harsh. The quote I recall from Rove when asked about his faith was something along the lines of “I’ve never had the gift of faith”…or something along those lines. I think I read that in a CT interview a few years ago…

    I did not think it was harsh at all, sdb; stark yes; the Lord seems very serious about slander

    slander: to make a false spoken statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone

    I’m not going to search what Rove said, that burden is on you, but you seem to agree he never said he was an atheist. You do mention about ‘the gift of faith’ and I hope you know in its context that verse cannot mean saving faith. All that to say, your announcement of his atheism is very weak or nonexistent about ‘something you might have read once’ and is therefore slander.

    And speaking of spiritual gifts, sbd – their purpose -given by the Spirit – for the EDIFICATION of the church, (1 Cor 14:12); so we can see how serious the Lord is about words of division in the church – since He’s all about EDIFICATION of the church – He is all about building up the body, never tearing it down. (1 Cor 3:17;2 Cor 13:10)

    How could He not be – the Father giving His Son for it, Jesus dying excruciatingly for it, and we think we can tear it down? Talk about arrogance. No wonder He tells us many places that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Sure we can mock each other, but let’s not be deceived, God is never mocked .

    That of course is not to say we must call out falsehood spoken against His word (I think mermaid may want unity in disregard of this) , but surely we agree there is much opinion that isn’t in that category, which we choose to make divisive anyway. He has strong words about those types. (Jude 1:19):

    Like

  28. @Ali I do not agree. I’ve not slandered Rove and stand by my characterization of his remarks. “gift of faith” was not a verse it was my recollection of his phrasing. Here is a snippet from an interview with Hitchens published in NYmag:

    Has anyone in the Bush administration confided in you about being an atheist?
    Well, I don’t talk that much to them—maybe people think I do. I know something which is known to few but is not a secret. Karl Rove is not a believer, and he doesn’t shout it from the rooftops, but when asked, he answers quite honestly. I think the way he puts it is, “I’m not fortunate enough to be a person of faith.”

    You are quick to take offense and dole judgment. That is unwise. Perhaps Rove has converted or qualified his remarks. My point – that not all atheist wish to banish religion from the public square stands. Or do you also wish to challenge the convictions of George Will and John Derbyshire? You aren’t…partial… are you?

    Like

  29. Ali,

    Why would you think less of someone because they are an atheist?

    Could it be that you don’t grasp the doctrine of unconditional election?

    Like

  30. sdb:@Ali I do not agree. I’ve not slandered Rove and stand by my characterization of his remarks. “gift of faith” was not a verse it was my recollection of his phrasing. Here is a snippet from an interview with Hitchens published in NYmag:

    Has anyone in the Bush administration confided in you about being an atheist?
    Well, I don’t talk that much to them—maybe people think I do. I know something which is known to few but is not a secret. Karl Rove is not a believer, and he doesn’t shout it from the rooftops, but when asked, he answers quite honestly. I think the way he puts it is, “I’m not fortunate enough to be a person of faith.”

    You are quick to take offense and dole judgment. That is unwise. Perhaps Rove has converted or qualified his remarks. My point – that not all atheist wish to banish religion from the public square stands. Or do you also wish to challenge the convictions of George Will and John Derbyshire? You aren’t…partial… are you?

    gossip or false witness then, sdb, but I do know what you mean about being quick to judgment- we’re all guilty of that and especially about those we don’t like (will address loserstar below)

    http://undergod.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=010559
    Author Christopher Hitchens wrote about Rove in an Apr. 26, 2007 New York Magazine article: “I know something which is known to few but is not a secret. Karl Rove is not a believer, and he doesn’t shout it from the rooftops, but when asked, he answers quite honestly. I think the way he puts it is, ‘I’m not fortunate enough to be a person of faith.'”

    Mr. Rove, in a Feb. 21, 2010 email to ProCon.org, wrote: “I called Mr. Hitchens after he made his erroneous statement and as the true gentlemen he is, he apologized. He has seen a quote in which I remarked on my admiration for the faith of White House colleagues which I felt was deeper and richer than mine and misquoted it. I am a practicing Christian who attends a bible-centered Episcopal church in Washington and an Anglican church in Texas.”

    Loserstar: Ali,Why would you think less of someone because they are an atheist?Could it be that you don’t grasp the doctrine of unconditional election?

    huh loserstar?

    Like

  31. Kevin in Newark
    Posted January 2, 2016 at 10:12 am | Permalink
    Susan –

    My prior post was basically to say that even in an arranged marriage, the couple can choose:
    1) to state vows without meaning them;
    2) to state vows with meaning;
    3) to rebel in public or private.

    We’ll never know the incidences of these, but I suspect #2 was most common in medieval Europe amongst the upper classes: making the best of a situation which is not perhaps ideal. But the key point is they did indeed have choice. And choosing #1 is clearly not “freedom” in the sense of liberty to follow the law of God- it is duplicitous, and the moral theology of the day (observed or not) would have been clear that it is such, at least from the 11th/12th century or so.

    The Church in the High Middle Ages was at war with the older, pagan understanding of marriage, basically that it conforms to the convenience of those engaged in it (to be fair, the motives of convenience could be respectable ones such as a desire for social stability, ability to care for one’s family, desire to establish a legacy).

    The Church won this battle (with marriage theology as Catholics know it now), at least as well as any battle can be won in this world. Georges Duby (brilliant scholar) in Medieval Marriage focuses on Philip I of France (“the Amorous,” if that gives you a sense of the issues he was dealing with) versus the admirable St. Ivo of Chartres.

    Another Catholic issue Dr. Hart got wrong and needs to do his homework on. You are saving his reputation.

    Like

  32. Thanks for the link Ali. I didn’t see Rove’s correction, so I was mistaken. He did clarify. My point to Kevin stands – namely that not all atheists (Will and Derbyshire then) would like to see religion banished from the public square and not theists would like to see religion in the public square (Lynn).

    Like

  33. “gossip or false witness then…”
    Referring to what one thinks are public comments by public figures certainly isn’t gossip, if one is an atheist, it isn’t slander, and if one believe the statement to be a correct, then it is hard to see how it is false witness. Maybe, just maybe it could have been…say…a mistake.

    Like

  34. D. G. Hart
    Posted January 2, 2016 at 2:58 pm | Permalink
    Susan, read Francis Oakley on medieval political theory and you’ll be much better informed about what “changed.” A priest and a seminarian really should make use of one of your communion’s most accomplished scholars.

    Don’t be buffuloed by some vague handwaving in the direction of an obscure academic who even few historians have ever heard of. Dr. Hart doesn’t actually state his argument, lest it be exposed to the great deodorant of the light of scrutiny. [Clearly he stumbled over the little-known Oakley whilst trolling for “conciliar” arguments against the papacy, but cannot quite figure how to weaponize him against the Catholic Church. Hence the ominous-sounding but empty innuendo.]

    [It’s always the same tactic: An apparent inconsistency on even the most trivial of matters, and therefore the Catholic Church is false.]

    Like

  35. ok, sdb; case closed; and definitely case closed for Hichens who died in 2011, and so who now has a totally different perspective on that ‘relief he had for no evidence for God’.

    wikipedia :“ Hitchens was a noted critic of religion and an antitheist, he said that a person “could be an atheist and wish that belief in God were correct,” but that “an antitheist, a term I’m trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there’s no evidence for such an assertion. “According to Hitchens, the concept of a god or a supreme being is a totalitarian belief that destroys individual freedom, and that free expression and scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of teaching ethics and defining human civilisation. Hitchens authored God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, which was a New York Times bestseller.”

    Like

  36. Darryl,

    Why does Oakley merit recommendation by you but Dulles was dismissed as a squirrel distraction by you when tvd referenced him? Was Dulles not an accomplished scholar priests and seminarians should make use of?

    Like

  37. James Young, so you’re saying charism makes someone a historian?

    Are you as clueless as Mermaid?

    The problem you have is with the historical development of doctrine. You want to say that it all adds up to a beautiful bouquet. Historians — good ones — don’t do that. So of course you go to Dulles for comfort because history troubles you.

    Like

  38. @ali Yes, Hitchens was a tragic case. A brilliant writer and polemicist whose life was tragic. Curious that his brother is a believer. Christopher was the brighter and more talented of the two, but as you’ve noted, it isn’t doing him any good now.

    Like

  39. D. G. Hart
    Posted January 1, 2016 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Kevin, to borrow a line from General Patton who said he “read the Bible every G——– day,” I celebrate Easter every g- week.

    It was bad enough when TVD went this route in the past.
    So now what?
    His influence is rubbing off Prov. 13:20?

    If this has to go to your session, are you the stated clerk or is there an alternate?

    Thank you.

    Bob Suden

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s