living through death

"The only way that you can accept life is if you can accept death.” –Leo Buscaglia

Does love need law?

with 21 comments

“The law of love is the ultimate law because it is the negation of law; it is absolute because it concerns everything concrete. The paradox of final revelation, overcoming the conflict between absolutism and relativism, is love. The love of Jesus as the Christ, which is the manifestation of the divine love—and only this—embraces everything concrete in self and world. Love is always love; that is its static and absolute side. But love is always dependent on that which is loved, and therefore it is unable to force finite elements on finite existence in the name of an assumed absolute.”

Tillich Sys. Theo. V.I p. 152

I once had it put to me that love needs law to give it structure. I rejected that notion then, and I reject it now. Tillich says it well. To accept that love needs law is to risk a situation where love and law conflict. Such a conflict is embraced by some who declare that “yes God is love… but God is also _______ (holy, just, righteous, etc.).

This is problematic. If the love of God is one attribute among others, we do not have a God on our hands, but a demon. For only the demonic is essentially disintegrated and in conflict with itself.

Yet, it is true that in the existential situation our attempts at love go wrong. Often badly. It is here we feel the temptation to appeal to some “divine law” other than love to help condition our attempts at loving well. In evangelical circles this is usually in the form of an appeal to certain bits of Scripture. “Wives are to submit to their husbands;” it might be said, or perhaps “homosexuality is a sin;” or even “men ought not have long hair and tattoos are sinful.” It is thought that following these prescriptions/prohibitions will help us avoid the problem of botching our attempts at loving well.

The trouble is, it doesn’t work. Such lazy (or perhaps, nervous) uses of Scripture tend to create situations where exclusion rather than embrace occur. Rather than the self-negating love of Christ, we arrive at self-righteous, or at least fearful, distance. What happens when the long haired gay man next door offers to rake the fearful Christian’s yard? Where is the love of Christ being fulfilled?

Jesus did not bring a new law (neither did Paul for that matter). Jesus revealed God, and that revelation was displayed in a love which poured out all for all. It is thus in the paradox of the “law of love” where we see what ought to be the Christian’s ultimate concern—the center of our faith—the inclusive stance of a love that surrenders all for the other, the despised, the enemy, the “least of these,” your brother, your boss, political opponents, liberals, fundamentalists, atheists, Muslims, extremists. To follow Christ is as easy—and as hard—as that.

It’s impossible. It’s beautiful. It’s the Kingdom of God. And it is, and may be, in our midst.


Written by Alex

September 8, 2010 at 3:59 pm

Posted in Theology

Tagged with

21 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. This is a wonderful reflection, Alex. It strikes me though, that even if love is the “ultimate law” and thus the abrogation of law (which makes a fantastic amount of sense of the NT and Jesus in particular and jives with this Lutheran-minded person) it still requires choice. That is, we still have to choose what counts as a loving act. And this is where even the “love conquers all,” love swallows up the law, distinctions, etc. (perhaps I’m taking you–or T–to far here) falls a bit flat in terms of the concrete. And many evangelicals will retort here as well: If homosexuality is indeed not a divinely-sanctioned lifestyle, then what counts as a loving act toward your gay neighbor? And we could go on to any number of ethical “dilemnas” (just-war / pacifism, immigration, etc.) Aren’t we still left with the problem of criterion on this account of love over law?

    Kyle Roberts

    September 8, 2010 at 4:30 pm

  2. Good question Kyle. Here Tillich goes absolutely brilliant. I can’t do it better, so I will just quote:

    “There is something paradoxical in every action; it always contains a conflict of absolutism and relativism. It is based on decision; but to decide for something as true or good means excluding countless other possibilities. Every decision is, in some respect, absolutistic, resisting the skeptical temptation of epoché (not judging and not acting). It is a risk, rooted in the courage of being, threatened by the excluded possibilities, many of which might have been better and truer than the chosen one. These possibilities take their revenge, often in a very destructive way; and escape into non action becomes very tempting. Final revelation conquers this conflict between the absolutistic character and the relativeistic fate of every decision and action. it shows that the right decision must sacrifice its claim to be the right decision. There are no right decisions; there are trials and defeats and successes. But there are decisions which are rooted in love, which by resigning the absolute do not fall into the relative. They are not exposed to the revenge of the excluded possibilities because they were and still are open for them. No decision can be annihilated; no action can be undone. But love gives meaning even to those decisions and action which prove to be failures. The failures of love do not lead to resignation but to new decisions beyond absolutism and relativism. The final revelation overcomes the conflict between absolutism and relativism in active decision. Love conquers the revenge of the excluded possibilities. It is absolute as love and relative in every love relationship.”

    Thus, so far as the problem of criterion goes, it seems to me it can only be answered from within the risky practice of living in love, in the surrender of all our claims that our particular decisions are the absolute, while ever straining forward to the paradox of absolute allegiance to the self-negating love God in Christ.

    As for the hypothetical evangelical question re: a loving act towards a gay neighbor. Seems to me this frame runs afoul from the very beginning. Already we have an implicit law other than love tucked within this talk of “divinely-sanctioned” lifestyle. This law then has the potential to enter into conflict with an encounter with the “law of love.” I have to reject this frame. It tears people apart. Those who encounter the same love of Christ within a relationship they feel obligated to condemn as sin are faced with two unattractive options. They either 1) timidly withdraw from any places where a real depth of relationship might develop, or 2) attempt nervous condemning stance.

    Further, if homosexuality is a “divinely-prohibited,” and if homosexual people are able to live out their relationships together in a manner which trains them into self-negating love of Christ (as heterosexual relationships, at their best, do), then we have a split within God. Jesus does not reveal God’s character as radical self-sacrificing love. Love becomes one attribute among others. Law can oppose love, and there is no solution. We stand once again at the threshold of a decision. Which attribute of God will we worship today? Submission to our best guess at “God’s law,” or an embrace of God’s love.

    No one can help us decide. The good news is lost.


    September 8, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    • I find these ruminations profoundly lazy. (stimulated yet?) This complacent contentment to say, “I don’t know, so I’ll just love” is idealistic and foolish, and ultimately is an easy way to express belief in a safe non-threatening way to others and makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside. (Since when is internal integration on this earth God’s plan for us? Dis-integration keeps us humble, keeps us on our knees…) Without transformation, belief is dead. How can anyone be transformed without understanding what is sin and what is righteousness. Without it, one goes on mired in idolatry.
      Respectfully yours —


      September 8, 2010 at 9:23 pm

      • A brief note on humility:

        I’m brought to me knees by the realization that I cannot know – in clear, explicit, ethical propositional form – what it means to love. All I am left with is an attitude, a disposition, a quest to act on a case-by-case basis in a way consistent to love as revealed in Christ. What does that look like before the atheist, the fundamentalist, the racist, the sexist, the homophobic, the criminal, the capitalists…I cannot say. I just don’t know. And neither do you.

        We are, of course, left with one more thing: the grace of the God who loves when we fail to; when we fail to from disinclination or apathy or (more to the point) ignorance.

        Jonathan Jong

        September 8, 2010 at 9:51 pm

  3. “How can anyone be transformed without understanding what is sin and what is righteousness?”

    Alright, I’ll bite:

    1) What is sin?
    2) What is righteousness?

    Take as long as you like.


    September 9, 2010 at 2:03 am

  4. 1)Sin is deviation from the standard. In God’s context, the standard is perfection, holiness, righteousness if you will – Himself. In our generation, the so-called “scholars” are at the head of this camp of thought that promotes the non-judgmental perspective in questing for the fountain of youth, aka “integration” whereby nobody will have to answer to anybody for anything. If I am mistaken in my interpretation of such, I’m happy to hear what is really believed and practiced by the enlightened. For more information, see: Romans 3:20-3:23, 1John 1:8-10, 2 Corinthians 7:10-11. 1 Cor 6. Idolatry appears to be a root cause.
    2)Antonym: Sin – see above.


    September 9, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    • Sure. And what does perfection, holiness, and righteousness entail behaviourally in the real world? What does it look like in any given context? In any conceivable context?

      Take as long as you like.

      Jonathan Jong

      September 9, 2010 at 7:03 pm

  5. NitPicker,

    You say:
    “This complacent contentment to say, “I don’t know, so I’ll just love” is idealistic and foolish, and ultimately is an easy way to express belief in a safe non-threatening way to others and makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside.”

    “just” love? “just?” I think you may be reading a sentimental brand of non-threatening and indiscriminate affirmation into a term that I am deriving from a lifetime of encounters with Jesus as the Christ and those who struggle after him (explicitly or not).

    It was this love that cleared the temple for burdening the people rather than honoring God, that rebuked Peter as Satan for desiring glory over sacrifice, that thundered in the face of the religious authorities for preferring their traditions to compassion.

    I can understand your interpretation, however. “Love” is an almost hopelessly ambiguous term which is systematically left undefined by its users. But I do not mean what I think you think I mean. There is nothing “just” about the love of Christ.


    September 9, 2010 at 3:06 pm

  6. Alex-
    Thank you for that. It drives the nail even further. Jesus’ love IS just. It is whole. It doesn’t say to the neighbor with long hair, “Hey buddy, thanks for raking my lawn… here have a lemonade… and btw, don’t mind me.” As written in the gospels, it is in-your-face love. It says, “Take up your cross and follow me. Put to death your sinful lifestyle.” It’s confrontational to sin; in ways differently to those chasing God vs. those pleasing themselves to be sure, but confrontational nonetheless. He squarely points out sin and condemns it in both the believer and the non-believer — and advised them to go and sin no more. How can we then, as imitators of Christ, soothe the consciences of sinners by accepting unrepentent attitudes, thoughts, lifestyles, and actions? “Love” in the sense that we can express it (imperfectly) should still stress to imitate Christ: Love hurts, and it can bring life. Hate is overlooked far too often. I’d love to hear you expound on hate and its qualities, and how that can benefit someone.


    September 9, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    • It’s early in the morning, but I think you misread Alex’s “just love” comment. You seem to think he was talking about justice. In actual fact, he was quoting your previous comment. Either:

      1. You’re committing the fallacy of equivocation, a rudimentary error in reasoning.
      2. You’re not really reading what Alex has to say.
      3. You’re purposely misinterpreting your opponents.

      In any case: Stop it.

      Jonathan Jong

      September 9, 2010 at 7:02 pm

    • There’s lots to say. Where to begin?

      First, neither Alex nor I are stubbornly agnostic about the behaviours that count as righteous and those that count as sinful. Furthermore, we try our best to live up to our ethical principles. Furthermore, we are vocal about these moral convictions, especially when we’re more certain of them. Indeed, Alex and I are – right now, in this discussion – being vocal about what we consider a sin: judgementalism. This is Point #1: We’re not complacent moral invertebrates.

      Second, Alex and I are cautious about what we _say_ about moral convictions and how we treat (incl. what we say to) those whom we consider to have behaved immorally. We speak cautiously because we know we are fallible, and that our moral pronouncements can be damaging. e.g., Decrying homosexuality as a sin has been very damaging to lots of Christians; we want to be pretty sure it is before we do it. (I don’t know Alex’s stand on this particular issue; I’m rabidly pro-gay.) How and whether we confront those who have sinner is contingent upon the context; we pay great attention to the relational and situational and personal details. Sometimes, it’s appropriate to confront strongly; Alex does this to me sometimes. Sometimes, it’s not so appropriate. The Bible is full of examples of different kinds of confrontation about sin.

      Now, that’s all very well and good in the abstract, but perhaps I should _show_ that I’m not a moral invertebrate:
      I think driving a 4WD truck when you can walk is sinful.
      I think buying imported fruits that are flown in from halfway across the globe is sinful.
      I think supporting legislation that widens the economic gap between rich and poor is sinful.
      I think eating meat procured from animals treated cruelly is sinful.
      I think dogmatic, fear-mongering quasi-Christian preaching is sinful.
      I think exclusive judgementalism is sinful.
      I think apathy about the poor is sinful.

      …and all these things are things I publicly decry, almost on a daily basis. But many of my friends are still fully participating in exploitative lifestyles (and, of course, I am still participating in to too!). What do I do? I have conversations with them about what I think is right and why. I cook for them, using only fresh produce planted nearby. I invite them to events. I introduce them to gay people. That’s my strategy for reforming sinners.

      Jonathan Jong

      September 9, 2010 at 7:28 pm

  7. A few more thoughts occur to me.

    I’d like to affirm Kyle’s concern for a criterion, as well as Jon’s talk of grace while bringing us back once again to Tillich.

    Nitpicker (do you have a name? I feel like I’m insulting you every time I type your handle),

    What I said in my previous post leaves your concern for “getting it right” unaddressed. This opens up the infinite question of how it is we know when we’ve “got it right.” How do we know that our criterion is “the” criterion? Anyone who has been haunted by this question and who has striven to produce an answer understands that how we know that what we think we know is what we want to know is an unanswerable question.

    When it comes to using Scripture as an aide to “getting it right,” unless we adopt a monophysite doctrine of Scripture in which all is divine and none is human, proof-texts fail to settle the matter. Using Scripture to “get it right” is an unavoidably selective and hierarchal practice that ends with more questions than it starts with. The closer one looks the more acute the problem becomes.

    But lets come back to the general problem of “getting it right.” I think of Mark’s Peter. Immediately after apparently getting it right with his confession of Jesus as the Christ, he gets the sharpest rebuke in all the gospels. Jesus unveils his mission to suffer and die. Not having any of it, Peter objects… and is rebuked as Satan.

    And here we see our basic problem: In our zeal to get it right in our attempts to follow God, we may well be working for the devil.

    But it does not end there. Even after Peter even further flubs it with his disowning of Jesus we hear these words at the end of Mark: “But go, tell His disciples and Peter, He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.” This is the grace of God (as Jon points out) which calls us broken souls back once again to Galilee where he first called us.

    Our decisions, our beliefs are not the absolute truth of God. To be persuaded otherwise is the definition of idolatry. Which brings us full-circle back to Tillich:

    “There are no right decisions; there are trials and defeats and successes. But there are decisions which are rooted in love, which by resigning the absolute do not fall into the relative.”

    We must first have the idol of our own self-assured beliefs, interpretations, morals, etc. smashed. Just as the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth smashed all attempts to make him the object of absolute devotion and was himself smashed as a historical individual on the cross. Jesus is the only adequate symbol for God, because in revealing God he sacrificed all for all.

    If you think that all cases of homosexual relationships are essentially sinful, then you must as a matter of integrity confront what you see to be sin. Follow your messiah, confront them with your own sacrifice. Love them. Perhaps, as Jesus did, condemn those who privilege their religion over compassion. But be open to your own conversion, for, as in all things, you may be wrong.


    September 9, 2010 at 5:09 pm

  8. jjong-
    1. “just love”. Wordplay in dialogue is essential to provocation and frustration. See it for what it is. Start it. Embrace it rabidly, if you will… On that note,
    2. “rabidly pro-gay” Please expound/justify/reconcile this position — love to hear your position(s). –> no pictorals needed.

    1. You may call me Mr. Pickins or Pickinits or NP or Doctor, whatever suits you. Don’t lose sleep over it.
    2. monophysite reference: my understanding of this term was “part human, part divine” — not wholly one or the other — feel free to correct me with proofs/definitions if you have time — i’m an avid student of vocabulary, and always relish correction (but not in the rabid sort of way jj might).
    3. How can you put your trust in expositions declaring the scriptures fallible anymore/less than you can in the expositions claiming it is reliable and divine or “spirit-breathed”?

    For Both of you or Any of you reading:
    4. Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?
    5. What is your personal conviction about eternity and how did you arrive at such.
    6. How did you arrive at your current moral code? Who decides whats right/wrong, who lives/who dies?

    I may have more time to continue this later, but work beckons.


    September 9, 2010 at 9:06 pm

  9. Alex, i’m wondering why the clock on all the posts appears to be in some weird time zone? Do you live in Australia?


    September 9, 2010 at 9:07 pm

  10. Hi,

    1. Funny, your clever wordplay is cleverly disguised as purposeful or accidental miscomprehension. So, you used clever word play to respond to something no one said… I take it that the emphasis on “is” (Jesus’ love IS just) was meant to correct someone’s claim that Jesus’s love ISN’T just? (I don’t actually believe it was wordplay, of course… But no matter. Whatever makes you happy, nits.)

    2. You want me to defend my pro-gay position? My basic negative thesis is that there are no good arguments that homosexuality is a sin. Arguments from naturalness (e.g., Romans 1) commit the naturalistic fallacy or require a yet unjustified bridging principle (though see Roman Catholic work on natural law for good attempts). Arguments from biblical exegesis either rely on dodgy interpretation (e.g., Romans 1 again; see Bill Loader’s scholarly work and Rowan Williams’s pastoral work on this) or require absurd commitments to uncontroversially out-moded purity codes (e.g., Leviticus 18, 20). I further argue that the Bible cannot be mined for normative ethical propositions in any straightforward way; ethics comes from theology, which comes in part (but not in a naive way) from Scripture. Furthermore, leaving specifically Christian arguments for a moment, I argue that conservative attitudes toward homosexuality rely on unjustifiably simplistic notions of gender and sexuality. My positive case is that homosexual relationships can, just like heterosexual ones exemplify love and that’s certainly more important than what one’s genitals look like (or what chromosomes one has, or what hormones one was exposed to prenatally, or what gender one self-identifies with…see, gender/sex is not a simple construct. These are all empirically dissociable characteristics).

    3. I affirm the historical creeds, and hold a robust (social) Trinitarianism. I believe in God: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Spirit is divine, of one being with the Father and the Son; the Spirit proceeds from the Father; the Spirit is the giver of life, the one who sets us free, the one who binds us – the Body of the one who was raised, the one who re-presents Christ to us, the one who convicts us. (Do we really need to present our orthodox credentials?)

    5. I’m not sure what you mean about my “personal conviction about eternity”, but if you’re asking about eschatology, then I believe that there will be a putting right of all things in the end. I have learnt, especially from the Bible, that I am not to speculate about more than this. If you’re asking about who I think will go to Heaven/Hell, I similarly reply that that’s God’s call, not mine. I shan’t presume to speak for God on this matter.

    6a. My ethics is derived in large part from my (afore-mentioned) robust Trinitarian theology and from the conviction that God is revealed most fully in Christ. So, rather than looking for explicit moral-sounding propositions in the Bible or in any Christian tradition, I look at the example provided to us in the Trinitarian relationship (viz., that of mutually self-giving, reciprocal love, etc.) and in the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I turn also to my eschatological convictions, bare as they may be. I believe that we should work in the here and now towards what God will ultimately achieve (without needing our help) in the End. I turn also the the biblical themes that emerge over and over again; those of justice and love. I admit that my view is bound to be biased. My reading of theology and the Bible is as narrows as everyone else’s, as biased as everybody else’s, and so I humbly seek to learn more about how I ought to live.

    6b. God. I do not presume to know certainly what God deems to be right and wrong, and I certainly do not presume to know who God deems to live and die. But on the former question, I try my best (see 6a.) to figure out how we ought to live. On the latter question (see 5), I plead a reverent agnosticism (to use Karl Barth’s phrase, I believe).

    Is this satisfactory? I’m not a theologian; I don’t have much formal theological education. (By training, I’m an experimental social psychologist and philosopher.) So, I’m always wary that I might be saying silly things. Sorry if I do; I’m still learning.

    Jonathan Jong

    September 9, 2010 at 4:56 pm

  11. Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?”

    For simplicity, I’ll say no. But as with all things, one’s position on such theological matters is thoroughly at the mercy of interpretation, and my rejection may be on grounds of terminology only.

    “5. What is your personal conviction about eternity and how did you arrive at such.”

    I’m still working on understanding the eternal period, let alone entertaining a serious conviction about it.

    “6. How did you arrive at your current moral code?”

    For the most part, I believe the material evidence suggesting that I didn’t arrive at my moral code so much as my moral code arrived at me (take that relativism!).

    Upon that hereditary framework there is room for fine-tuned adaptations to cope with short term fluxes in normative values that mark our evolving social structures (a genetic predisposition to rapid non-genetic adaptation being a strong suit of Homo sapiens); but much of our moral code I believe to be more-or-less hardwired.

    It’s a moral compass chock full of contradictions and loop holes, of course, and is particularly vulnerable to being suppressed by arguably more primitive emotions such as fear and anger, but that’s to be expected considering that there has often been a violent solution for every non-violent one when it comes to making choices and fulfilling our individual and collective desires; evolution simply favours the methods most effective at the time, whether they be focused toward making love or making war.

    “Who decides whats right/wrong, who lives/who dies?”

    It seems impossible to me based upon historical reflection to conclude anything other than that might ultimately makes right. Although “might” in this sense is not necessarily synonymous with physical strength and use of material force (neither does “fittest” in “survival of the fittest”); meek can be mighty also. But looking back on the actions of people of all faiths and philosophies, we find that the those who rise to weigh the lives of others in the balance are invariably those who are strongest, whether individually or collectively, militarily or diplomatically.

    Fortunately, I think history also demonstrates that if one wishes to place quality of life above simply surviving, particularly in such an overpopulated world so rich with differences, then altruism and tolerance trumps tribal fear and competition hands down. The violent solutions become outweighed by the non-violent ones (why oppress another group of people on the basis of an abstract world view and risk the violent and all too material insurrection that this sort of behaviour can precipitate?).


    September 9, 2010 at 5:39 pm

  12. Mr. Pickens,
    Generally I’m happy to have discussions of this nature with pretty much anyone who has interest. However, as this particular conversation as progressed I have begun to feel less and less comfortable conversing with a completely unidentifiable screen-name from the void.

    People who hide on the internet often do so for less than salutary reasons. You may have other reasons, but you’re in the hole from the start. Anonymity frees one from accountability. Lacking all pressure of relational (or other forms of) consequence, it is very difficult to develop the necessary relational dynamic that makes possible the existentially involved practice of discussing theology. Perhaps other forms of discourse may be possible (physics, financial advising, etc.) but theology necessarily deals with matters that are existentially important. Such matters don’t transition well between asymmetrically invested interlocutors.

    Happy to continue should you as you decide to participate. Failing that, feel free to banter on with others who do not share my particular hang-up.


    September 10, 2010 at 7:47 am

  13. Mr. Pickens,
    I received your last message. It was automatically moderated due to the number of links included in the message. I’ve sent an email to the address you use to post. In case that address is as fictitious as the persona you are attempting to construct, here’s making sure you get the message:

    “I’m not interested in playing games with you. You are now on permanent moderation. Feel free to find yourself another blog.” In addition, feel free to come on back should you ever decide to come out of the closet.

    Now, if you’ll excuse me I have some bacon, eggs, strawberries, oj, and grapes to attend to.


    September 11, 2010 at 10:08 am

    • I’m not uninterested in playing games. Nits can buzz me at emailjonhere at gmail if s/he wants.

      Jonathan Jong

      September 12, 2010 at 4:30 pm

  14. I’m a bit late to this party, and I’m not sure I’ve actually got anything useful to say, but…

    I’m wondering if it might be useful to draw attention to the difference between love and acceptance.

    It’s quite possible to say to someone:

    “I will always love you, no matter what. But I think that the path you’re taking is destructive, disrespectful and will ultimately lead to everyone getting hurt – including yourself. Please let me help you.”

    In the same way, someone who believes that homosexuality is a sin can be motivated to try to change their gay neighbour by their love for him or her.

    Loving someone means having their best interests in your heart when you act. It means that you try to see the world the way they do, even if you don’t agree with it, rather than simply dismissing it and assuming it has no worth. And it means that when you are in conflict, you strive to act in a way consistent with that love.

    The guy standing on his own lawn, with a placard, shouting about sin at his neighbour’s house is only going to increase the distance between them – which ends up helping no-one.

    The guy who takes the time to get to know his neighbour, genuinely befriending him and doing what he can to help him when necessary, while at no point shying away from his beliefs about his lifestyle, has a much greater chance of bringing about change for the better – either in his neighbour, himself, or ideally both.

    Matt M

    September 11, 2010 at 11:37 am

    • Matt,
      I just happened to be here for other reasons. So here’s me over a year later. That was a really well put comment. Thanks. Sorry there was no response earlier. Not sure why that was.


      November 19, 2011 at 7:40 am

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: