The Cultural Ties That Bind, the Sacramental Ones That Don’t

Posted by on May 26, 2011 in Baptism, Communion, Ecclesiology, Transformationism | 30 comments

Wes White reports that Perimeter PCA in Atlanta has just hired Chip Sweney as “Next Gen and Community Transformation Pastor.” Concerning his vision for Perimeter to work for cultural transformation alongside non-PCA churches, Sweney writes:

“Jesus desires that all who believe in Him be one, just as the Father, Son, and Spirit are one. A primary reason for unity is that the body may be a witness to the world and the world may believe in Him. When we, as God’s church, are unified as one we send a powerful message that we share transcendent values. This does not take anything away from the necessity of denominations or certainly the distinctives of the PCA. Our theology is extremely important to us, and it should always be. But working together with other denominations does not take anything away from our theology. In fact, our experience is that other churches over the years have been drawn to our theology as they have seen the impact of it in and through Perimeter Church.”

Some thoughts:

According to the NT, unity is expressed sacramentally. Paul writes: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28), and, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread (I Cor. 10:16-17).”

My guess is that the majority of the “other churches” that Perimeter will be working with are the kind that would re-baptize Sweney’s kids if they started attending there in their teenage years, and if some of those “other churches” are of a certain Lutheran variety they would refuse the bread and the cup to Perimeter’s pastoral staff. So much for biblical unity.

We can talk all we want about how much Jesus desires unity in his Body, but as long as denominationalism exists, such talk is hollow. If, as Sweney says, denominations are necessary, and if those denominations differ on core issues, then whatever camaraderie may exist, it falls short of unity as described by the NT.

Speaking of disunity, how is it that “transcendent values” are displayed in a powerful and witnessing-to-the-world-that-Jesus-came-from-the-Father kind of way when, as is likely the case, the churches that share these values cannot agree on what exactly Jesus came to accomplish? Some of these churches may think that Christ came to obey and suffer in our stead, while others probably think of him more as a life-coach or positive role model for us to follow. Could it be that the transcendent values that are shared are not theological at all, but cultural? If so, how does sharing a particular culture-war ideology witness to the world anything about the Son of God at all?

30 Comments

  1. Jason,

    Well said. Denominationalism sadly becomes the lowest-common-denominator-kind-of-Christianity and gets boiled down to some kind of freudian chorus of “we are the world”.

    God bless,

    Brent

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Hi Jason,

    I have always thought that Galatians 3:27-28 and 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 refer to those who have really believed in the very simple gospel message that Jesus lived, died and was resurrected for our sins. This would make unity based on the gospel instead of the exact nature and application of the sacraments. Am I correct in interpreting you as saying that our unity should be based upon our understanding of how to apply the sacraments instead of on the gospel message?

    My other thought is that, from God's perspective, aren't you actually and truly united to all kinds of other Christians in different denominations (Calvary Chapel, Southern Baptist etc.), whether you agree with their theology or want to be united to them?

    It seems like unity around the gospel instead of around all the minute details of theology that have been debated for thousands of years is right and a reflection of reality from the Bible's perspective, a reality in which you and I are united to Christ and other Christians (whether or not we want to be!) who differ with parts of our theology.

  4. Rev. Stellman,

    Your title is disingenuous (IMO), since Perimeter isn't avoiding or rejecting sacramental ties.

    The assumptions in your last paragraph are also uncharitable and unworthy, in my opinion. How certain are you that the churches Perimeter will partner with view Jesus as a “life-coach”?

    Personally, I sort of thought that caring for the poor and the orphans were “transcendent” values, not just “cultural” ones. Or are Christians in some cultures not required to care for the poor and the orphaned? When the Bible makes such commands–when James says that pure religion is caring for the orphaned and widowed, was he expressing “cultural” values or “transcendent” values?

  5. Brad,

    I have always thought that Galatians 3:27-28 and 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 refer to those who have really believed in the very simple gospel message that Jesus lived, died and was resurrected for our sins. This would make unity based on the gospel instead of the exact nature and application of the sacraments. Am I correct in interpreting you as saying that our unity should be based upon our understanding of how to apply the sacraments instead of on the gospel message?

    I don’t think it’s an either/or but a both/and. Certainly someone who did not believe Paul’s gospel would not have had unity with him, but it’s equally true that an unbaptized person, or a person who rejected the validity of the baptisms Paul performed, would not have had unity with him, either, even if he professed to believe the same gospel. Likewise, someone who believed that only members of his particular church could validly receive communion would be considered in schism from the apostles.

    My other thought is that, from God's perspective, aren't you actually and truly united to all kinds of other Christians in different denominations (Calvary Chapel, Southern Baptist etc.), whether you agree with their theology or want to be united to them?

    If we define unity in a non-material and Gnostic way, then I am united with everyone with whom I have anything in common. But biblically, I am simply not united with someone with whom I do not share the bread and the cup. There is one faith, there is one baptism. Two different and mutually-exclusive baptisms means two faiths and two visible churches.

    It seems like unity around the gospel instead of around all the minute details of theology that have been debated for thousands of years is right and a reflection of reality from the Bible's perspective, a reality in which you and I are united to Christ and other Christians (whether or not we want to be!) who differ with parts of our theology.

    Are the sacraments “minute details”? I don’t think so, and I don’t think the early church did, either.

  6. Jason,

    With regard to the principle you raise, right on the mark. Unity exists in the Spirit but finds tangible, visible, expression sacramentally above all else. Sacramental differences, however, or lesser differences as well – say polity – need not prevent us from laboring together as persons and churches on a whole host of matters, from relief for the poor and assistance to those devastated by massive storms to resisting abortion and helping those suffering in its aftermath. This is a different kind of unity – one to be embraced without forgetting the primary, spiritual and sacramental unity we affirm. Every Blessing, David

  7. Peter,

    Your title is disingenuous (IMO), since Perimeter isn't avoiding or rejecting sacramental ties.

    They’re not explicitly rejecting them, but they are avoiding them. If you hire a pastor whose whole goal is to cut through the red tape and partner with churches who would re-baptize your kids if they had the chance, then how is it that they are not avoiding the sacramental issues?

    The assumptions in your last paragraph are also uncharitable and unworthy, in my opinion. How certain are you that the churches Perimeter will partner with view Jesus as a “life-coach”?

    I didn’t say I was certain, I said that it is “likely” and “probable” that “some” of these churches do not think of Jesus in a Reformed and orthodox way. I hardly consider this controversial or charged language, let alone “uncharitable.”

    Personally, I sort of thought that caring for the poor and the orphans were “transcendent” values, not just “cultural” ones. Or are Christians in some cultures not required to care for the poor and the orphaned? When the Bible makes such commands–when James says that pure religion is caring for the orphaned and widowed, was he expressing “cultural” values or “transcendent” values?

    Yes, of course. But my point is that there should be a red flag waving somewhere in our minds when we consider cultural transformation as necessitating setting aside our theology in order to do kingdom work, that’s all.

  8. Could it be that the transcendent values that are shared are not theological at all, but cultural? If so, how does sharing a particular culture-war ideology witness to the world anything about the Son of God at all?

    This really hits home! The church today really needs to hear this kind of challenge. It shows that people can dismiss 2K as R2K all they want– the worldly entanglements inherent in Transformationalism will still dog the church.

    Just wait until Dr. Frame reads this one! It'll be time once again to don the “holy” armor of tolerance and sally forth against Machen's warrior children.

  9. Sacramental differences, however, or lesser differences as well – say polity – need not prevent us from laboring together as persons and churches on a whole host of matters, from relief for the poor and assistance to those devastated by massive storms to resisting abortion and helping those suffering in its aftermath. This is a different kind of unity – one to be embraced without forgetting the primary, spiritual and sacramental unity we affirm.

    DP Cassidy, it seems to me that your point turns on “persons and churches.” If the question of “what” is temporal matters then the “who” should actually be maximized to include not only Baptists/Catholics/Lutherans but also atheists/Muslims/Mormons. But when the question of what is eternal matters then the “who” becomes as narrow as it was wide in the previous circumstance, which is to say only those who confess what we Reformed narrowly confess, which would rule out everyone from Baptists to Mormons.

    So, yes, I’ll heartily take a Baptist who questions the pro-life and family values movement, but his church is out in terms of laboring together in Christian charity to our neighbors. After all, wouldn’t doing so suggest that we have gospel unity? But how can we when we have sacramental division?

  10. Jason said,
    Are the sacraments “minute details”? I don’t think so, and I don’t think the early church did, either.

    The early church might recognize presbyterian “polity” but the presbyterian view of the sacraments is nothing more than Zwinglianism with a bow on it, and would not have been recognized by the early church or the first 15 centuries for that matter. Calvins view of the sacraments make them “minute” and bare tokens regardless of how many profess otherwise, and try and give emphasize sealing?? You may want to re-examine the scriptures you quoted in your post and I think you will see nothing of Calvin in them. A presbyterian cannot in integrity even confess the Nicene creed “baptism for the remission of sins” So I guess you are correct by your own arguement there is no unity.

    However if we can uses Paul's model of 1 Cor 15 :1-4 those who believe that and the Apostles creed can unite and show the world our love for one another and unite in good works for our neighbor. And yes finding unity in the gospel is an answer to Jn 17, isnt it? Can we agree to disagree on even the sacraments?? You seem to have all the answers. Tell us

  11. But biblically, I am simply not united with someone with whom I do not share the bread and the cup. There is one faith, there is one baptism. Two different and mutually-exclusive baptisms means two faiths and two visible churches.

    Jason,

    I agree with this 100%. I would add to it that I think that the Baptist groups you mention are sinning in ignorance. They are saying with their actions that we are not one, but they just don't realize that's what they are in effect saying. I imagine that if you asked them they would say that we are all brothers in Christ.

    My reaction is the same to some of the conservative Lutheran groups who would not allow us to the table. They are saying that we are not one with them even though I think if you asked them they would still look at us as part of the body of Christ. But of course by their actions at the table they are in reality saying that we are not in communion.

  12. Jason and Andrew,

    Are you guys saying that we are not brothers in Christ if I do not believe the exact same things about baptism and the Lord's Supper as you do?

    Here is how I see it: We can have certain different views of baptism, certain different views of the Lord's Supper and still be part of the same one faith/church/body of Christ.

    In my mind, if you don't agree with that, then you would have to say that people like John Piper or Albert Mohler or John MacArthur and many other Christian leaders throughout history are not Christians and not your brothers in Christ.

    I guess it would help me if you guys clarified your definition of unity. I think the verses that Jason quoted (Gal. 3 and 1 Cor. 10) and his application/interpretation of them backs him into a corner because it makes this entire issue a salvation issue rather than merely a disagreement that doesn't hinder brothers in Christ from working and serving side by side.

  13. Tom,

    The early church might recognize presbyterian “polity” but the presbyterian view of the sacraments is nothing more than Zwinglianism with a bow on it, and would not have been recognized by the early church or the first 15 centuries for that matter.

    This is a debate for another thread. But just to address your point quickly, I think that the Reformed, the Catholics, and the ECFs would all agree on the basic point of the real presence of Christ in the Supper. It is the “how” that we all disagree on.

    A presbyterian cannot in integrity even confess the Nicene creed “baptism for the remission of sins”

    I agree that we may not mean exactly what the ECFs may have meant, but we do believe that forgiveness of sins is sealed to us in baptism, and that once faith is exercised we can wholeheartedly say that we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

  14. Andrew,

    I agree that they are sinning in ignorance. With the exception of some small fringe groups who think that they are the only true church, most people who are divided from us sacramentally still think we're unified. But it is a Gnostic-type union rather than a biblical one.

  15. Brad,

    Are you guys saying that we are not brothers in Christ if I do not believe the exact same things about baptism and the Lord's Supper as you do?

    No, no one has said anything like that at all. What we’re saying is that if YOU won’t share your sacraments with US, then YOU are refusing to be unified with US.

    Here is how I see it: We can have certain different views of baptism, certain different views of the Lord's Supper and still be part of the same one faith/church/body of Christ.

    There is one faith and one baptism. If a Baptist insists on rebaptizing my kids if they want to join that church later in life, then he is separating himself from me. Sure, he may say there is only one church, but he is acting like there’s at least two.

    In my mind, if you don't agree with that, then you would have to say that people like John Piper or Albert Mohler or John MacArthur and many other Christian leaders throughout history are not Christians and not your brothers in Christ.

    Again, you’re putting the blame on us, as if we are the ones being sectarian. If Piper’s kids wanted to join my church, I would not tell them their prior baptism is invalid. But Piper would do that to mine. He is the one who needs to answer for this, not me.

    Same with Lutherans who wouldn’t give me the bread and wine. I’d give it to them, but they’d deny it to me.

    I guess it would help me if you guys clarified your definition of unity. I think the verses that Jason quoted (Gal. 3 and 1 Cor. 10) and his application/interpretation of them backs him into a corner because it makes this entire issue a salvation issue rather than merely a disagreement that doesn't hinder brothers in Christ from working and serving side by side.

    Who said it’s a “salvation issue”? Nowhere did I say that people who disagree with me about baptism or communion cannot be saved.

  16. Jason, how is your view not “gnostic”? For you it is not the fact that they *have* been baptized, but what they *believe* about baptism that determines whether they are brothers or not. Paul didn't say, “One Lord, one faith, one perspective on baptism” (although, of course, I believe there is one correct perspective on baptism). Baptists have been baptized once. Presbyterians have been baptized once. They are brothers and part of the body of Christ. Anything less is just as “gnostic” as our baptist brethren.

  17. I don't know where you're getting that from, Peter. I believe John Piper is a Christian, OK? I never said anything to the contrary.

  18. Jason,

    What about the unity of 1 Corinthians 1:2 – a unity with all of those everywhere who call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ? I obviously do not think you would say Paul is Gnostic, but the unity envisioned there (which is foundational to Paul's argument against the many schisms that he addresses throughout the book) is not based on a common view of the sacraments, church polity, spiritual gifts, relation to culture (idols), etc. but rather only one thing – do we both call on the name of Christ? Then we are united. This does not negate a greater degree of unity with those in my own local church, where I clearly share a much greater degree of doctrinal unity, but it does negate a mentality that refuses to publicly recognize others as being true Christians and their churches as being true churches – even if we disagree on some important issues. As long as we agree on the one issue – the gospel (calling on the name of Christ) – then there is real (not Gnostic) unity.

    Also, while I agree that you would not re-baptize Piper or MaArthur's children, would you not require their grandchildren to be baptized? Or would you let the parents become full members, eligible for leadership in your congregation, while they held a credo-baptist view? If you would not receive them fully, then in fact are you not just as much rejecting his view as he is yours?

    Again, none of this negates the importance of each church knowing and practicing their own beliefs regarding sacraments (although I agree with you that I would not withhold the Table from any professing believer – regardless of whether they belong to 'my church' or not). It does, however, say that I can work with other churches in areas where we do agree (for example joining in united prayer for the Gospel to prosper in our city). And of course as an individual believer I can work with other Christians (and even unbelievers!) on common cultural tasks.

  19. Brad,

    Jason has already answered just would I would have. The reason why, for instance, we don't extend the sacraments to Roman Catholics (and they don't extend them to us) is that we are not in communion with Roman Catholics. When the Lutherans won't allow us at the table in their congregations they are saying of us what we are saying of the Roman Catholics. And yet many of the Lutherns will say that we are still one body. To me this is schizophrenic. But, as Jason points out the problem is theirs and not ours.

  20. Rev. Stellman, it seemed to be what you were implying with this comment:

    “If we define unity in a non-material and Gnostic way, then I am united with everyone with whom I have anything in common. But biblically, I am simply not united with someone with whom I do not share the bread and the cup. There is one faith, there is one baptism. Two different and mutually-exclusive baptisms means two faiths and two visible churches.”

    You seem to be saying that you are not united to baptists and that they have a different “faith”. Maybe you don't think that implies that they are not brothers, but that's how I read it, and it seems how Brad read it as well.

    This is not meant to be a criticism but an FYI: Piper would not require those who were baptized as infants to be re-baptized in his church–a position I commend him for, while still thinking his credo-baptist beliefs are dangerously erroneous.

  21. Here is how I see it: We can have certain different views of baptism, certain different views of the Lord's Supper and still be part of the same one faith/church/body of Christ.

    In my mind, if you don't agree with that, then you would have to say that people like John Piper or Albert Mohler or John MacArthur and many other Christian leaders throughout history are not Christians and not your brothers in Christ.

    Brad, it might help to point out the triumphant-invisible versus the militant-visible church distinction. To say that individuals are divided sacramentally is to speak in terms of the visible church. So when the Belgic confession condemns both the error of the Anabaptists (Art. 34) and the Heidelberg Catechism the Roman Mass (Q/A80) it really is making a statement about churches, not individuals within those churches. There are hypocrites within and sheep without, wheat and tares, etc.

    To suggest that certain individuals with whom we are sacramentally divided aren’t brethren is to over-realize and do the triumphant-invisible in the militant-visible age (not an altogether uncommon tick and cause for a lot of problems). I’m confident some of my Baptist and Roman friends and family are members of the invisible church, but before I can extend the right hand of visible fellowship they must renounce what they currently confess and affirm what I confess. Contrariwise, I am sure there are some who visibly confess what I do but are not members of the invisible church—but I treat those who do visibly confess what I do as members of the invisible church because I have no other choice. Or think of it this way, since marriage is the biblical analogy: a man may claim to have an internal love for a woman, but until he exchanges external vows with her and institutionalizes his love they really can’t have legitimate unity. That’s not to say he doesn’t really love her, rather it’s to say that what is internal-invisible must be made institutionally external-visible before we can say their unity is legitimate.

    So, they way I see it is that I can say Baptists and Catholics are Christians (invisible) even if we are divided sacramentally (visible). Maybe my withholding the right hand of fellowship looks like I am saying “they aren’t Christians,” but if you’d agree that a man who professes love for a woman but won’t marry her gives us little to no reason to believe what he professes (but may well possess) then there’s really no difference. He probably loves her, just like the Baptist loves Jesus, but some things have to happen first before other things can be said and done.

  22. Bret,

    What about the unity of 1 Corinthians 1:2 – a unity with all of those everywhere who call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ?

    As I have pointed out before, it is a false dilemma to say that NT unity is either rooted either in having the gospel or the sacraments in common. If someone denied Paul’s gospel, Paul would charge them with schism, and likewise, if someone denied the validity of the baptisms he performed he would do the same. In a word, re-doing the apostles’ baptisms would have been tantamount to establishing another church, and there is “one faith” and “one baptism.”

    … the unity envisioned there (which is foundational to Paul's argument against the many schisms that he addresses throughout the book) is not based on a common view of the sacraments, church polity, spiritual gifts, relation to culture (idols), etc. but rather only one thing – do we both call on the name of Christ? Then we are united.

    Again, what I am saying is NOT that having differing views of the sacraments is what causes disunity, but that denying the validity of another’s baptism does (or denying the bread and the cup). So even if a Baptist and I are both members of the invisible church, he is not truly unified with me visibly, and neither is a fellow elect Lutheran who bars me from the table. And it’s their fault, not mine, because they are the ones refusing me, I am not refusing them.

    Also, while I agree that you would not re-baptize Piper or MaArthur's children, would you not require their grandchildren to be baptized? Or would you let the parents become full members, eligible for leadership in your congregation, while they held a credo-baptist view? If you would not receive them fully, then in fact are you not just as much rejecting his view as he is yours?

    The PCA does allow Baptists to become members, but at my church we do everything possible beforehand to convince them to baptize their children (and so far everyone has become convinced). And there is a difference between “receiving them fully” and “allowing them to become leaders.”

  23. Peter,

    You seem to be saying that you are not united to baptists and that they have a different “faith”. Maybe you don't think that implies that they are not brothers, but that's how I read it….

    If a Baptist insists on re-doing all my baptisms, then he is the one saying he has a different faith than me. And even if we are brothers because we belong to the invisible church, he is not acting like my brother because he is breaking the visible unity that the sacraments are intended to display to the outside world.

    This is not meant to be a criticism but an FYI: Piper would not require those who were baptized as infants to be re-baptized in his church–a position I commend him for, while still thinking his credo-baptist beliefs are dangerously erroneous.

    Thanks for pointing that out, I didn’t know that. He is to be commended, you’re right!

  24. Jason,

    Regarding your statement that “The PCA does allow Baptists to become members”, wouldn't you agree that the sacraments have been given to the church, not to parents or individuals, to administer? If so, then wouldn't it be legitimate to require those joining your church to submit to the practice of infant baptism as one expression of submitting “to the government and discipline of the Church” (PCA BCO 57-5), even if they are not fully convinced of the paedobaptist position?

  25. I’m not so sure foisting blame on the other as “being sectarian” helps. For my part, if Piper doesn’t require members to re-baptize isn’t so much commendable as it suggests he’s not being a very consistent credo-baptist. Isn’t that part of the point of credo-baptism, that paedobaptism is invalid?

    And to follow on Andy’s point, my understanding is that what the PCA does in terms of allowing credo-baptists membership is really sort of a novelty developed in the 19th century that relies on a two-kinds-of-membership view: some must confess what the church confesses (officers) but others don’t (laity). That’s not the continental Reformed view of membership, and as I understand it, it wasn’t the older Presbyterian view either. I tend to think that both Piper not requiring re-baptism and the PCA communing credos are two sides of a sacramental latitudinarian coin. I find that ironic for those who identify themselves sacramentally (Baptists), since they raise their sacramental views so high in their identity.

  26. I don't have time to respond to everyone, but thanks for the responses to my questions. We really are coming from different perspectives and it helps to understand the underlying presuppositions and contexts from which you guys are arguing.

  27. Jason

    “This is not meant to be a criticism but an FYI: Piper would not require those who were baptized as infants to be re-baptized in his church–a position I commend him for, while still thinking his credo-baptist beliefs are dangerously erroneous.”

    “Thanks for pointing that out, I didn’t know that. He is to be commended, you’re right! “

    May I ask why you think so? If he is a credo-baptist he would be allowing unbaptized people (in their view) to the table, for a pastor to encourage a member to neglect a sacrament would be a serious error.

  28. Andy,

    Regarding your statement that “The PCA does allow Baptists to become members”, wouldn't you agree that the sacraments have been given to the church, not to parents or individuals, to administer? If so, then wouldn't it be legitimate to require those joining your church to submit to the practice of infant baptism as one expression of submitting “to the government and discipline of the Church” (PCA BCO 57-5), even if they are not fully convinced of the paedobaptist position?

    I vacillate on this one, actually. On the one hand I think that being consistently Reformed requires that we insist on paedobaptism, while on the other see the wisdom in the PCA approach. What we do at Exile is tell people that infant baptism is very important, and that the officers of our church has vowed to doctrinal standards that consider delaying baptism a “great sin.” I spend an hour on it in our membership classes and make myself available to discuss it further with potential members. So far, everyone who started out Baptist have become paedo. If they simply refused, I would probably encourage them to join another church with a theology that they could heartily embrace.

  29. Mark,

    May I ask why you think [Piper should be commended for not rebaptizing already-baptized new members]? If he is a credo-baptist he would be allowing unbaptized people (in their view) to the table, for a pastor to encourage a member to neglect a sacrament would be a serious error.

    Well, I guess I commend him for being willing to see past his own erroneous view on the subject. How's that for diplomatic!

  30. What we do at Exile is tell people that infant baptism is very important, and that the officers of our church has vowed to doctrinal standards that consider delaying baptism a “great sin.” I spend an hour on it in our membership classes and make myself available to discuss it further with potential members. So far, everyone who started out Baptist have become paedo. If they simply refused, I would probably encourage them to join another church with a theology that they could heartily embrace.

    JJS, I wonder what you might say to a situation like this, one with which I am familiar. A Reformed Baptist family seeks membership in a paedobaptist URC and, instead of being encouraged to join another church with a theology they could embrace, they were afforded what is called an “associate membership,” which is to say a non-communing membership.

    My understanding is that the RB family wanted membership because none of the other RB churches in the area were as stoutly 2k as this one. While nobody could sympathize more than me on that point, it continues to be curious to me as to why a RB would place the accent on an ecclesiological doctrine when the point of being Baptist seems to be sacramental, not so much ecclesiastical. The URC affording “associate membership” is also odd to me; if the analogy is familial then what sense does it make to say to someone that they are part of the family but mayn’t eat with us? If natural families don’t do this then why the supernatural family?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

wordpress visitor