Denomination update and why numbers matter

ECO-Presbyterian

As many of you know, I belong to a Presbyterian Church (USA) congregation. Moreover, I am in the ordination track for the Presbytery of Charlotte. And if that were not enough, I attend a PCUSA seminary, and I work at the seminary. Needless to say, I have an invested interest in the controversies plaguing the Presbyterian Church (USA). It pains me beyond words to see our denomination complete its long trajectory of cultural pandering and shameless accommodation.

A few weeks ago, the session (elders) of our church voted unanimously to be dismissed from the PCUSA. The Sunday after the vote, each elder gave his or her perspective on the decision, resulting in a remarkably diverse enumeration of grievances. I know from talking with the pastoral staff and some of the elders that this was not an easy decision. It was soaked in prayer, especially in the immediate weeks prior to the vote. There was no triumphalism in their statements, yet a confidence that God will continue to be faithful in the journey ahead. The elders were especially intent on making it clear that we are not morally superior to the PCUSA, for we are all equally dependent upon God’s grace. The congregation still needs to vote, but I expect wide support for the elders’ decision. Like most of the recent dismissals, we are planning to enter ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians.

Naturally, I am in the middle of all this as a seminarian. I have told the session that where the church goes, I will go. Thus, I will likely transfer into the ordination process of ECO.

Numbers

In our area, the most significant dismissal to ECO has been First Presbyterian Church, Greenville (SC), which is about 3,100 members. I know that we are supposed to be pious and not focus on numbers, but it is a significant fact that the average ECO congregation is over 500 members, with FPC-Greenville and FPC-Colorado Springs as the largest. As well, there have been significant departures to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), notably First Presbyterian Church in Orlando, which is nearly 4,000 members. By contrast, the average PCUSA congregation is just shy of 100 members. I know, numbers aren’t everything, we shouldn’t focus on numbers, and so on. I understand the sentiment, but when you are looking at a demographic catastrophe in membership loss, numbers are actually pretty damn important. So, what are some of the denominational numbers?

We all know that the heyday of the mainline was the early 1960’s, when the Presbyterian Church (USA) was over four million members. By 1990, we were at three million. By 2000, we had 2,525,330 members. By 2011, we had 1,952,287 members. That is a 22.69 percent decrease in membership in a little over a decade! They have not released the 2012 numbers (which will include the loss of some significant churches), and they will prove to be horrendous I am sure. The PCUSA lost 53 percent of its membership between 1960 and 2011. Meanwhile, the U.S. population increased 72 percent between 1960 and 2010.

But, that is not quite the worst of it. The median age of a PCUSA member is over 60. This is the baby boomer generation, which is not exactly my favorite generation (but they gave us some good music). To put it bluntly, they will be dying in the next twenty years or so. There is scarcely anyone to replace them (except for over-educated, affluent young seminary grads who can’t find a job…but I digress). So, the projected statistics for the PCUSA is not merely a continuing decline but a demographic free-fall. So, yeah, numbers matter at this point. One sorta benefit, however, is that the bloated bureaucracy of the PCUSA has been forced to shrink…presbyteries are firing nearly all full-time employees and Louisville (headquarters) is likely to be further gutted. Of course, I am sure they’ll keep their political lobby groups going (Israel-Palestine Mission Network and support for the National Council of Churches, which has been reduced to a pathetic lobby group in Washington).

Now, in terms of numbers, there will be tough times ahead for all denominations, evangelicals included. For the time being, both the EPC and ECO are beneficiaries of PCUSA silliness. But once the evangelical wing of the PCUSA is depleted, they will have to grow and maintain on their own, in prayer and fidelity to Holy Writ.

light_blue

Just to be clear, this is a personal blog, and my views are my own, not on behalf of my church or seminary.

29 comments

  1. So what’s the difference between the EPC/ECO and the PCA? Are they more open on things like evolution, the nature of biblical inspiration, women in ministry, and so on?

    I go to one of the largest Anglican churches in the US (AMiA – at least for now), so we have our own denominational messes.

    • Yes, on all accounts, those would be some of the differences between EPC/ECO and the PCA. Within the PCA, you will find people who push the boundaries in a more moderate direction, but by and large the PCA tilts in a fundamentalist direction. They are debating intinction and whether it should be allowed, which totally blows my mind! You will also find a significant number who believe that Roman Catholic baptism is invalid (thus, rebaptism is necessary). So, yeah, it’s a different world. The AMiA would be closer to EPC/ECO than to the PCA.

      As for the differences between the EPC and ECO, they are rather small. The EPC subscribes to the Westminster Standards, whereas ECO has the Book of Confessions (Scots, Heidelberg, Second Helvetic, Westminster, Barmen, ’67 Confession). However, ECO also has a statement on “essential tenets” which identifies the non-negotiables within the Book of Confessions, and these tenets are very orthodox and very Reformed. The lack of any clearly defined “essential tenets” has plagued the PCUSA for a hundred years.

      Another difference is that the EPC allows each congregation and presbytery to decide on women’s ordination, whereas ECO prescribes it for the entire denomination. However, this difference is not as significant as it appears. The EPC has unanimously voted (a couple years ago) to allow any congregation with ordained women to affiliate with a sister presbytery that allows for ordained women. Thus, every church in the EPC is able to affirm women’s ordination. Moreover, I have heard (but I have not confirmed it yet) that only one presbytery in the EPC prohibits women ministers.

      It is also worth noting that both the EPC and ECO are rather “complementarian” in their view of gender, by comparison to the feminist ethos of the mainline, even though they both allow for women’s ordination. Thus, you will scarcely find senior pastoral positions given to women, but you will find them ministering alongside male senior pastors, complementing their work. I agree with this practice, but I am also stepping on some toes within ECO (many who think that women should be senior pastors).

      The difference in confessional standards and the issue of women’s ordination are normally cited as the two differences between the EPC and ECO. However, another important difference is that ECO is intentionally modeling itself on parachurch ministries and networks, in order to facilitate church planting and church revitalization. By contrast, the operating model (polity) of the EPC is not much different than standard Presbyterian models (whether PCA or PCUSA). Thus, for example, ECO will authorize any elder (not just the pastors) to perform the sacraments in non-traditional environments, like house churches. This is widely practiced in Africa and Asia where it is a necessity. This is a small but important step in thinking beyond our traditional models. At the same time, ECO is very intent on cherishing and passing on the best of Presbyterian and Reformed practice and thinking, as is demonstrated in the official documents on the ECO website.

      • Would Tim Keller be an example of the more moderate wing?

        The AMiA/ACNA controversy is almost entirely due to administrative and personal conflicts, not any major doctrinal issues. Because of our size and young congregation, there’s actually a tug-of-war between the AMiA and ACNA over who gets our church! It’s a mess and kind of sad. Fortunately, it hasn’t affected us much internally and we still have a bishop.

      • Yes, Keller would be a good example. He has annoyed many of the old school folks, with his push for women deacons (not elders even, just deacons), his “progressive creationism” views, and his general orientation toward evangelical piety (more Gordon Conwell than Westminster Philly, for example). It is a sad reflection on the PCA that someone like Keller is actually controversial. He would be super conservative by any other standard. I would love to see him in either the EPC or ECO. He actually spoke at one of the ECO meetings last year, and ECO leaders have been looking at Redeemer as a model for ministry. If certain PCA guys keep antagonizing Keller, maybe he’ll jump ship.

        I have heard about some of the squabbling you mention in the “continuing Anglican” movement. I have a friend here in Charlotte who is ACNA, and he has tried to get me to join. Since I have a broadly catholic orientation to the Reformed faith, it would be a good fit, but I like the confessional heritage of the Presbyterian tradition too much. The liturgical center of Anglicanism needs a stronger doctrinal identity. But, these are relatively small differences, and I could easily be Anglican one day, depending on location and circumstances.

      • Thanks for the clarifications on all the differences. I am a member of St. Thomas the Doubter which is a PCA church in Dallas and we are definitely on the ‘left’ in our presbytery but would be considered moderate in broader circles. I think we are providing a really good voice for the PCA in our area. Our pastor along with a few others have given the more moderate in the PCA a place in our presbytery. Also, that whole intinction mess baffled us.

        While I haven’t heard of the ECO, I have some good friends who are members at a EPC church. I have heard good things so far and I hope these denominations do well.

      • Jacob,

        I think a lot of churches and pastors who went PCA, did so because of a lack of alternatives to the PCUSA, especially in certain regions of the country. But with the massive growth of EPC in the last 10 years and now ECO, a lot of these more moderate PCA folks would actually be more comfortable in either EPC or ECO. All the same, I am glad that the PCA has cooler heads that are focused on what really matters.

  2. My hope, by the way, is that the EPC and ECO will eventually merge. At the least, they can enter into an agreement to share ministers and pulpits, making the transition from EPC to ECO (and vice versa) as seamless as possible.

  3. The PCUSA where we attend is currently associated with ECO, but as I have been getting to know I our pastor (we just had lunch last week), he has informed me that our church will probably have to officially leave PCUSA and become full fledged ECO once gay ordination is approved (which he thinks it will within a couple of years if not sooner).

    My pastor’s wife, I just found out, is also an ordained PCUSA pastor (but she is not employed at our current church–she has pastored with her husband in the past though); which has given me some pause (he and I are going to talk about that), since I am complementarian. The way you have described it, though, Kevin, might well be the rationale that my pastor and his wife follow; i.e. that she serves as associate pastor “under” the headship (so to speak, at least by way of “office”) of her husband, or whomever she might be serving with (it sounds like, of course, that she only serves with her husband). I haven’t thought of this kind of nuance before, and I’m still thinking about it (it isn’t much different than having females who are directors of ministries in particular churches by way of function … so then it merely becomes an issue of semantics). I definitely believe that women have the “gifting” of pastor, by the “office” I have viewed as distinct from gifting (in the past)–but I am still considering this.

    Kevin, how do you start the ordination process in the PCUSA (I’ll have to ask my pastor the same thing–he has already asked me to start teaching 🙂 )?

    PS. Your point is well taken about over-educated seminarians in the PCUSA; I think the educational model might be changing (because of cost and an artificial distinction between academia and the body life of the church).

    • I’m glad that your pastor is considering dismissal from the PCUSA. I’m less and less convinced that there is any future for a viable evangelical wing within the PCUSA. Gay ordination was already approved with the removal of the “fidelity and chastity” clause a couple years ago. “Fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness” was removed from the Book of Order so that sexually active homosexuals could be ordained. The next step is gay marriage, which was barely voted down by 16 votes (if I remember correctly). They had the support, but some moderate liberals decided that now is not the best time to further antagonize evangelicals and our mission partners overseas. But, most people expect that by 2014’s GA, gay marriage will pass — once again, they have the support and the American culture will only help (the influence of ‘Modern Family’, political figures, celebrities, etc.). So, if your pastor knows that they cannot stay if gay marriage passes, then why wait? Everyone knows it will happen…soon. Furthermore, if your presbytery has a “gracious dismissal” policy, like we have in Charlotte, then y’all should take advantage of it. These gracious dismissals will be fewer and fewer in the coming years, as the PCUSA gets more desperate.

      I will definitely encourage you to spend more time on the “complementarian egalitarian” option. It was held by John Stott, J. I. Packer, and other evangelical stalwarts of the recent past. It is largely under the influence of The Gospel Coalition (and associated ministries) that a hardline complementarianism has been pitted against a hardline egalitarianism (=feminist). There are other options. It is similar to the way that many in the PCA are making either strict Creationism or pure Darwinian evolution the only options…when there are a myriad of other tenable positions. By the way, I touched upon the topic of ordained women ministry in my Gender and Theology series back in January. Charlotte von Kirschbaum approved women’s ordination while holding to Barth’s complementarity of the sexes. Also, there is the very interesting book from John Dickson that I reviewed: Hearing Her Voice.

      The ordination process for the PCUSA (which is the same for ECO, at least for the time being) is basically as follows:

      1. Spend at least one year as a member of a PCUSA church. (This may be flexible, but probably not.)
      2. Get your pastor and the session of your church to approve your application as “inquirer” in your presbytery. The session will pick an elder who will be your liaison to the presbytery.
      3. Send the Inquiry application to the presbytery. They will review it, meet with you, and then vote on whether they will admit you as inquirer.
      4. Spend a year as “inquirer” at your church, under the observation of your liaison and your pastor (teaching Sunday school, helping with mercy ministries, etc.).
      5. Apply for “candidacy” in your presbytery. At this level, the presbytery takes over and does a series of meetings and evaluations, including a comprehensive psych evaluation.
      6. Spend at least a year (sometimes 2 years) as a candidate.
      7. Take your ordination exams (on Bible, theology/confessions, and polity) and pass.
      8. Find a call at a local church. You are ordained upon finding a call, not prior.

      That’s it! It’s not as bad as it seems at first glance. Of course, you will need an M.Div., including Greek and Hebrew. Did you get an M.Div. at Multnomah?

    • Also, it just occurred to me, you might want to review the “essential tenets” of ECO. I think it is fantastic, but you should be aware that it is very Reformed. It’s not quite as strict as Westminster, but it is obviously Reformed in the section on salvation. I can affirm it, but I am more accommodating to classical Reformed theology, as you know. The “essential tenets” are the non-negotiables for ECO officers (pastors, elders, deacons).

      Presbyterians have long held a policy that requires all ordination candidates to affirm “the essentials of Reformed theology” in the confessions. Thus, you can make a small scruple about “non-essentials” but not about an “essential.” (For example, several Reformed confessions prohibit the display of images of Christ, but I could declare my reasons for affirming such images.) Each presbytery decided on what amounted to an essential. This policy worked fine until the 20th century. We have lost the theological acumen and integrity to know what the essentials are, and we are too divided in the PCUSA to produce an effective statement. Thus, ECO is trying to remedy this problem, and I think their Theology statement is an excellent expression of Reformed essentials.

  4. My pastor is well informed. He mentioned a study to me done by someone who does such things from within the PCUSA. The conclusion was that the majority of the PCUSA is actually made up of Evangelicals still, then the Moderates, then the “Liberals.” So the money is with the Evangelicals simply by pure numbers; this is why (as my pastor noted) the PCUSA is moving slower than they would like toward full fledged social liberalism (etc.). Even so, my pastor actually believes that a massive rupture is going to be happening in the near future, which means that the PCUSA (in his mind) will fold–since the “money” actually comes from its “Evangelical” wing (which you and I represent among many others). He told me he is an evangelist at heart, and so the reason they are staying in for the time being is to maintain a voice among the liberals and moderates in the PCUSA (a missionary voice as he told me). That’s his rationale.

    Thanks for sharing the process of ordination. Dang, I knew I should have just stuck it out and got my MDiv 😉 at Multnomah. It really was a mistake that I didn’t get the MDiv, that degree has much more vocational value that I realized back then. That doesn’t mean I can’t still get one though (like you). That’s interesting that an MDiv is required; because when I had lunch with my pastor, he asked me if I had the MDiv, and I said I had just the MA (and he didn’t pursue anything further in re. to his question). But I’m thinking he might have had ordination in mind for me; I don’t know. Anyway, that is when he asked me if I’d like to teach.

    As of late, Kevin, I see myself more open to traditional stuff in Reformed theology. But then I also see Barth as more of my style than even Torrance (interestingly); and I mean Barth’s biblicism. I think I’m starting to favor Barth a little more because he is more Christocentric than even Torrance, and I am starting to realize how Torrance is more ecclesiocentric in his theological method and reliance upon the Tradition. I think Barth actually fits with my Free church sensibilities than does Torrance. That said, I will always love Torrance (in fact my pastor wants to maybe start a TF Torrance study group with me–my pastor was mentored by TFT while he attended PTS where he got his MDiv).

  5. I will continue to think about the complementarity-egalitarian issue (and meeting with my pastor will be good too). I will check out your posts, thanks.

  6. Huh, that would be an interesting study to read. Most people say that evangelicals are 1/3, moderates are 1/3, and liberals are 1/3. I might agree that evangelicals are the majority if we are talking about people in the pews, but even then I’m skeptical. The lines are too blurry, and you will find that many “evangelicals” are better classified as moderates and willing to just go with the flow. Like the false prophets, “They cry ‘peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.” Thus, the 1/3 divisions actually underestimate the influence of liberals. When “push comes to shove” the moderates are in-line with the liberals. I am in the area of the country where moderates dominate (N. Carolina, Virginia) and our seminary (Union) prides itself on being moderate. I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of these moderates will be affirming gay marriage in the next ten years. I have no doubt. Most of them already do. Anyway, we know that the pastors and elders are most definitely not majority evangelical — otherwise, our GA votes would look a whole lot different.

    And we shouldn’t just focus on homosexuality. There is a long-running and systemic problem of how the Bible is approached. I guarantee you that the large majority of PCUSA pastors in N. Carolina and Virginia reject the “genocidal” God of Joshua/Judges, to give you one example, and they are taught in seminaries that the OT is just the literary expression of the Israelite religious self-consciousness. Christ is the corrective to the false expressions of God in the OT. Thus, the prophetic books are heavily favored, and the patriarchal/historical books are heavily criticized.

    • Joshua and (at least parts of) Judges actually are troubling though, right? As are parts of the Torah. I’m not comfortable with the liberal approaches of “it’s not actually historical, so don’t worry about it” or “we’re supposed to condemn these texts”, but neither am I happy with the typical evangelical answers on how Joshua really isn’t a problem at all. I probably need to read more OT scholars on this.

      • We don’t know the counsels of God, as to why he found the wickedness of these Canaanite tribes repugnant and necessary for extermination. The more troubling account is the flood, and the images of John’s vision in Revelation are likewise troubling. They should be “troubling,” because sin is serious and judgment is serious.

        I am far too weary to suppose that my 20th/21st century assumptions and “moral” perception are capable of standing in judgment over the actions of God in redemptive history. I really do see this as a non-negotiable for an orthodox view of Scripture (not just evangelical or Reformed orthodoxy but catholic orthodoxy).

      • Well, I accept that it’s in our Bibles because God wanted it to be. Maybe I’ve just read too many triumphalist apologists on Joshua and related texts.

  7. FWIW – I think you might have overstated or confused your description of the PCA.

    I am a member and officer in a PCA church, and have studied at Reformed Seminary in Charlotte, fwiw.

    I would classify the PCA like this: a denomination that requires its officers to strictly subscribe to the Westminster Standards and largely rejects Neo Orthodoxy and most higher critical Biblical hermeneutics. It is largely aspiring to be an Old School Presbyterian denomination. In terms of practice, it is more New School than the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, though virtually identical to the Associate Reformed Presbyterian (ARP).

    While someone like Tim Keller, for instance, may seem more moderate, I disagree that he is more Gordon than Westminster Philly, especially since he studied and has taught at Westminster Philly. He still strictly subscribes to the Westminster Confession, for instance. A Keller / Redeemer model is more of a majority of the PCA these days than older, Southern models. In many ways, what comes out of Redeemer New York is doctrinally more conservative than many, older Southern churches.

    I’m confused by what you mean by the PCA being more fundamentalist. Do you mean in a Charles Hodge / Gresham Machen way? Or a cultural fundamentalism?

    Honestly, I would say that many AMiA guys would be friendly to the PCA, especially since they have some of their students at Reformed Seminary.

    Intinction was really a very minor thing. The big doctrinal discussion in PCA circles these days was over Federal Vision.

    I remain very saddened over the mess going on in many PC USA circles, and am glad more congregations are leaving that denomination.

    • Hey, Jason. Glad to receive your perspective. I am actually in Charlotte. I have friends at RTS-Charlotte. I actually attended for 3 semesters as a full time student, before transferring to a different seminary. Keller is respected, indeed, and several of the guys like his model for ministry. At the same time, I’ve heard more than one complaint about his friendliness toward Francis Collins and other theistic evolutionists and his own progressive Creationism views. This is the huge debate, as you are likely aware, within evangelicalism and certainly on the Charlotte campus of RTS. A number of key faculty members were very hostile to any hint of evolutionary science and rather suspicious of progressive Creationism. The favored model on campus, by far, was/is Young Earth with a handful of Old Earth guys. The other complaint about Keller is his views on women deacons, including certain charges against him for being duplicitous in having women functioning in these roles.

      Keller represents the prior generation of Reformed evangelicals, like Meredith Kline and Roger Nicole, who both taught at Gordon (and the latter also at RTS-Orlando). Roger Nicole would never even remotely have a shot today at RTS-Charlotte because of his views on women in ministry, and Kline’s framework hypothesis would be that “slippery slope” that everyone fears. These two issues — science and women in ministry — are by far the dominant ones at RTS and the like-minded young guys who follow Al Mohler, John Piper, and the same round of conference speakers. Federal Vision is still discussed, but with far less passion.

      In general, the trend at conservative Reformed seminaries — like WTS and RTS, plus SBTS for the Baptists — has been an increasing shift toward the right (i.e., even further right!). When I tell people that the PCA and RTS is more conservative today than in the 70’s and 80’s, they say, “Oh, yeah, definitely.” I’m a pretty conservative guy, and in most settings I’m the most conservative guy in the room. At RTS, I was by far the most liberal guy!

      • Perhaps … I think here terms like liberal or conservative can be misleading.

        Is Westminster prof. Vern Poythress a liberal, or John Frame? Not in any way, but they aren’t beating a tribal drum, which is what I think bothers some folks. Covenant Seminary and Jack Collins OT teaching there I have found very helpful.

        I do know and realize that there are differences between the RTS campuses, like the Charlotte one – and structurally I’m not sure I get how that organization can keep all its moving pieces together without falling apart, with all its campuses. I do think someone like Nicole would still be quite welcome at RTS Orlando. RTS Charlotte was the last teaching spot for Harold OJ Brown and he wasn’t a six day guy, and sometimes I wonder how he slipped through. His replacement is more strict about these things though.

        I do hear you that in some PCA circles there is some fear that that some segments have doubled down, just to prove how conservative they are. And I have experienced it personally, and have seen what amounts to party splits over secondary issues, standing in proxy for major ones. For instance, you’ll see guys at places like a Greenville Seminary embrace a real scholasticism.

        I think if you could take a poll among TE’s in the PCA, I still think the majority would be more like a Keller or Frame. I think the “we are conservative to prove a point about it” are loud though and probably seem more representative than what their real numbers might suggest.

        I’m personally more a Kline / Framework guy, and I understand the history that in the PCA, a ministerial candidate holding something like Kline’s views were quite acceptable a generation ago – and are getting rejected in certain Presbyteries, and end up going to the EPC.

        Thanks for your thoughts, God’s blessings to you.

      • Thanks again, Jason. You might be right about the Orlando campus, and the president of that campus is an EPC guy…but I also know that many folks want greater centralization in the RTS universe, so we’ll see what the future holds. Unfortunately, the young chaps being trained at WTS, RTS, SBTS, etc. are uncritically buying every doomsday warning their professors throw at them. I really long for the old evangelical stalwarts of the previous generation (Packer, Stott, Graham, etc.). Packer and Stott held to a complimentary form of egalitarian ministry (men still lead the church, but women can be ordained) — a position which today will get you blacklisted at The Gospel Coalition, Desiring God, and so forth. I’ve railed against feminism on this blog, but I am basically a feminist in their eyes!

      • I do think it is interesting how the ARP is becoming really polarized over the last few years. I’ve heard folks say that they want to go and minister in the ARP because they feel there is no hope for the PCA and its becoming too liberal.

  8. And I do understand your larger point, and I think it’s something culture wide -as we are all becoming more fragmented and polarized into tribal groups – to the point where purity on everything keeps even basic conversations from happening. It’s really kinda sad.

    • Yep, and as a result, these poor kids at RTS, SBTS, etc. are functionally worthless in any conversation with those “on the outside” (different “worldview”). However, I think they intuit that Keller has something right, with all of his talk about “balance” (not a favorite term at RTS-Charlotte), especially once they face the prospect of real world ministry.

      Thanks for the conversation, Jason. All blessings in your ministry!

  9. Be careful of ECO. It’s logo is a leaf with a cross (will it morph into the Green Cross). I hope and pray it is a legitimate conservative Christian movement, but it has all the earmarks of Ecotheology. The move to eventually bring environmentalism into the church, i.e., nature worship. I am not anti-environment. But the environment has long been used in socialist-communist movements, such as the environmental nature worship of the French Revolution and the Nazis, as well as Communism. In fact, when Mr. Gorbachev left office, he became the President of Green Cross International, a Global Forum for environmentalism, but like Green Peace, a cover for communism. Note the connection to the Green Cross and Marijuana. Not everything is as it seems….there are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

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