Is the Southern Baptist Convention Evangelical or Fundamentalist?: Some Thoughts on the Beth Moore Controversy

Beth Moore

As many readers of The Way of Improvement Leads Home know, I am not a cradle evangelical.  I spent the first sixteen years of my life as a Roman Catholic.  I had a conversion experience as a sophomore in high school and I left the Catholic church for a non-denominational Bible church.  In other words, I became an evangelical.

When I converted, the word “evangelical” or “evangelicalism” meant nothing to me. I don’t think I ever met a born-again Christian until I started attending the youth group at Gilgal Bible Chapel in West Milford, New Jersey.  I went from the cloistered community of a working-class Catholic upbringing (I seem to remember mostly Catholics and Jews in my public high school, although I am sure there were Protestants as well) to a similarly cloistered evangelical world.  My only exposure to evangelical Christianity came through Gilgal, a church plant with an authoritarian pastor located on a multi-acre site that included a Christian camp and a conference center. (Gilgal had its own unique approach to evangelical Christianity, and its authoritarian pastor had a tragic fall from grace, but I will need to save that for another post or perhaps another book!)

My conversion was real and life-altering.  I put aside a journalism career and prepared for a life in the evangelical ministry.  My pastor recommended I go to Bible college.  So I did.  I initially thought I would be spending the next four years in residence at a place similar to a monastery, but I soon realized that most Bible college students were no different than the students who attended my public high school.  They dressed the same way, had the same haircuts, listened to the same music (despite the fact they were not permitted to listen to “secular music”), drove the same cars, and had the same ambitions and vices.  They baptized these traits with their “calls” to ministry and a sense of Christian piety.  For some, these “calls” were real and I had much respect, and continue to have much respect, for many of my classmates.  For others, I had no idea why they were in Bible college.  In the end, I had a great time at Philadelphia College of Bible (now Cairn University).  I played basketball and made some great friends.  It was like I was attending a four-year Christian youth retreat.  But I digress…

By my senior year I realized that I wasn’t getting much of a liberal education.  In the 1980s Philadelphia College of Bible was a dispensational school.  Bible and theology professors taught us that God had different plans for Israel and the Church.  (One professor, John McGahey, would scream at us: “ISRAEL IS NOT THE CHURCH!). The purpose of this Bible college education, if you could call it that, was to indoctrinate students in dispensational premillennialism. We were required to buy a copy of the Scofield Bible.  We read books by dispensational luminaries such as Lewis Sperry Chafer, John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, and J. Dwight Pentecost.  We waited for the rapture–the moment when God would raise-up the true believers to meet him in the air.  And our teachers made sure that we knew the rapture would come before the seven-year tribulation.  All of my Bible professors had advanced degrees from Dallas Theological Seminary, the intellectual home of dispensationalism.

Upon graduation, I knew that I wanted to continue my theological education. But I did not want to go to Dallas with some of my other classmates.  I enrolled at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS) in Deerfield, Illinois.  TEDS was an evangelical seminary, but it was not dispensational in orientation (although it did have a few dispensational professors).  I chose TEDS because I knew that I would find evangelical professors who would expand my horizons.  My goal was to pursue a Master of Divinity (MDiv) degree and use my time to figure out what I might do with such a course of study.  At the very least, I thought an MDiv would allow me to think theologically about the world.  I had no real long-term plan.  My parents helped me out with the tuition, but I also worked as a security guard at various places to get myself to graduation.  I eventually fell in love with history, added an M.A. in church history to my vita, and headed off to pursue a Ph.D in American history.

When I arrived at TEDS in the late 1980s, the school prided itself on its commitment to the inerrancy of the Bible.  Kenneth Kantzer, the retired dean of the seminary, had attracted some of the best evangelical theologians to TEDS for the purpose of providing an inerrancy-based alternative to Fuller Theological Seminary, the Pasadena, California school that abandoned the doctrine of inerrancy in the 1960s.  (See George Marsden’s book Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism).

Some professors made a big deal about inerrancy.  Others rarely mentioned it. I took Scot McKnight for a Greek refresher course.  The subject of inerrancy never came up.  (Nor did it come-up much in his Synpotic Gospels course).  John D. Woodbridge, who taught me how to think historically and encouraged me to pursue a Ph.D in history, was a staunch defender of inerrancy.  My other church history professor, Tom Nettles (who I did not know as well as Woodbridge), did not say too much about inerrancy despite the fact that he was an important historian of the doctrine during the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Church.

But what I remember most about TEDS was the theological diversity of the faculty.  While some of my readers might wonder how a school that upholds biblical inerrancy could be theologically diverse, at the time I did not see it that way . TEDS was not Philadelphia College of Bible or Dallas Theological Seminary.  During my three years on campus I took courses with dispensationalists (Paul Feinberg) and covenant theologians (Ray Ortlund Jr and Walter Kaiser).  I took courses with faculty who opposed women’s ordination (Wayne Grudem) and those who championed women’s ordination (Walter Liefield).  There were Presbyterians and Baptists, Calvinists and Arminians.  I even had one professor (Murray Harris) who did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I sat-in on courses taught by some of the founders of the neo-evangelical movement:  Carl F.H. Henry, Kantzer, and Gleason Archer.  I took theology with Harold O.J. Brown, the Harvard trained scholar who was one of the leading voices of the pro-life movement.  I made a few visits to a class on Puritanism taught by English theologian J.I. Packer.

I don’t know how all of these professors got along in the faculty lounge, but they always modeled a spirit of conversation and debate.  Evangelicals had core convictions, but what made them evangelicals was their irenic spirit and acceptance of those with whom they differed.  This spirit, perhaps more than anything, was what made them “evangelicals” and not “fundamentalists.”  As Marsden once put it, “a fundamentalist is an evangelical who is angry about something.”

At TEDS I learned that evangelicals championed orthodox beliefs– the deity of Christ, the redemptive work of Christ on the cross, the resurrection, the inspiration of the Bible, the Holy Spirit’s role in the pursuit of holiness, and the necessity of living-out the Great Commission through evangelism.  But I also learned that evangelicals differed on what my professors called the “secondary” or “minor” doctrines: the ordination of women, the proper form of church government, the proper mode of baptism, capital punishment, the relationship between God’s providence and human free will, the gifts of the Holy Spirit (speaking in tongues, healing, prophecy, etc.), war and peace, and the way one’s faith should manifest itself in the political sphere, to name a few.

I had classmates from every Protestant denomination imaginable–Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Mennonites, Anglicans, and Presbyterians.  Students were preparing for ministry in evangelical denominations like the Evangelical Free Church, but they also trained for work in non-denominational megachurches and mainline Protestantism denominations.

At this particular moment in my life (it was the early 1990s), I needed a place like TEDS.  I loved the fact that evangelicals could disagree on some matters of biblical interpretation.  (I even co-wrote a song about it titled “So Many Views,” sung to the tune of the Monkey’s “I’m A Believer”).  I learned how to think critically and theologically.  I knew that there was a larger theological world out there beyond the evangelical boundaries of TEDS and my experience in Deerfield gave me the skills to navigate it.

I understood the culture at TEDS as representative of the spirit of American evangelicalism.

I have been thinking lot about my experience at TEDS as I watch the debates over the role of women in the church currently taking place within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). In case you missed it, last month there was a pretty significant Twitter battle on this topic.

It all began when the bombastic Southern Baptist seminary professor Owen Strachan of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary published a piece on women in the church at his blog “Thought Life.”  Here is a taste of that May 7, 2019 post:

Biblical teaching on the sexes is not bad. It is not harmful to women. It is good–thunderously good–for women and for men. If we take the Bible at its word, then we recognize that there is no way for a woman to instruct the gathered church, whether in an authoritative or “non-authoritative” way. Congregational preaching and teaching is authoritative, for the Word of God is authoritative. There is no “non-authoritative” way to preach and teach the Bible. Any who doubt this point might recall how Paul contrasts the “word of men” with the “word of God” in 1 Thessalonians 2:13. If you speak and interpret the Scripture, you speak with the weight of eternity upon you. It cannot be otherwise.

Beth Moore and J. D. Greear are two popular Southern Baptist voices. Both Moore and Greear are gifted individuals, respected within the SBC and beyond it. In recent days, I was surprised to see these two figures endorse, in the context of the church’s gathered worship service, a woman teaching and preaching to the corporate body (see here and here). This was new to me; Southern Baptists have never embraced such a view. As mentioned above, there is no New Testament precedent for a woman teaching the corporate body of Christ (Priscilla’s words in Acts 18 to Apollos came in private, not in public), nor were women called to serve as priests in the old covenant era. Christ did not appoint a woman to be an apostle, nor did any woman serve as an elder in the first-century churches spoken of in Scripture.

And here is his Strachan’s conclusion:

Though many paint women monolithically today, seeing them as instinctually feminist, there are many women in submission to God who wish for men to lead them well and preach the Word faithfully. They do not see the Bible’s teaching on womanhood as “restrictive,” nor the complementarian movement as “afraid” of womanly gifting. Rather, they approach the Word of God with great reverence and awe. They wish to know the will of God, and do it. They take no pleasure in quieting or softening the Bible; they recognize the order that God has established, and they love it. There are scores of such women in church history, in Baptist history, in the modern SBC, and in the broader evangelical world. I know they are out there; I have heard their testimony firsthand. With the whole church of God, these women gladly confess that the counsel of the Lord stands forever (Psalm 33:11), and that the law of God’s mouth “is better…than thousands of gold and silver pieces” (Psalm 119:72).

There is much the Word frees women to do as mentioned above. But for the women I speak of, where the Word gives them a prohibition for God’s glory and their good, they receive that commandment with gladness. They submit to God, as we all must do (James 4:7). In our God-defying age, this posture stands out sharply. It is driven by our total confidence in the unerring mind and will of God. We think of Psalm 119:89 on this count: בַּשָּׁמָֽיִם נִצָּ֥ב דְּ֝בָרְךָ֗ יְהוָ֑ה לְעוֹלָ֥ם, “Forever, Lord, your word is fixed in the heavens.” It is not man who has “fixed” the word of God, and written it in the sky. By God’s own hand and mind, there is order in the home; there is order in the churches; there is order in the world God has made.

Let no one defy this order.

There is a lot that could be said about Strachan’s post.  I disagree with him on the role of women in the church and the family, but my intention here is not to get into these theological and interpretive weeds.  There are indeed a lot of denominations that do not ordain women, including the Roman Catholic Church.  But I will say this:  by ending his post with the words “let no one defy this order,” Strachan reveals his dogmatism on this issue.  I wonder what he would think about someone who does “defy this order?”  Are they living in sin?  Are they outside the fold of Christian orthodoxy?  Of evangelicalism?  Will Strachan still have Christian fellowship with them?  Should they be cast into perdition? What is at stake here?

After he wrote this piece, Strachan turned to Twitter to promote it:

It was at this point that the wildly popular evangelical preacher Beth Moore entered the fray:

Strachan initially responded politely:

But then his Twitter feed got snarky.

For example, he retweeted this:

And then his many followers and others of like mind started chiming in:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

And then this week Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, added fuel to the fire with this tweet:

Those familiar with Mohler will remember that he was instrumental in making Southern Seminary a complementarian school and the Southern Baptist Convention a complementarian denomination.  When one listens to Mohler and Strachan, one gets the impression that they believe their view of what the Bible teaches on the role of women in the church and the home is not a secondary issue of faith, but one that is essential to Christian orthodoxy.  I honestly don’t believe that they really think this, but their rhetoric is so definitive and dogmatic that it certainly sounds like they do.

Strachan is not letting go of this position.  He sees the denial of the pulpit to women such as Beth Moore and others as a non-negotiable theological view in the SBC. In other words, those who take a different position do not belong in the denomination. Here is his tweet in response to Mohler (notice how he continues to see himself in the vanguard of those who led the conservative resurgence, even going to the point of capitalizing the word “Resurgence”):

Of course the Southern Baptist Church leadership has the right to define the role of women in the church in any way they want to define it.  This is what religious liberty is all about.  Millions of evangelicals attend churches that do not ordain women.  As noted above, the largest religious body in the world–the Catholic Church–does not ordain women.  But Strachan and other Southern Baptists also like to fancy themselves as heirs to the evangelicalism that I experienced at TEDS nearly thirty years ago. Strachan writes books and edits books for conservative Christian publishers extolling people like Carl F.H. Henry, Charles Colson, and other members of the neo-evangelical movement.

My professors at TEDS had firm convictions on a whole host of issues, but they did not promote them with the fundamentalist spirit to which I see coming from Strachan and his followers.  In fact, it was this very spirit–the kind of militant spirit I see in their tweets–that made fundamentalism so repulsive to people like Carl Henry, Ken Kantzer, and the other neo-evangelical leaders who broke from fundamentalist militancy in the 1940s and 1950s.

The Southern Baptist Convention can work out their issues on women in the church on their own, without my help, but if you are going to try to make complementarianism a defining and non-negotiable characteristic of SBC orthodoxy please stop writing about how much you love the neo-evangelical movement.

On the other hand, if you do want to claim the Henry/Kantzer/neo-evangelical mantle, perhaps it is time to rethink the Convention’s position on this issue and broaden the tent a bit.

17 thoughts on “Is the Southern Baptist Convention Evangelical or Fundamentalist?: Some Thoughts on the Beth Moore Controversy

  1. Watching conservative Christians argue over whether or not women should preach is like watching children argue about how Santa’s reindeer fly. All the macho chest thumping and dogmatic grandstanding is a pretty good barometer of their spiritual maturity.

    Sincerely it makes me sad for people who are so caught up in the letter of the Bible text in the past that they can’t hear the Spirit speak to the present.

    I appreciated this post. I was raised as an evangelical fundamentalist and became a progressive Catholic–so opposite tracks from Dr. Fea. And yet my evangelical fundamentalist tradition celebrates both biblical inerrancy and female ordination. So it’s weird to see evangelical fundamentalists chest thumping about the literal word of God prohibiting female preaching.

    What a waste of spiritual energy.

    Like

  2. Thank you for this content! The move from a secondary to a primary doctrinal issue can be seen so clearly at the local church level that it pushed me to write a book on this very topic (Women’s Gifts, Women’s Roles). Even if you hold to complementarian theology, this level of dogmatism about it makes fellowship and gracious dialogue more difficult.

    Like

  3. Thanks for sharing about your earlier life. It was fascinating – a great story! My spiritual and intellectual trajectory has been similar to yours up till the end. I started out as a Lutheran; in high school, became a fundamentalist Baptist; and then broadened to evangelicalism with its then more irenic spirit. i too increasingly valued history and narrative. Where we ended up differently is that I don’t have what it takes to be a scholar (whether I am a gentleman, I will have to let my wife answer that question). Additionally, I ended up in Eastern Orthodoxy. That’s where my interest in history took me, to the historic faith of the Christian Church. We do have an initial deposit of faith, Scripture and tradition that has spoken on some things, and has left other things open. One of the things that is has spoken without controversy for 2,000 years, until very recently, is women’s ordination. Can women be ordained? The answer is no. If you say yes, you have placed yourself outside of orthodoxy and Orthodoxy. The church I attend, St. Michael Orthodox Christian Church in Whittier, Los Angeles County, California, started by breaking with the Episcopal Church over the issue of women’s ordination. We have seen where the Episcopal Church has gones since then, and the trajectory of where it appears it will continue to go. By the time the process is finished, there will be no remanants of orthodoxy (or Orthodoxy) left. I hope that this is not where you want to go. Once you have decided that you can make up your own mind contrary to the deposit of faith, Scripture, and tradition, you have cut yourself loose from the anchor of the Triune God. You will be blown by every strorm resuting from every passing fad and fancy. You will run aground and make a shipwreck of your church and of your faith. I urge you not to depart from the landmarks set by our fathers.

    Like

    • Ross,

      You are not alone and not without good arguments for your move to Orthodoxy. I assume you are in an Antiochian parish. I saw an interesting bumper sticker which said “Orthodoxy—Founded 33 A.D.” It was clever and thought-provoking.

      As you say, women will never be ordained in your church. Certain verities don’t change.

      James

      Liked by 1 person

  4. John, didn’t realize you studied Bible history so much, since you focus more on American history here. Would love to hear more of your thoughts on history of the early church.

    Like

  5. This post really resonated with me. A few comments:

    1. For me, much of the fundamentalist-or-not debate centers around the assessment of what an individual or group considers primary versus secondary/tertiary issues. For example, when it comes to the Christian essentials as typically expressed in the historical creeds, I am downright “fundamentalist” in believing that one cannot deny these things and still be within true orthodox Christianity. On many/most other issues, I am far from fundamentalism, recognizing legitimate and sincere differences of interpretation/understanding. For me, assessing whether to call someone a fundamentalist is largely based on how long their list of “primary essentials” is, and my assessment of how far their list extends into areas I believe to be of secondary essence, and which they use as the basis for dismissing those who disagree as heretical. (For example, echoing John, I have past experience with environments in which any view other than “pre-tribulation millennialist” was viewed as entirely outside Christian orthodoxy and caused a person’s faith to be considered suspect).

    2. One of the things I find most troubling (and irritating) is how some automatically dismiss those who disagree with them on some of these secondary issues as “not taking the Bible seriously.” Now, if I were to respond to a particular teaching or doctrine with a dismissive “why should I let a two thousand year old book tell me what I believe,” well, ok then, that would be a legitimate response. But if I hold the Bible in high regard and believe it to be the inspired and authoritative word of God, and I arrive at a different conclusion on a certain question *because* I see other things said in Scripture that I believe drive me to that conclusion, then being dismissed as just “not believing the plain teaching of the Bible” or “not taking the Bible seriously” is just not right. Let’s be clear, we all read the Bible through a lens of interpretation, and automatically dismissing those whose believe the Bible as truth but arrive at a different interpretation based on their study, and claiming their different conclusion is based on disbelief and not taking the Bible seriously, is disingenuous. It is really saying that *my* view is “plain truth” and *their* view is “interpretation.” Sorry, no, we are both arriving at conclusions based on interpretation whether or not we choose to acknowledge it.

    3. This opens up a whole separate rabbit trail, but I have read some compelling arguments that some of our difficulties on the specific issue mentioned here (women teachers) really falls under a larger problem, namely, that we are utterly misunderstanding and misapplying the concept of “authority” in the Bible. So much of our understanding of church polity is based on concepts of “authority” which are in fact often antithetical to the Biblical teachings regarding servant leadership and the headship of Christ, and attempts to read back a modern view of church hierarchy and authority structures into New Testament passages which were written to people for whom “church” bore very little resemblance to our current church organizational structures today. The result is that we have set up authority-driven church/denomination structures that are so focused on who gets to hold the authority and make the rules and issue the authoritative teaching to the “underlings” in the pews. There is a good argument to be made that this whole authority-driven structure doesn’t even measure up to the New Testament understanding of “church,” and so we are basing entire doctrines of church polity and leadership on a model that doesn’t even mesh well with what we see in the Scriptures.

    Like

    • Dave,

      Let me comment on the second paragraph of your posting. You are hitting at the crucial issue of hermeneutics, a subject about which honest believers can differ——-as you aptly state.

      The problem is sadly complicated by certain folks who hail from a “mixed multitude” within the professing Church. While they will officially affirm a belief in Biblical authority, their practical tools for interpretation often allow for an elasticity which effectively negates the teaching of Bible. I see this as one of the great weaknesses of sola scriptura and thus of Evangelicalism. The remedy, although not foolproof, is to inject a very large dose of Tradition into the hermeneutic formula. Eastern Orthodoxy, Classical Anglicanism, and Roman Catholicism probably take the traditional ingredient too far, but Evangelicals pay it far too little attention. Instead Evangelicalism ends up with all manner of odd teachings, some of which even morph into sects and cults. More commonly, however, the end result simply becomes spiritually sterile religious liberalism.

      Like

  6. Even if one accepts your definition of fundamentalism from evangelicalism, I fail to see the alleged harshness/ militancy in the tweets copied above. Is Strachan’s tweet about working in the nursery ‘snarky’?
    I don’t think it’s helpful to view this issue in the light of fundamentalism vs evangelicalism. Here’s the lay of the land: 1)There are some who, w/o reference to Scripture, think that women should be allowed to lead and/or preach to congregations. 2)There are some who interpret the Bible as allowing for that. 3)There are some who interpret the Bible as NOT allowing for that. 4)Finally, there are some who think the Bible CLEARLY TEACHES that women shouldn’t lead and/or preach to congregations.
    In that final category are those who believe – that while perhaps the issue is not critical in itself – the hermeneutics behind various conclusion are bellwether.
    It would be reasonable for those who sense a hermeneutical crossroads to speak decisively/strongly.
    They might be right or wrong. But why muddy the waters by characterizing them as ‘fundamentalist’?

    Like

  7. John,
    This is one of your best postings. I especially appreciated the biographical sketch with which you introduced the piece.

    The Southern Baptist Convention has had a handful local congregations which have ordained women, but these churches have not remained in good standing within The Convention. They usually spin off to smaller looser fellowships of churches. The SBC has to walk a bit of a tightrope on many issues. On one hand, the leadership trumpets the historic Baptist belief of congregational autonomy while, on the other hand, The Convention expects its member congregations to adhere to traditional doctrinal norms. Why remain if you cannot buy into the whole program?

    I am not a Southern Baptist and know nothing of Owen Strachan other than the material in your posting. It is my educated guess, however, that he sees women in the pulpit as one of those proverbial “camel’s nose under the tent flap“ issues. As a former member of a quickly disappearing Mainline Protestant denomination with many female ministers, I can understand his concern. Once women are ordained, fault lines begin to appear in other places. Yet it’s hard for me to believe that Strachan would show as much concern about Beth Moore giving a talk in his local church as he would about John Shelby Spong standing behind the same pulpit.

    The SBC is in the midst of other battles on intersectionality and doctrinal clarity within certain seminary circles. If asked why the denomination even exists, we would likely get the answer that they can act in a strong unified matter on externals like missions and on internals like Christian education. Personally, I think it’s not easy for The Convention to justify its current existence. “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” I Cor. 14:8

    Like

  8. The “either/or” proposition seems a bit radical in this article. For instance, many of these leaders respect C.S. Lewis on many issues but have taken strong stands against other issues with Lewis. SBCers can respect some “neo-evangelicals” and still embrace complementarianism without being fundamental.

    Also, seeing people are either Fundamental or Evangelical is a bit too simplistic too. Evangelical has mostly lost its definition and fundamentalism is now defined as an attitude rather than theologically. When using the terms, we are almost not even talking about the same scale anymore. For instance, the opposite of evangelicalism is not liberalism of fundamentalism. Each of these are no longer treated on the same theological scale. Vos and Machen rejected both titles for good reasons. Vos believed Evangelical was a pathway to liberalism and Machen saw fundamentalism as lacking an historic viewpoint on Christianity. Neo-Evangelicalism is just another title that seems problematic and lacks definition. Often, people define all these terms to help build their argument.

    SBC leaders should define who should and should not be a Pastor. Every generation felt this essential to the nature of the church.

    Like

    • Derick: Your post lacks any historical sensitivity. For example, you write “Neo-evangelicalism is just another title that seems problematic and lacks definition.” Based on what? Those who embraced this label in the 1940s and 1950s actually believed the label represented something–a break from the spirit of fundamentalism. Check the historical record. I am not “defining all these terms” to serve my argument. Those in the 1940s and 1950s believed that “evangelicalism” was indeed a movement that was different than fundamentalism.

      And of course evangelicals can be complementarian without being fundamentalist. I did not say this in the post. I suggested the SBC was “fundamentalist” because they seem to want to say who is “in” and “out” based on what I see to be a minor secondary issue.

      Like

  9. While the ordination of women and preaching by women is a second-tier issue, meaning it’s not one on which the gospel stands or falls. the issue is not unimportant. I will suggest that a hermeneutic allowing one to claim that the Bible supports this view does not seem to be true to the text. As such, I think Dr. Mohler is correct. And, by the way, compliementarianism does not support the maltreatment or abuse of women. A biblical masculinity refuses to accept such actions, even though it’s very clear that the SBC, my adult denomination of conviction, has failed in this regards, deeply.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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