• My Girls

  • My Sermons

  • Get GM4Missions

    (More Info & Sample)

    "This book is something. Buy it; read it; pray it; and commend it to a friend." (David J. Hesselgrave)

  • Get GM4Men

    (More Info & Sample)

    "Devotional material of this quality for men is extremely hard to come by." (Phil Johnson)

    "This little book is gospel gold." (Milton Vincent)

  • My Hymn Site

  • The Gospel

      A 25-minute mp3 explaining how sinful people can be right with God.

  • My Tweets

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • Subscribe to MTC

  • My Twitter

My Two Cents on the 9 Marks E-Journal, Part 2

Matt HoskinsonMatt Hoskinson, the Pastor of Ministry Vision at Heritage Bible Church in Greenville, SC, contributed an article entitled “A Christian Fundamentalist Travel Guide” to the recent 9Marks e-journal. Though I’ve not had time to interact with the article in any detail, I’m glad to host a discussion of it. I’ll chime in with my perspective in the comments section when I have the time to do so. In the meantime…

On the first 9M e-journal thread at MTC, Dave Doran (President of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary) directed the following comment (which I’ve moved here) to Matthew Hoskinson:

“Matt,

Thanks for your work on your longer article. I was wondering if I could probe it a little for some clarification on a couple of points so I can understand you better.

First, would it be correct to conclude that one of the core differences between your traditional and historic categories is the matter of so-called secondary separation, i.e., traditional holds to it, historic does not?

Second, I was curious as to your reasons for counting Piper and Carson among “right wing” evangelicalism. What leads you to conclude that they are different in their thinking than the older new evangelicalism (e.g., Ockenga, Henry, etc.)?”

Again, substantive discussion is welcome.

Advertisements

19 Responses

  1. Matt,

    I appreciate the obvious work you put into your article. I think you’ve represented fundamentalists well. The fact that you didn’t have any misspellings and that you used polysyllabic words is a bonus, and no doubt is astonishing to many of our evangelical brothers. :)

    Now, if you’re able to interact here a bit, I’d like to discuss the article some, especially regarding a few points on which we may disagree.

    Under your Historical Fundamentalists heading, you say the following:

    “As 1957 moves further into the past, historic Fundamentalists seem to be less inclined to see Graham as the single litmus test for fellowship. That does not mean Graham’s compromise is unimportant to them. They would agree that Graham has done serious harm to the evangelical movement. But the fact that right-wing evangelicalism acknowledges the disastrous state of their movement leads historic Fundamentalists to probe whether they can and should link arms with them.”

    I think you may be focusing too much on Graham himself and not enough on the issue of cooperation with unbelief that he spearheaded. What I mean is this: it’s clear that Graham is no longer “the single litmus test for fellowship,” as you say. However, though 1957 and Billy Graham have faded into history, cooperation with unbelief is alive and well—probably more so than ever. I think it is misguided to see Graham-like cooperation as a battle that was fought and won or lost in the past; it’s still raging. Though Graham has faded from the scene, we’re still dealing with the questions of (a) our relationship to unbelief and (b) our relationship to those who tolerate or partner with unbelief. For example, how should a Dever relate to his friend J. I. Packer? (I think that’s an interesting test case, and one that is very Graham-like.) Or how should a Piper relate to unbelief in the BGC? And how should I relate to those men depending on their decisions?

    Sure, Graham is no longer the center of attention, but the issue he brought to the forefront is still a pressing one. IMO.

  2. (Chris, I just saw you posted a comment on this thread. What I wrote below precedes what you wrote above. My apologies. As I have time, I hope to interact with what you’ve written.)

    Dr. Doran,

    Thank you for the opportunity to clarify some items in my article. Thanks also for your patience while you’ve waited for a reply to your questions. You see now why I am “an occasional blogger.” =)

    Please allow me to answer the second question first, since I think it will be shorter. I counted Piper and Carson among right wing evangelicalism because of their relative placement with respect to the rest of contemporary evangelicalism. Certainly that label stretches over a wide range of theological viewpoints, orthodox and otherwise. The commitment of Piper and Carson to core conservative doctrines such as the inerrancy of Scripture and the substitutionary atonement of Christ seemed to justify placing them on the right of the evangelical spectrum. Now one may argue that Piper and Carson may be to the left of MacArthur (as Michael Patton argues at http://www.reclaimingthemind.org). But compared to the rest of what passes for evangelicalism, I would consider Piper and Carson to be right-wingers. My intent was not to conclude that they are different than “the older new evangelicalism” as represented by Ockenga and Henry. (I haven’t read enough of the latter two to offer a well-developed opinion on that question.) My assessment concerned the contemporary situation as opposed to the historical development. Certainly the historical development of evangelicalism demands consideration; it simply wasn’t my focus for this article.

    And that was the shorter answer?

    As to your first question, I think an easy answer would be to say Yes. Obviously much recent discussion has questioned the validity of secondary separation. Many whom I would regard as “historic fundamentalists” listened to Dr. Minnick’s exposition of 2 Thessalonians 3 and were unconvinced of his conclusions. So I am sure that they are more likely to reject second-degree separation.

    That being said, it seems to me that the matter of so-called secondary separation is not the core difference. Instead, I think it reveals a core difference, namely, one’s attitude toward separation as a whole.

    Historic fundamentalists think of separation as primarily positive: they are “separated unto the gospel” (Rom. 1:1). Consequently in relationship to other Christians, they begin with their union with Christ (1 Cor. 12:13) and seek to be diligent to maintain that Spirit-created unity (Eph. 4:3). They would argue that this does not nullify the Scripture’s exhortations to be separate from the world, false teachers, or disobedient brothers. In fact, the very fact that they are separated to the gospel demands that they separate from those three groups. The analogy I’ve often heard is that of marriage: saying Yes to this woman necessarily means that one is saying No to all others. The groom need not go to every other woman to tell them No; his covenant to his bride says it all. Likewise, if one is standing for the gospel, then by default that one is not standing for whatever is contrary to the gospel.

    So how is that posture different from traditional fundamentalists? From my experience, many traditional fundamentalists do not begin their defense of separation from disobedient brothers by articulating their already-established union in Christ with conservative evangelicals. Instead the method has been to begin with a man’s associations or practices (e.g., John Piper’s refusal to leave the Baptist General Conference, Mark Dever’s refusal to dissociate from J. I. Packer) and then reason to the conclusion that Christians must separate.

    I don’t think this is merely a methodological difference. It is a difference in attitude concerning how separation should be applied. Historic fundamentalists are more positively inclined toward people whom traditional fundamentalists have already concluded are compromising the gospel. That often leads historic fundamentalists to think that traditional fundamentalists are too quick in looking for a reason to separate and too slow to rethink a decision made years ago. Traditional fundamentalists counter that if the purity of the gospel is compromised, separation is the only right conclusion. Historic fundamentalists agree in principle, but often not in application.

    Historic fundamentalists look at many conservative evangelicals and conclude that the two groups are standing side-by-side on the same foundation: the gospel of the person and work of Christ. Yet they find a wall between the two that was erected fifty years ago. They agree with traditional fundamentalists that the wall was built for good reason. But they look at the current landscape of fundamentalism and evangelicalism and question whether it should still exist (to protect the purity of the gospel) or whether it should be removed (to maintain the unity of the gospel). I think they are leaning toward the second option. The burden resting on them is removing that wall without building a new wall between them and traditional fundamentalists.

    Grace and peace to you,
    Matthew

  3. […] Earlier this week on the blog My Two Cents, Dr. David Doran, pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, asked two clarifying questions from my article on fundamentalism […]

  4. Chris (or Matt . . . or anybody else),
    If this is not the place to ask this question, please just delete this post. But this pertains to the application of separation. I’m not ‘in the ministry’, so sometimes I battle the separation issue a little differently. But how do we, as fundamentalists, apply the Scriptural principle of separation in a non-ministerial setting? (And yes, Chris, I know I am probably stretching the definition of fundamentalist to its extreme boundaries in order to squeeze myself in! :) )
    I have subcontractors that work for me that would require, by the current idea of secondary separation, for me to break fellowship with them. And yet I can pray with, eat with and worship with them on the ‘same foundation’ as Matt put it. Is separation a matter of ministries not linking arms or does it necessarily go down to the personal level? And where do you draw the line? For I will have unsaved contractors in my home for the purpose of ministering and will not even question it. I’ve been on hunting trips with groups of men for days that are as worldly as they come. Where is the breaking point? Is it where someone claims the name of Christ but is harming it vs. someone who is just unsaved? And how do we, as finite humans, distinguish between those who are unsaved and those who claim the name of Christ but are holding onto gospel harming doctrines? Is this making any sense?
    It seems like the line between reaching the lost and separating from apostates is so fine that it could be crossed unknowingly. And that seems to lead to one of two reactions. Some back as far away from the line as possible and others run across it laughing and waving their arms!
    Any help?
    Again, if this isn’t the place . . .the whole thing about Graham just got me thinking. I personally believe he made some mistakes, but at the same time there is maybe not a man in history that has proclaimed the gospel to more people. Effectiveness may be a different discussion, but that is for another time.
    Thanks.

  5. It’s a great question, Michael. My quick, pre-dinner response:

    1 Cor. 5 indicates that we should expect the unsaved to sin. We don’t separate from them over it—doing so would require that we go out of the world. So I don’t think separation applies to personal relationships at all like it does to ecclesiastical/religious relationships. Examples:

    * I’ll have dinner with my RC neighbors, hoping to win them to Christ. But I wouldn’t participate in a religious service with them.

    * I’ll enjoy hanging out with a Pentecostal co-worker or family member, at least to a degree, but I’ll not speak in his church or have him speak in mine.

    * I’ll run with an atheist, hunt with a Mormon, etc.

    Of course, there are exceptions. I think it would be wise not to enter into a business partnership with a lost man, but I’m really not sure the Bible explicitly forbids it. I’d encourage Christians to have best friends who are believers (Prov. 13:20). I can’t maintain a social relationship with a believer who has been disciplined (1 Cor. 5), etc.

    But generally, I think it can be harmful to apply separation issues to non-spiritual/non-corporate relationships. For example, I’ve had friends refuse to spend time (think ‘birhtdays’) with cousins because their cousins wouldn’t leave their Pentecostal church. I don’t see the Scripture requiring that—or even condoning it.

    Here’s an important matter to consider, as well: Jude seems to differentiate between opposing false teachers (v. 3 ff.) and compassionately reaching out to the falsely taught (vv. 22-23). So Christ would blast the Pharisees but associate with notorious sinners.

    Make sense? Answer your questions? If not, please ask some more. Again, it’s a great question, I think, and one we need to be clear on.

    Oh…as for BG, I rejoice that the gospel was preached (Phil. 1:18), but I’d say “there is maybe not a man in history that has confused the gospel for more people.” I say that with no joy. Indeed, my grandfather heard the gospel at a California crusade, praise the Lord. But BG muddied the waters in a big way.

  6. Thanks, Chris. You confirmed where I was headed in my heart with this. I appreciate your time and effort.

  7. Matthew,

    Thanks for your response to my questions. I am sure we both have too much going on to spend a lot of time going back and forth, so please understand that that’s not my desire. I did, however, want to simply respond with a few thoughts. Few, in this case, doesn’t translate into short, so I apologize in advance for the length of this comment.

    Piper and Carson
    Thanks for the clarification regarding your thinking on this. I understand your point, and I think the way I was viewing it probably represents the differences you’ve noticed among professing fundamentalists (i.e., traditional vs. “historic” [btw, don’t care for your label selection, but more on that below]). My assumption was/is that all genuine evangelicals and fundamentalists share common theological ground on the essential doctrines, so I took “right wing” to refer to their relationship to fundamentalists in regard to the split between the two groups. FWIW, the core group of early new evangelicals (Ockenga, Henry, Carnell, and even the early Graham) were in the same place theologically as Piper and Carson on the essentials. Here’s how Ockenga summed it up later in his life: “Doctrinally, the fundamentalists are right, and I wish always to be classified as one.” The significant point, as is often the case, was what distinguished them from the fundamentalists. I thought, perhaps, that you saw something in Piper and Carson that was different than these early pioneers of evangelicalism. That they are different from the post-conservatives is a given.

    Secondary Separation
    I appreciate what you’ve written here about the difference in perspective on separation. For my part, this part of the discussion is perhaps most important. As I alluded to above, I am not a big fan of the using the word “historic” as the modifier before fundamentalist, and that’s mainly because, dating back to the early 70s, it’s generally been the label that is chosen for a kind of fundamentalism that will not separate from believers over disobedience to texts like 2 Cor 6:14-7:1; 2 John 9-11; Rom 16:17-19. At each point where there has been a “split” in the fundamentalist camp, one side has opted for the label “historic” and argued that we should return to a position that existed before the fights of the 50s and 60s. What that has meant, most often, is to a time when the exclusive focus of separation was on apostasy/liberalism and didn’t include separation from professing brothers in Christ. Let me be clear, I am not saying that is what you want or are making the case for. I was asking the question precisely because I wanted to understand your position, and not assume that I knew it.

    About the matter of how one approaches separation, I hope that my directness will not come across improperly, but I find the distinction you make in the respective dispositions of traditional vs. historic fundamentalists somewhat simplistic. There are a lot of factors that play into the dispositions of people regarding various subjects. Past experience and personal convictions are two significant factors—some of the folks that fit your description as historic fundies don’t show the same positive disposition toward fundamentalists that they consider to be peculiar in practice (even though I am sure they still view them as brothers). At least I have the consistency of starting negatively on both sides of the equation! 

    But I would even like to challenge you a little on the core of your point. Some of this will probably evidence where we differ with each other on ecclesiology, but I’d be much less inclined to use the texts that you are using as the basis for ecclesiastical fellowship (which I take to be the relationships of churches to each other, including ministerial cooperation). I think the emphasis of those texts is on relationships within the local church among believers who are part of the same local body of believers. Clearly, there is some appropriate extension of their application to the relationship of believers outside of the local church, but I’ve never been convinced of the common argument that there needs to be some kind of visible unity among all believers. So, directly to your point I think, I do start with the presumption that I have something in common with all genuine believers, but I don’t believe that means I must start with the presumption that we can share pulpits, join our churches in cooperative ministry, etc.

    When it comes to the level of interaction, I will gladly admit (plead guilty?) that I am purposefully cautious. I think I have biblical warrant for such caution. Why do I hesitate before engaging in cooperative ministry? The main reason is that I believe that all such cooperation is voluntary, so it’s permissible, even good, to have high standards for it. Everything we do reflects our theological commitments and teaching, so choices should be made with that in mind. Our example is an important part of our teaching, and what we embrace is very important. I am sure we agree on this.

    That leads me to be willing to err, if need be, on the side of caution. In a twist of irony, allow me to quote Dr. Carson: “The most dangerous errors in any generation are those that many Christian leaders do not see …. And part of the gift of discernment lies not only in perceiving the theological ramifications of a particular stance, but its long-term implications. If some position or other, superficially useful or good on the short haul, is allowed to flourish unchecked for fifty years, what will be the result?” (Love in Hard Places, p. 170). This, to me, is the great problem—it takes time to discern directions and implications, so we ought to be cautious enough to think things through.

    My caution, then, is rooted in: (1) the preponderance of texts which call us toward guarding the faith in combination with the clear warnings of Satanic/demonic opposition to the truth (e.g., 1 Tim 4:1 ff; 2 Cor 11) and the general decline of the times (e.g., 2 Tim 3:1-4:5); (2) the belief that the focal point of unity around the truth is the local church (1 Tim 3:15); and (3) the consequences of false/dangerous unity seem greater than over-cautious separatism (e.g., 2 Tim 2:18; Jude 12). I will freely acknowledge that some have gone well past over-cautious separatism into plain old schismatic behavior. This is the ditch on the other side of the road from unbiblical compromise.

    Making specific application to the issue at hand (the relationship between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals), it seems to me that unless the flawed strategy of the original new evangelicals is repudiated by the conservatives, then they are on the same course and will sadly reach the same destination. Toleration of, let alone cooperation with, false doctrine tends inevitably toward theological infection—working like leaven (cf. Gal 5:9) or spreading like gangrene (2 Tim 2:17). I sincerely rejoice in the renewed emphasis on separation among conservative evangelicals and I earnestly hope that it blooms into a full doctrine of ecclesiastical separation, even if it fleshes out differently than I desire.

    I guess it comes down to the fact that I believe that the local church is “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and the responsibility that entails makes guarding the purity of the gospel a higher priority than pursuing unity (i.e., unity is not ultimate, fidelity takes priority over it). And I believe that there is a clear distinction that needs to be acknowledged between the relationship of two believers in Christ by virtue of their union with Christ and how that plays out in the ecclesiastical/ministerial realm.

    These are fun times to be alive and serving Christ! May He grant us all wisdom and discernment as we seek to understand and apply biblical truth for His glory!

    For the sake of His name,
    Dave

  8. “I’ve never been convinced of the common argument that there needs to be some kind of visible unity among all believers.”

    I’m speechless. John 17:20-23. Obviously Jesus wanted even UNBELIEVERS to observe this unity among ALL (v. 21) who believe in Jesus through the testimony of the apostles.

    Good article, Matthew.

  9. Be reasonable, Matt. How would you suggest that we pull off “some kind of visible unity among all believers”? Be sure that your answer includes the two ideas “visible” and “all.”

  10. Matt,

    I will concede a lack of clarity on my part. I was focusing on the “common argument” part of that sentence, i.e., the way in which people have used John 17 to argue for a visible unity that is essentially an organizational one. In other words, when someone makes the case that we need to have things like T4G or a SBC in order to live out John 17, I find it unconvincing.

  11. I agree that our visible unity is not essentially an organizational one. I agree that we don’t NEED T4G to live out the command of John 17 (otherwise the command was impossible to fulfill in the first 2,000 years of church history). And I agree that visible unity is much more easily demonstrated organically through a single local church. But we clearly need SOMETHING beyond the provincialism (and I don’t even mean that in the pejorative sense) of our local churches in order to pursue the SPIRIT of Jesus’ prayer in John 17:20-23.

    I don’t think I’m being unreasonable by citing a specific Scripture reference. Do you suppose Jesus was being “unreasonable” when he prayed not only that “all be one,” but went on to pray, “Just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you”? I don’t think it’s more reasonable to assume Jesus was just wasting words.

    I won’t be taking you up on your challenge to suggest HOW we would pull off Jesus’ prayer (which would probably just result in disagreement and dis-unification!). Christ himself did not specify HOW this would/could be accomplished for the world to see and believe. What he did make clear is that this unity would be in the truth of God’s Word (v. 17) by becoming partakers in God’s eternal love for Himself (v. 21).

    I would suggest it is quite reasonable to pray for God to do, for His glory, what Christ prayed for Him to do.

  12. Matt,

    So, basically you agree. Yet you couch it in disagreement, but a fuzzy kind of disagrement at that–Jesus must mean something beyond the provincialism of local churches, but who knows what that is or how to do it since Jesus didn’t tell us. But we can work on the “spirit” of what Jesus meant somewhere beyond the church, but not sure where. I guess I’d tilt toward letting 1 Tim 3:15 control my understanding of where and how Jesus wants this lived out.

    BTW, I said “things like” T4G, not T4G itself, so your point there is unnecessary.

    It seems to me like you are just looking to be disagreeable–a sign I usually pick up when people follow words like “I’m speechless” with a speech. Not quite sure what has put the burr under your backside, but it doesn’t help the “conversation” much.

  13. Thank you men for reminding me why I don’t bother with interacting on most pastors’ blogs.

    In response to a general comment I didn’t understand, I posted a Scripture reference to generate some discussion on a text. That’s basically labelled as “unreasonable” (Why? Because what Jesus prayed for seems so incredibly unrealistic?).

    I posted a second time (based on your responses), explicitly mentioning how I think we find basic agreement, and intentionally avoiding being overly specific on an application level (so as not to stir up disagreement, not because I do not personally and corporately apply these things in our church) – and what is the response I get? I get accused of being disagreeable.

  14. Glad to be of help!

  15. Sorry, forgot the smiley face. :)

  16. Um…

    Dr. Doran, I think the “thank you” was as sincere as the “I’m speechless.”

    You kind of came in looking for a tussle, Matt. The fact that we’re under no obligation to “share pulpits, join our churches in cooperative ministry, etc.” (which is the sentence immediately following the one by which you were surprised—context!) really isn’t astounding. Indeed, I think it’s obvious. If Dr. Doran’s point wasn’t clear enough there, in the next paragraph he explained it further:

    “Why do I hesitate before engaging in cooperative ministry? The main reason is that I believe that all such cooperation is voluntary, so it’s permissible, even good, to have high standards for it.”

    Close fellowship and cooperation like Dr. Doran was addressing at the time is entirely optional. Your rejection of that notion (though I can’t imagine that you feel an obligation to let every professing believer share your pulpit) and your dismissive air required an answer and received it. I’m sorry you’re frustrated, but you were mistaken.

    At any rate, I hope you’re seeing the Lord’s blessing on your ministry.

  17. […] 9Marks article “A Christian Fundamentalist Travel Guide” (discussed at MTC here) is interesting. Though it gives me no joy to admit it, I think Joseph’s comment about the […]

  18. Dr. Doran,

    Thank you for your response to my clarifications. I am sorry that it has taken me longer to reply than I wanted. I’m currently trying to cover two positions at Heritage (XP and youth pastor) besides the normal responsibilities of life, so contributing to the blogosphere hasn’t been a top priority.

    Some thoughts in reply:

    1. I agree that there is too much going on for an extended conversation in this medium. If our paths cross in the near future, I would love to discuss these matters over a cup of coffee. (Everything is better over a cup of coffee. =) I think I would find that to be more beneficial than the back-and-forth monologues of the worldwide web.

    2. Re: Piper and Carson. I’m sorry for any confusion I created by my labeling them “right wing.” Thank you for offering me an opportunity to clarify my meaning and for bringing your points to the table. I think the question of if/how today’s conservative evangelicals are different from the original Neo-evangelicals might be the primary issue in this whole discussion. I’m glad for the recent, healthy exchanges between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals over this matter (e.g., your 9Marks article, Minnick’s interview with Dever), and I hope that there will be increasing clarity concerning the answer. In that light, I agree with this statement of yours: “Unless the flawed strategy of the original new evangelicals is repudiated by the conservatives, then they are on the same course and will sadly reach the same destination.”

    3. Re: this point of yours: “I sincerely rejoice in the renewed emphasis on separation among conservative evangelicals and I earnestly hope that it blooms into a full doctrine of ecclesiastical separation, even if it fleshes out differently than I desire.” I appreciate the way you stated this and am in full agreement. This is a tricky point, however. In the attempt to convince conservative evangelicals of the doctrine of ecclesiastical separation, fundamentalists must somehow leave room for differences in application–i.e., letting it flesh out differently for them. That of course does not mean that fundamentalists must “unite with” (whatever that means) conservative evangelicals in that case. But if fundamentalists recognize on the front end that conservative evangelicals may apply the doctrine differently, I think that is a healthy sign

    4. Thanks for giving me some food for thought on the ecclesiological angle re: the unity passages. I hope to take some time to think through your argument. Maybe we can talk about it over coffee. =) One question for now: it seems that many (all?) passages on separation are dealing with local church situations. Do you see a qualitative difference between these passages and those on unity? Or to put it another way, on what grounds do local-church-oriented passages on separation have priority in application outside the local church in comparison to local-church-oriented passages on unity? I think I know what your answer to this is, but I’d rather ask than assume. =)

    5. I agree with you that many of (what I call, for better or worse) the historic fundamentalists are as uncharitable toward traditional and/or old-time fundamentalists as they charge fundamentalists with being towards conservative evangelicals. What a sad irony! I’ve heard Bruce McAllister say on a number of occasions that Christians must pursue both the right position and the right disposition. In their attempt to prove the traditional fundamentalists’ position wrong, I think many historics have fallen prey to the wrong disposition: pride, arrogance, lack of charity, etc. May God give all of us the grace to be clothed with humility, even as our Savior humbled himself for the sake of his own!

    Thank you again for the opportunity to engage on these matters. I don’t want to waste too much more of your time. I’m not certain I’ll have much more time to contribute to this discussion myself–especially with the conversations going on at SharperIron! =)

    Grace and peace to you,
    Matthew

  19. Thanks for the good discussion, men.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: