Is Gandhi in Hell?

Provocative pastor Rob Bell tantalizes us with this, among several other, questions in a recent video promoting his forthcoming book Love Wins.  Without spilling the beans about exactly where he will come down on the doctrine of hell, Bell (and certainly his publisher) have strongly hinted that Bell will put hell under serious fire.  In fact, the publisher goes so far as to describe Bell’s argument in this way: “a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering.”  If publicity was what Rob Bell wanted, he sure got it.

Even CNN has entered the fray in this most recent theological discussion, which, I believe, apparently started with Justin Taylor’s comments.  Others whom I have read include Kevin DeYoung, Phil Johnson, Albert Mohler, and my friend Craig Nash.  And this appears to be only scratching the surface.  Bloggers on all sides of this debate have had a field day.

My aim in this post is simply to offer a commentary on one recurring trend that I have seen in the discussion.  A number of people discussing the issue keep coming back to the question about Gandhi and simply make the assumption that we cannot know whether he is in hell or not.  Those who say this are Christian believers, most of whom (I would guess) seek to affirm historic Christian, and particularly Protestant, doctrine.  It seems to me that the basis for one’s agnosticism on this question can stem from one of two different presuppositions:

(1) We cannot know if, in his final moments, Gandhi may have placed his faith in Christ.  Not knowing his heart at that moment, we cannot know whether he died as a Christian or as an unbeliever.

(2) Supposing Gandhi never trusted in Christ (of which we have no indication that he did), we cannot know that God would have sent him to hell.  After all, Gandhi was such a good man with such noble character and ideals that it would rub us the wrong way to imagine God condemning him for eternity.

I will grant the first point.  Yes, it is impossible for us to know Gandhi’s heart in his final moments, though we can know that he never publicly identified himself as one who trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation.  He heard the gospel, and from everything we have seen, he rejected it, though it is impossible to know what may have transpired between him and God in his final moments.

If that is all that we are talking about here, then I have nothing else to say.  But I suspect that most people who are bringing up this issue are thinking along the lines of the second point.  The thought of Gandhi in hell makes us cringe, so we assume that it can’t be that simple.  Unbelievers must not automatically go to hell.  There must be other ways for them to be saved than by placing faith in Christ.

Of course, it is entirely possible to confess that Christ is the only Savior and still maintain that unbelievers can be saved by him without knowing it.  This is known as “inclusivism.”  Perhaps Gandhi and others like him are saved apart from faith, because their sins are objectively covered by the cross of Christ, even if they are subjectively unaware of this fact until they meet Jesus in heaven.

But if this is the case, what we are really saying is that men like Gandhi can be justified by their works.  Yes, Christ may be the foundation of it all, but in the end we are left with the assertion that Gandhi was a good guy, so God wouldn’t condemn him.  His personal character and good works are sufficient for us to identify him with Christ, even though he never (so far as we know) entrusted himself to Christ.

I hope we can see the contradiction here.  In our churches we proclaim (or at least we should proclaim) that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.  This is the biblical gospel.  All human beings, from the best of the best to the worst of the worst, are dead in sins, enslaved to the devil, and under the wrath of God by the very nature of who they are as descendants of Adam (Ephesians 2:1-3).  We either believe what the Bible says about us or we don’t.  We are either lost in sin–every single one of us–or we are not.  We either need a Redeemer or we don’t.

Having proclaimed that a Redeemer has come for us, the Scripture also teaches that the only way his work of redemption is applied to us is through faith (Romans 3:28).  In other words, we must abandon all attempts to justify ourselves before God and rest passively in what Christ has done for us.  Anything less than that amounts to an attempt to please God out of “the flesh,” the fallen nature of man that belongs to this present age and is incapable of pleasing God (Romans 8:5-8).

Our problem is that we don’t feel that depraved.  And if we’re not really so bad ourselves, Gandhi must be way up there on the totem pole of godliness.  That kind of godliness cannot be in hell, we think.  Or at least we confess that there is no way for us to know whether he is there or not.  But at this point we can choose to believe what God has said about our race or we can reject it.  The truth is not determined by what rubs us the right way or the wrong way.  Totally depraved sinners, of all people, would be the last ones we should trust to tell us whether we are totally depraved sinners.  You can’t trust a fish to tell you about the water he lives in.  He probably doesn’t even know it’s there.  In a sense, even our unrighteousness before God is something we grasp by faith.

If the Bible is right about who God is (fully and completely opposed to all evil) and about who we are (evil at heart), and if the Bible is also right about the only solution to this problem (the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for sinners) and how we come to be included in God’s redemptive work (by faith in Christ alone, not by our works), then the conclusion necessarily follows that if Gandhi persisted in rejection of the gospel to the end, he is not among the redeemed.

I do not think it is any more complicated than that.

I grant that it is a difficult conclusion to reach, but there are two things I could say in response to the difficulty:

(1) Nothing I have said should lead us to conclude that we cannot hold up Gandhi as a moral example of the noble ideals of nonviolence and compassion for the oppressed.  Even the gifts of unbelievers are gifts of God’s common grace, and God should be praised for them.  Calvin, of all people, makes this argument in The Institutes.

(2) We must remember that God’s evaluation differs drastically from ours.  We render moral judgments relative to ourselves.  We can identify certain people who stand at the top of the human race, morally speaking.  But the problem is that the whole human race is in rebellion against God.  If some of the 9/11 hijackers were nicer to their captives than others, we would not for that reason excuse their atrocious acts.  Relative goodness among a group of sinful rebels is not true goodness.

If we are sure of the gospel, we must be ready to declare its inevitable result: the separation of humanity into those who are redeemed in Christ and those who are not.  The New Testament makes this division over and over again.  We have no reason to assume that agnosticism on this question must be the only sensible answer.

This entry was posted in Contemporary Issues, Doctrine of Salvation. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Is Gandhi in Hell?

  1. Josh Ellis says:

    May I make a “Methodist argument”? Perhaps that term is a little bit misleading, I am not an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church, simply a lifelong church member, who has studied a bit of John Wesley’s theology.

    Wesley dealt extensively with the subject of “grace,” specifically the subject of “prevenient grace.” Our Book of Discipline defines “prevenient grace” as “…the divine love that surrounds all humanity and precedes any and all of our conscious impulses. This grace prompts our first wish to please God, our first glimmer of understanding concerning God’s will, and our ‘first slight transient conviction’ of having sinned against God. God’s grace also awakens in us an earnest longing for deliverance from sin and death and moves us toward repentance and faith.”

    Examining the life of Gandhi, you could say signs of God’s “prevenient grace” are everywhere, but whether or not Gandhi chose to accept that grace is unknown. I would take a step further and say it is not for us to know. The important thing for us as Christians is to recognize the role of “prevenient grace,” in Gandhi’s life, as well as our own and to be sure and accept it. However, when the a church or a pastor make this the sole priority of their ministry, they fail to serve the needs of their congregants.

    To put it another way, evangelism is definitely an important role of the church, but of equal importance is the role the church plays post-salvation. If a church devotes its time to formulating a check list of “who’s in Heaven; who’s in Hell”, then they are spending less time on helping their congregants become spiritually mature Christians capable of discerning God’s will in their lives. To me, that by definition–being unable to discern God’s will in my life–is a type of “hell” equally as frightening as the “firey pit” said to await those who reject God’s covenant.

  2. Hi Josh. I’m glad to hear from you, and I thank you for commenting and offering your thoughts. Here are my thoughts on your thoughts. 🙂

    There is a sense in which I would affirm prevenient grace, if by that all that is meant is that God’s grace precedes our faith response to him. In other words, God makes the first move toward us, not vice versa. Calvinists were saying that long before Wesley.

    But it was actually Jacob Arminius who first came up with the notion of “prevenient grace” defined as a divine gift that restores free will and enables us to respond, of our own power, to the offer of the gospel (or, of course, to reject it). Roger Olson’s book “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities” has a good discussion of this doctrine.

    There are two issues with regard to this Arminian/Wesleyan notion of prevenient grace:

    First, there is no scriptural basis for it. In fact, one of my friends is currently writing a dissertation (unless he has finished it by now) critiquing the whole idea of Wesleyan prevenient grace. There is also an article by Tom Schreiner critiquing the idea biblically in a book he and Bruce Ware edited entitled “Still Sovereign.” Wesley believed in the total depravity of humanity, but then he turned around and took it away with this idea of prevenient grace, without sufficient scriptural warrant.

    Second, the traditional Wesleyan doctrine of prevenient grace is connected to the preaching of the gospel, so that we recognize whether someone has accepted it by seeing whether that person has received the gospel or not. Wesley was open to the salvation of those who had never heard the gospel (so long as they respond positively to whatever revelation they have received), but in the case of Gandhi, we are dealing with someone who did hear the gospel and rejected it. That would imply that he did not respond positively to the prevenient grace he received, if we follow Wesley’s teaching.

    Regarding your last paragraph, I would argue that there is no incompatibility between seeking to discern the biblical teaching on the division of humanity that is created by the gospel and helping church members come to maturity in Christ. In fact, I would argue that a deeper understanding of the gospel (which necessarily divides humanity) is precisely what is needed to bring believers to spiritual maturity. I am not talking about formulating a checklist but rather embracing the truth of what the Bible teaches about the nature of God, the nature of fallen humanity, and the wonder of God’s grace. The benefit of seeking understanding on this kind of question is that it reveals with stunning clarity how much I personally deserve to suffer in hell forever. I deserve just as much (or more) as any sinner who will be there forever. Yet I will not experience it, because God, in his grace, has delivered me. To him be the glory forever! Amen.

    “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?–Romans 9:22-24

  3. arajrao says:

    When we see things from a distance … they look one way. Sometimes however we get an opportunity to see things close up and find that they are quite what we thought they were from a distance.

    From out here in the West, we see Gandhi from a distance and he seems like a saint. Then you go to India and surprisingly find that a lot of people do not actually see him that way… and this in particular the untouchables and low caste people.

    To the best of my knowledge Gandhi rejected Jesus Christ.

    People ask:
    ~ If Gandhi was so good, how could a good God reject him? Because afterall there is something wrong in rejecting the good. If you reject the good, you must be bad.

    I ask:
    ~ If Christ was so good, how could a good Gandhi reject Him? Because afterall there is something wrong in rejecting the good. If you reject the good, you must be bad.

    I suppose one answer would be … well Gandhi did really not reject Jesus Christ in a sense. He afterall did hold His actions and teachings in high admiration.

    The thing is … you either accept Christ wholly or you reject Christ thoroughly. There is nothing in the middle. Gandhi also said that Christ was not THE only Son of God. Rather he was A son of God, and that we were all children of God. However to reject a person’s identity is to reject that person.

  4. Bill says:

    As much as one can through the internet, Aaron has shown that he is a man of God in our “conversations” on facebook. I respect you, and I’m sure I would enjoy meeting you Aaron – I bet we could have some lively discussion. What follows is not written in hostility but out of conviction, so if you disagree, please understand I’m not angry – just passionate about what I believe must be true in order for God to be good, insofar as that word can mean anything.

    Here is what is missed in Aaron’s post about inclusivism: An inclusivist does not suggest that Ghandi would be saved by works or because he’s a “good” person if he’s saved without having confessed Christ. Rather, Ghandi would potentially be saved by implicit faith, or what has sometimes been called “the posture of the heart” – one of humility that recognizes one’s own sin, depravity, a need for savior or for grace, but without an explicit understanding or knowledge of how one might receive that salvation or grace. In other words, someone could even know of Christianity or the doctrine thereof, but not “understand” it. I would go so far as to say that I’ve met quite a few people like this.

    It gets a lot messier when we consider infants, the mentally handicapped, the age of “accountability”, or those who were Jews for instance, but lived during the time of Jesus right about when the gospel was being proclaimed by the early church. When does the “rule” “change” from the Abrahamic covenant, let’s say, to “by grace through faith alone in Christ?” The more formulaic you try to make it, and the more questions you ask about the formula, the sooner the formula breaks down, and Rob Bell is interested in showing that, indeed, with good questions, the formula will break down. Thus, he affirms like most Christians in the world, that Christ can still save people who don’t know him. That does not need to discourage evangelism. At all! We still have no idea who’s hearts are hardened or softened as a result of their possible encounters with the Holy Spirit, so the commission becomes just as urgent. But this urgency is accompanied by a new peace! A trust, that God is both just and merciful in his judgment of all. This will protect against coercion in our evangelism, which quickly becomes proselytizing otherwise – i.e., not effective. And, it enables us to focus much more on making disciples rather than converts.

    One of the best examples is the thief on the cross in Luke. This man is saved before Christ has even died! There’s very little chance he knows that Christ is the son of God in this moment – certainly not in the way the Councils later defined it. How and why is he saved then? By the Jewish faith? Certainly that is unknowable. It seems from the text (this is backed up by many commentators) that it is the surrender and submission by this second thief that saves him, not because he does anything or is good, but because the Spirit initiates in him the turning over of his life to someone (Jesus) or “lord” – (though this word “lord” didn’t mean to him what it does to us) – or the God that could rescue and forgive sin through the sending of his son. But this thief had no way of knowing Christian doctrine like we do now. Obviously he didn’t “earn” this grace, just like Ghandi wouldn’t have earned it either if he is saved. This tells us that formulas break down, and God’s mercy can ALWAYS go beyond what we expect. I content on these grounds (and much else unmentioned) that in fact it is exclusivism, that can quickly become pharisaical and antithetical to the Gospel, and yet ironically it is almost always those who defend it who are the quickest to call out the “heretics.” Such misplaced confidence in gatekeeping of “toxic” as Bell rightly calls it. And this is not a defense of his whole book. Rather, I’m clarifying his thesis, which is to ask how exclusivism could possibly be good news, and I’ve NEVER heard a good answer to that question.

    I know what exclusivists say to this – total depravity, we all deserve hell, so even God saving one person is more than he “owes” us. Great. Why did he create then? Why didn’t God just create those he would save? Because he needed to condemn for his glory as well as save? Call it mystery . . . I call it the nominalization of morality, truth, goodness, justice and love. It doesn’t work for me, and it won’t work for anyone else who hasn’t been indoctrinated by the alternative. This gospel is preaching sovereignty turned into tyrany, consigning the masses of history to hell, largely based on their birth location. Religious fundamentalism at its very best, and only carefully crafted yet blind dogmatism can sustain it.

  5. I am aware of the doctrine of implicit faith. But faith in Scripture is always summoned forth by the Word of promise that comes in the gospel. The logic of Romans 10 demands this conclusion. How shall anyone believe in one of whom they have never heard? In our depravity we all suppress the truth of general revelation and, therefore, cannot come to faith apart from hearing the Word of God (Romans 1:18-20).

    When Paul relates his conversion experience in Acts 26:17-18, he says that Christ sent him to the Gentiles, “to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” These words require us to believe that the Gentiles are, before Paul reaches them, under the power of darkness, under Satan’s dominion, and under the penalty of their unforgiven sins. In other words, there are not multitudes of them living by implicit faith. One might say, “Yes, but that only refers to the Gentiles to whom Paul was sent, not all people everywhere.” And while that is a logical possibility, it is utter speculation that cuts entirely against the grain of this passage and of Luke’s overall narrative in Acts, where it is the gospel message alone that brings faith and salvation. Special pleading does not help the biblical case for implicit faith.

    All the questions you have raised about unusual categories of people have been answered before by others. Piper’s “Let the Nations Be Glad” is one place you can go to find some answers, so I won’t rehash them here (unless you really want me to).

    And as for your final paragraph, I would ask you to consider taking a more cautious approach to this deep and mysterious question. God does not owe us an explanation for his ways. This was the point Job had to learn. And Paul rebukes the attitude that demands an explanation from God before it will bow in submission to him in Romans 9. Along the way Paul does offer a possible explanation for why God would create and then damn those who were foreordained for it (vv. 19-24):

    “You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, [because he was] desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”

    I have inserted the interpretive phrase “because he was” above because I think it is the best way in context to render the participle (contrary to the NIV, which takes it as an adversative idea, which appears to ruin Paul’s argument). I admit that this passage is not easy to reckon with. It is simply stunning in its assertions, and I don’t pretend that it was easy for me to take in the first time I made sense of it. But I am convinced that the most straightforward reading of this passage affirms several things in answer to the question of why God would blame those who cannot resist his will (and Paul takes it for granted that they cannot, or else the objection makes no sense):

    (1) You are a man, and thus you have no right to answer back to God in this way. It is ridiculous to imagine a pot rising up in accusation against the potter to chastise him for making this kind of pot instead of that kind of pot.

    (2) If God, out of a desire to show his wrath, endured patiently the rebellion of those vessels made beforehand for destruction, meaning he deliberately chose to allow them to persist in rebellion for a time instead of condemning them to death immediately, and if he did this so that at the eschaton, when the elect see their salvation against the backdrop of the condemnation of the damned, knowing that they themselves deserve Hell every bit as much, but that it is only the sovereign grace of God that has made them to differ from the damned, thereby revealing the glory of God to his elect, then will you rise up against him and accuse him of wrong?

    Many people in our day would. You have to have a radically God-centered way of thinking to be able to accept this kind of argument. This passage alone does not answer the mysterious questions like supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism (I don’t totally affirm either view, though I see scriptural evidence elsewhere for an asymmetrical relationship between God’s decree of election and his decree of reprobation). But this passage does affirm that God, like a potter, has the right to do with his creation as he pleases for his own glory, and that in doing so there is no injustice with him. Right and wrong are defined in relation to God’s supremacy.

  6. Bill says:

    Ah yes, Romans 10 . . . that settles it then. Aaron, you misunderstand my questioning of God here as arrogance. I think God can handle my questions. Humility, potter and clay – it’s all very good. We just have vastly divergent interpretations of these things. Just consult most of Christian history contra Beza or Edwardian Calvinism. But I can see that the discussion is over. To say that we’ve reached an impasse would be an understatement. Your last sentence speaks volumes. Perhaps I’ll return again when I’m less frustrated. It’s likely that what I’m tempted to say in this moment would be regretted later. In the meantime, feel free to address my “thief on the cross” question, or any of my questions, without arguing from Romans as your canon within a canon please (can we at least use Jesus?!). And no I will not consult a Piper book. Lord have mercy.

  7. Bill says:

    The is me a little bit later . . .

    As you probably know, there are alternative interpretations of Romans 10 . . . but I won’t rehash them here, unless you really want me to (just borrowing your rhetoric if that’s ok)

    Yes, your interpretation “[because he was]” is crucial for your argument. The difference might simply be with this “what IF” God question: I choose to believe (and interpret) that God hasn’t chosen any of us as objects for God’s wrath . . . despite that God could have. Don’t you hope for the same thing in light of the fact that God wants everyone to be saved? I’m not questioning God’s “rights.” I’m asking, who is the God we find in Christ? (1 Timothy 2:4 . . .). Did Christ come to condemn most of the world and only save a few, even though he says the opposite, and even though in his father’s house there are many rooms? Can you not feel the power of these questions? Can you suppose something other than your theological system? Something more hopeful for more people? Can you find that in Jesus? Do you see it in creation, despite the sin and the suffering that God hates and wants to rescue us from? The God you’ve just portrayed sounds non-relational, oppressive and bloodthirsty. The good news is better than that! (there’s some Rob Bell that will preach)

  8. Hi Bill,

    I’ll be on the road in a few minutes, but I thought I would go ahead and post a few questions for you and then you can have a good while to respond before I will be checking back in.

    You made both of the following statement:

    “I choose to believe (and interpret) that God hasn’t chosen any of us as objects for God’s wrath . . . despite that God could have.”

    So, apparently, God would have been well within his rights to do what I have described him doing based on Romans 9.

    But then later you say this:

    “The God you’ve just portrayed sounds non-relational, oppressive and bloodthirsty.”

    I don’t think you can have it both ways. You cannot say, “God would be well within his rights to elect some for salvation and pass over others. Oh, and if he did, he would be a bloodthirsty oppressor unworthy of any worship.” (Of course, I added the “unworthy of any worship part,” but is not that the inevitable conclusion of what you have said?)

    Bill, I think you need to decide whether Calvinism is an acceptable view of God with which you happen to disagree or if it is outright blasphemy. Trying to take both positions at the same time does not work.

    I am also interested in you sharing some alternative interpretations of Romans 10. I would be interested to know how one can argue how “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” can actually be taken to mean “Faith comes apart from hearing, and thus apart from the word of Christ.” It seems like a daunting hermeneutical feat, and I have never read anyone who was able to make a satisfactory case for it.

  9. Bill says:

    Great questions.Thanks for the challenge. There’s a short version of my response to the first one. It’s in God’s “right” to make us objects of wrath, but based on what I find to be revealed in Christ andthe whole of Sripture, and it’s within God’s “character” – basic, critical distinction.

    The other question takes longer to explain, and I’ll be back when I have more time, but I’ll start by saying you should reader more 🙂

  10. Bill says:

    *read . . . and do forgive any unnecessary zeal in my previous comments. I hope over time we can continue to have a fair discussion. You have set the right tone! I’m thankful.

  11. Bill says:

    Clarification above – sorry for the continued typos. I was using a messed up keyboard. The first comment should read, “it’s NOT within God’s “character” – kind of makes a big difference, ha.

    And to explain more of what might sound like my bipolar interaction with you at this point, I’m quite torn – torn between whether this conversation is worth having or not. On the one hand, concerning myself with convincing others of my view is a futile (and often ungodly) endeavor, especially when both sides are fairly convinced of their respective viewpoints. And I do think we’ve still probably reached a stand still.

    But on the other hand, it’s important enough to make me keep coming back for more I guess . . .

    As for Romans 10, it’s a big discussion, because based on your Calvinist leanings, you’re going to read 9-11 altogether in a different tone – a strictly individualistic one namely, and that is part of the problem. This reading has been well preserved long enough in certain channels to give an impression of orthodoxy.

    My sources are C.E.B. Cranfield, John Sanders, and Clark Pinnock for instance on this one. First, without context even being considered, Paul rhetorically asks the question of how one can be saved without hearing, preaching, God calling someone to preach, and these beautiful feet (Isaiah quote that is not just decoration but important for the argument as a whole). “The sequence of A (preaching) leading to B (salvation)” does mean B cannot be had in a different way. Does that make sense? This is a strictly positivist statement by Paul. There’s no reason for it to be a negation of anything else. The reading you give is superficial and thoroughly stuck to modern, post-enlightenment, revivalist and great awakening underpinnings, which is why so many see beyond it now. Plus, hold this in tension with the rest of Scripture for crying out loud! It’s not a proof text. God wants all to be saved . . . well, then God came up with a pretty ineffective way to accomplish this in light of your reading of Romans 10, wouldn’t you say?

    Contextually speaking, in light of Romans 1 . . . we have indeed heard! The Word of Christ has been proclaimed in creation so that we are without excuse (those who do not respond in surrender). Again, we’re going to read this differently, but it can be taken to mean that implicit faith has already been rejected by many of the Jews. That is what Paul is addressing. To extrapolate and presuppose that Paul even has the problem of religious pluralism in mind is extreme speculation at best. This is not to say that Paul’s reference to “the Gentiles” isn’t meant to be taken as a universal – I think it should. I’m going to stop here temporarily and come back when you’ve posted something else about the Bell book. I realize this will be short of satisfactory for you, but in way, I guess I’m doing this exercise for myself as much as anything else. Thanks again for humoring my musings.

  12. Molly Davis says:

    Dr. O’Kelley,
    I read this post a while back, so when we watched the movie “Gandhi” at school, and I began to ask some questions, I knew right where to come. Thank you. This really cleared my doubts up.

  13. Molly,

    It’s always good to hear from you. Blessings!

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