Revisiting The Question: Where Is The Leadership?

Note: Eric Barger still has dates open for his Take A Stand! Conferences, for March 25-28, 2012.  In what area?  Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Wisconsin – anywhere in the upper midwest USA.  If you are interested in hosting a local “Take A Stand!” Seminar/Conference in your community or your church, please contact Eric via email or call at 214-289-5244.

The following was originally posted at Eric Barger’s Take A Stand Ministries, and re-posted at Ex-Nazarene’s blog sometime in March, 2010.  However, many of you will be aware of this for the first time, and this is one of those reports that need to be refreshed from time to time.  It is important in several ways, one being to illustrate the continuing issue of practically nothing but silence from the leadership of the Church of the Nazarene.  Another is to illustrate what so few have done, and that is to stand up to leadership under the pressure to conform to practices that run contrary to Holy Scripture.  Rev. Rick is not the only one, however, and of that I am thankful, to those pastors who are protecting their flock today by rejecting the nonsense of the emergent church movement.  (Update: Rick Headley and his congregation left the denomination and now worship together and serve God in their community with the freedom they need to preach the Gospel without being forced to compromise biblical principles).  Here is Eric’s report from almost two years ago:

Nazarene Pastor Resigns while Church Officials Attempt to Ignore Heresy (by Eric Barger, March 2010)

Many of you have tracked my research and involvement concerning the Church of the Nazarene and the alarming inroads that Emergent leaders and philosophy have made into this once-sound denomination. Though I am not a Nazarene (and never have been), I speak regularly in solid Nazarene churches and it is no secret that I am a friend and supporter of many inside the Nazarene Church who are engaged in fighting heresy throughout every tier of the denomination, in particular the hierarchical leadership and the extensive Nazarene university system. (See “The Church of the Nazarene and the Emergent Church” for an extensive menu of information concerning this.)

In a newly released position statement, Nazarene General Superintendents acknowledge the controversy and extreme disagreement within their church concerning Emergent teaching and practices. However, according to one District Superintendent, the General Superintendents of the denomination have decided not to take a position concerning Emergent ideas and theology. This is a sad and troubling turn of events.

Bluntly put, one has to wonder how those leading such a large body of Christian believers can ignore the Bible’s strong exhortations to those who would lead God’s Church concerning what can only be described as blatant heresy.

Exposing and routing false teaching was nothing foreign to Jesus, His Apostles and the early Church. Nearly every book in the New Testament outlines a struggle for truth or a warning about apostasy, false teachers or the disastrous outcome of theological error. Paul instructed the Galatians to accept only the authentic Gospel (as represented in the Scriptures) and pronounces a double curse on those who would purvey false doctrine (Galatians 1:8-9). The letter written by the Lord’s half-brother, Jude, is consumed with warnings over false teachers, including the famous statement that Christians are to contend earnestly for the one true faith. Jesus Himself points out that the end of days will be signaled by an exponential increase in false teachers (Matthew 24:11). He caps this by warning that, because of the work of false prophets and their perverted views, the love (for truth) of many (in the Church) will grow faint. Paul clearly instructs Titus that the mouths of those who oppose accurate teaching and doctrine are to be stopped! This is the very crux of biblical apologetics – a reasoned statement of truth and a defense of the true faith in the face of what is false. Thank God that many are vigorously engaging in apologetics inside the Nazarene Church at this time.

One pastor told me recently that he has personally challenged his own District officials concerning Emergent radicalism and when told that there will not be an official denominational position concerning Emergent error he bluntly replied, “No position IS taking a position. To take no position on Emergent isn’t leadership!” I agree. We are also now told that Nazarene university officials are being instructed to try to play down Emergent thought in their midst and, at least for a season, they should cease having Emergent leaders as guest speakers on their campuses. It may be too little, too late, regarding trying to keep key Emergent leaders off the premises however. Emergent philosophy is heralded by many professors and has broad appeal to many unsuspecting students. The unorthodox teaching of Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, Phyllis Tickle, and Alan Roxburgh (among others) has spread like wildfire in the bible colleges and seminaries associated with nearly every denomination. So any effort to limit the appearances of Emergent leaders by the Nazarenes really can’t be construed as any sort of refutation of Emergent teaching but rather only an effort to allow the existing controversy surrounding them to wane.

The Results of Ignoring Heresy

In one of his most emphatic and corrective letters, the Apostle Paul warned, “A littleleaven leaveneth the whole lump.” (Galatians 5:9) That is, if we allow heretical views to gain ground and spawn, it won’t be long before the entire loaf (the Church) is corrupted with heresy.  Nothing better illustrates the deep divide present in the Church of the Nazarene than the fact that solid, bible-believing churches and leaders are now seeing their only recourse to be to leave the denomination. One would hope and pray that the international leaders of the Church of the Nazarene (and nearly every other denomination including the Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God) would wake up and stop courting Emergent heresy as nothing more than just a “new way to do church.”

I have been in constant touch with others who have now been threatened, intimidated and, in one case, actually put out of his ministry position, by Nazarene officials intent on stifling any negative discussion opposing Emergent philosophy. Now there is the case of Pastor Rick Headley from Ohio. Here is the letter he wrote to Rev. Jerry Porter, one of the General Superintendents of the Church of the Nazarene.

Dear Rev. Porter:

On May 5, 2000, after 10 long years of studying and working to finish my studies and complete necessary service time, you ordained me as an Elder in the Church of the Nazarene. At the altar of Grove City (Ohio) Church of the Nazarene you looked me in the eyes and charged me to be faithful to the Word of God and its ministry. You then placed your hand upon my head as I knelt at the altar and you prayed that God would help me carry out the charge that you had given me. I took that charge seriously, Rev. Porter. I have faithfully attended to this charge as a local pastor for a total of 20 years.

I have been disheartened to see our great denomination travel a very slippery slope as it has allowed emergent thinkers to infiltrate our educational institutions, publishing house, and our districts. The heart of this movement is an open denial of the inerrancy and relevancy of God’s Word. The very Word of God that you charged me to be faithful to. I have waited for you and the General Board to refute the leaders of this movement in our denomination and reaffirm the Church of the Nazarene’s commitment to scripture. The General Board’s silence on this issue has been deafening.

Rev. Porter, I am conflicted by the idea that you charged me to be faithful to God’s Word and its ministry and yet you choose to be silent as well known Church of the Nazarene leaders such as Jon Middendorf, Dan Boone and others use their influence to propagate the emergent ideology. I am compelled to believe that the silence of the General Board on this issue is communicating an acceptance through tolerance.

“How much further will they go?” was the question that was asked by the great preacher C.H. Spurgeon in his magazine “Sword and Trowel” in August 1887. He asked this of the Baptist Denomination – a movement that he had faithfully served for 35 years and in which he was the most prominent preacher. For some time, he and others in the Baptist Union had been concerned that apostasy from earlier standards might be showing up in the denomination. They were also concerned at the character of the teaching being given in some of the Baptist colleges. After asking the above question, the great soul-winner said, “It now becomes a serious question how far those who abide by the truth once delivered unto the saints should fraternize with those who have turned to another Gospel.”

 After much prayer and deliberation I have decided to return my ordination document to you. I can no longer tolerate the idea of being associated with a denomination that openly allows an ideology that promotes disdain for God’s Word, ancient mystic practices, and pagan catholic traditions.

Sadly Submitted,
Rev. Rick Headley

(To read the rest of the original post, click here.)

The original question was: where is the leadership?  In the next week or so, I will have a report on a specific issue that I reported on last year.  It will be sent to the leadership for comment as to the acceptability of this matter I will bring up.  It will shock even the most skeptical of those who think I am just one of the many who are “crying wolf”.  Will the leadership respond and answer my question, one way or the other?  Or will they continue to avoid giving a definitive answer?  We’ll see.

14 responses to “Revisiting The Question: Where Is The Leadership?

  1. Very good post.

    Not to get off topic, but the church I attend is having an evangelist by the name of Dan Bohi coming in sometime in the next month or so. From what I have read about this fellow, I’m troubled. He seems far too caught up in the “signs and wonders” movement, and it has been reported that he has compared himself to Benny Hinn.

    As somebody who left the charismatic/pentecostal movement, I cannot agree with this, and I took the time to write my pastor and inform him that I do not approve of Mr. Bohi coming to the church, and will not be attending on that Sunday.

  2. I will give you a link to some of his previous sermons, as soon as I find them. I too am concerned about him at the moment.
    As far as I know, he has also never preached directly against the emergent church movement. That bothers me.

  3. Enterthevein , I hope this will help concerning Dan Bohi. Several months ago our district “The South Florida District” had a district wide revival with Dan Bohi. I had never heard Dan preach before, in fact, I did not know him at all. Dan never claimed that he was a preacher, as in ordained, but a layman called to bring the message of deliverance. Dan came and there was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit and many people received spiritual help including special needs involving healing both physical and emotional. Not once did he compare himself to Benny Hinn or anyone else. Perhaps someone else made that statement about him??

    I receive his news letter and follow his ministry and can only report what pastors say is happening in their churches spiritually. I ask him if he had heard of the emergent church and he said, if I can recall correctly, that he is not involved in that, he leaves that to others, and it is not what God called him to do. At the beginning of his news letter Dan starts it with this statement: “A calling to awaken the Church of Jesus Christ to the power, purity, and freedom of the Spirit-filled life, found, realized, experienced and exhibited in the lives of the believers in the book of Acts!”

    Dan strongly believes that the miracles performed in the early Church is just as prevalent today as back then that Christ be lifted up and receive praise. I urge you to attend at least one of his services before you decide not to attend.

  4. lige, according to this site (, the blog author listened to Bohi speak at the M11 conference, and said that Bohi compares what he is doing to Benny. I don’t know of any other minister he could be talking about than Benny Hinn.

    In addition, according to the blogsite, Bohi at the conference also speaks about the need for signs and wonders to return to the church, and talked about the “logos/rhema” usage in the New Testament (which is akin to things I’ve heard Word of Faith preachers talk about). I do not wish to take the time to go into the full argument here, but it’s essentially turning a minor vocabulary difference in the New Testament into a point for unscriptural mysticism.

    And let me say this: I was affiliated for several years with the charismatic/pentecostal movement. I saw what transpired in these churches, and I can say that in almost every case it was a placing of the miraculous over the Scriptural, and where Scripture conflicted with what was happening in the church, Scripture was twisted to fit the facts. It became about emotionalism trumping discernment and theology, and that the “healings” were AT BEST God working in spite of bad theology, and at worst an exaltation of healing to a distorted degree (“It’s always God’s will to heal, and if you’re not healed, you don’t have enough faith”). I saw people working up emotions in order to get “in the Spirit” and having to come to the altar because they thought for some reason God couldn’t do anything for them while they sat in the pew. That’s not the Spirt; that’s the flesh, and I want nothing at all to do with it. God never requires us to “check sound doctrine at the door” when it comes to Christianity.

    Furthermore, that Mr. Bohi’s ministry is accompanied by testimonials is no guarantee that what he’s doing is good. Testimonials-even those verified by facts and “signs”-accompany many movements, including cults and false religions. While a testimony can be good, it is not a sure, ironclad sign of truth. I can point to Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons who have teary-eyed testimonies about things that God has done for them, some of them even “miraculous,” but you and I both know that these two cults both deny the deity of Christ as presented by Scripture and also deny the gospel as well.

    I also question Mr. Bohi’s refusal to address the emergent church. There is no place in Scripture for a minister, laymen or professional, to “compartmentalize” his theology. Even if Mr. Bohi is correct about his calling, that does not exclude him from speaking about errors in the church. On the contrary, he of all people would be very effective in speaking out against it, as he seems to have the ear of many Nazarenes. That he does not smacks of evading controversy for the sake of keeping his numbers high. I realize that sounds harsh, but there’s no other way to interpret it.

    I also want to say that the author of the simpyagape website above has mentioned that Dan has spoken in Nazarene churches that are friendly to the emergent church, yet there was no calling out of the emergent doctrine. Do you think Peter or Paul, going to a church with doctrinal issues, would have remained silent about such matters.

    With very rare exception, whenever a church, a denomination, or any Christian movement starts down the mystical “moving of the Spirit” path, a Pandora’s box for trouble is almost always opened. Whether or not Mr. Bohi is a nice, sincere man is not the point; I have met many earnest, sincere people who thought they were doing the will of God when in truth they were listening to their own imaginations or emotions. I have met people who thought they were healed, only to find out that they were so emotionally elated that their condition was simply forgotten about temporarily. I see “healers” elevated to the point of idolatry, with people thinking (no matter how often the healer may argue otherwise in humility) that the healing will only come through the “anointed” of God. Can we look at that and call that a work of God?

    We cannot permit experiences, emotions, and “God told me..” statements to supersede Scriptural doctrine, regardless of how “boring” it may seem in comparison to the whiz-bang excitement of speakers who claim prophetic ability and healing and can get people to come down the aisle. The pursuit of signs and wonders, no matter how attractive or moving they might be, is a sure way to supplant the plain teaching of God. Even if the intentions are good, the outcome is often catastrophic.

    For another reference, I would also suggest “The Strange History of Pentecostalism” found at

  5. One last thing: I am NOT saying Dan Bohi is not a Christian, nor am I saying that he is intentionally and deviously leading people astray. I am saying that Mr. Bohi in his zeal for the Lord, has misguided doctrinal stances that can open the door for bigger and more erroneous doctrines in the Nazarene church.

    Sorry I went so off-topic, Manny. I hadn’t planned on doing this response. My apologies to you.

    And lige, what I said above has nothing to do with what I think of you personally. Based on your other posts, you strike me as a good brother in the Lord. Not bad for a Nazarene 😉

  6. Lige, I’m curious to know what Bohi means when he says the HE is called to awaken. I have not heard him so maybe you can offer insight into his approach. We are to preach the gospel but only God awakens. Manipulation of words for a large altar call proves nothing, but regenerate and actual changed hearts are proof of the Holy Spirits work. Bohi could have no one come to the altar but the Lord could sweep the crowd in belief. The resident pastor would know because the people would desire and actually turn from their wicked ways. Or Bohi could have a 1000 people at the altar and everyone think there was a great outpouring of the Spirit with lots of tears shed but if hearts are not regenerated, what was that but false conversions?

  7. Also, not to mention that the resident pastor and all the people who saw a “visible” altar full of their friends and loved ones wonder why a week or two later nothing changed. Then they all look forward to the next “revival” for another outpouring. That’s emotionalism and manipulation for the glory of man. Not heard Bohi personally to know. I am only curious and cautious of this approach.

  8. Betty and Enterthevein:
    I will try to answer Betty’s question first: “I’m curious to know what Bohi means when he says HE is called to awaken.” Based on some of the things he said in his sermons concerning his own spiritual life being shallow prior to his accident and his later calling into the lay ministry. In my opinion I believe Dan has a deep conviction that for too long the Church has been asleep with little evidence of seeing the Holy Spirit at work where people were being saved and believers being filled with His Spirit. He believes that he is called to preach this message of hope. I do not believe that Dan ever intended to manipulate or claimed to do the work of the Holy Spirit but believed his job was to declare the good news and in doing this he is doing his part to awaken the church. Perhaps he could have used a different word than awaken. I hope this answers your question.

    Enterthevein, In my previous comment, I was not defending Dan one way or the other and only expressed my opinion of him during the revival. Your research of Dan and his ministry I found interesting, and can see why you are skeptical. And I can see where some of his comments raises legitimate concerns and questions. I agree, if Dan is speaking in a Church where unsavory emergent practices are being upheld, and he is aware of it, then he should speak out against them.

    Thanks Manny,

  9. Lige,

    I don’t doubt there was a move of the spirit…but was the spirit tested? Is the spirit filled life Dan Bohi is advocating based on the Holy Spirit which points to Jesus or a counterfeit spirit that behaves in accord with the receivers expectations? Healing and deliverance aren’t the tests. The word is.

    I’d be curious to know if, after taking a closer look at what Dan Bohi believes and teaches and comparing it to scripture, you still hold to him being a messenger of the truth.

    What exactly is the “Spirit-filled” life he teaches? He had a personal encounter with Jesus after his accident? A message of hope, holiness, and power? Why is power bolded? What kind of power are we talking about here?

    These are honest questions with no motive other than to determine if what Dan Bohi is advocating is the gospel of Jesus or another gospel.

  10. Clumsy Sword Bearer and Enterthevein:

    I am no expert on Dan and have only given my opinion about the man based upon what I saw and heard and understand from his news letters. In all sincereity some of the questions that you have asked my opinion on I am not qualified to answer for Dan. Nor is it my place, only Dan can answer your concerns. I sincerely suggest for your own satisfaction that you contact him and ask him. Dan can be reached at

  11. On the Sunday evening of 5/6/12, I went to the Dallas church near downtown to listen to Dan Bohi’s sermon. I did not feel comfortable after I heard some of the statements he made in his preaching. This raised some red flags in my mind about him.

    To make sure that I am not overly dogmatic, I also took several hours to listen to Dan’s online sermon on YouTube “take another drink” (9 parts). After I listened to the sermon, I confirmed that I am not making something out of nothing.

    What concerned me the most is his definition of the term “sanctification”. Dan Bohi rejected the traditional interpretation of the term “sanctification” as God’s complete work of salvation in believers, making them to conformed to the image of Christ in Godliness and righteous living, to live a godly life in doing God’s will as Jesus did. Instead, according to Dan, the term “sanctification” means to be “commissioned, set apart, sanctified by God to replicate the ministry of Jesus” in the sense to work miracles in charismatic power as Jesus did. Here is the quote of the first 2 and a half minutes from his sermon “Take Another Drink 1/9” on the YouTube: ( Minutes 0-2:30)
    He (Dan) said:

    The problem with Protestantism is that we keep trying to prove a theory or a doctrine instead of living Jesus. …
    A big point when dealing with Protestant, the term “sanctification” can be shown, not to be “needs to be shown”, not just “being good”, which in Protestants equals “holiness and sanctification”, but it originally meant “ordained for priesthood”. A priest was someone who ideally inquired of God, to give God’s immediate prophetic word to the people who come consulted with him. They also involved in healing. So if you are sanctified and made holy in the biblical sense, not in the Protestants’ sense, you will be commissioned, set apart, sanctified by God to replicate the ministry of Jesus—to introduce the kingdom, the spirit of God in charismatic power, in the gift of Sprint power. So the real gospel is the miracle power, the dutumas (Greek word), and the salvation, healing, deliverance, not just being good enough to go to heaven, but be empowered enough to bring heaven to earth.

    But what is “living Jesus?” In the end of this sermon “Take Another Drink 7/9”, Dan Bohi gave the definition of “Living Jesus”. First Dan cited several manifestations of the “spirit” during his previous services; (one of them is this: 22 people who were depressed came to the alter, then, before Dan even lay hand on them, they just start to laughing and Dan also start laughing, then all 22 people get healed;) later, in the context of those testimonies of signs and wonders, Dan defined “Living Jesus” as follows:
    We need word and the Spirit;
    We need purity and Power;
    We need the fruit and the gift;
    We need doctrine on display;
    We don’t need it on the shelf; we need to “live Jesus”.
    (“Take Another Drink 7/9” , minutes 6:23)

    From all the context of the above words in the sermon, I do believe that Dan was defining “living Jesus” as the outward manifestation of signs and wonders such as miracle healing, etc. Preaching about miracle healings by itself is not wrong. After all, the Holy Spirit has more miraculous power than all false spirits. What was wrong is this: he was defining these outward manifestations of signs and wonder as “Living Jesus” and “Sanctification”. That became seriously wrong and unbiblical. That certainly violated the fundamental belief of Nazarene church. And he explicitly rejected the fundamental interpretation of the term “sanctification” by protestant tradition, which includes protestant denomination such as Nazarene. I believe the protestant’s especially the Church of Nazarene’s interpretation of the term “sanctification” is sound and correct. Sanctification IS the work of God that prepares us “to be good enough to go to heaven “, for apart from holiness, no one can see God. “10For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness…. 14Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.” (Hebrews 12:10,:14). But in Dan’s view sanctification is not about making us good enough go to heaven, but about making us empowered enough to bring heaven to earth (see the above quotes of his definition on “sanctification”). This is pretty heretical. If this was true, why then the Apostle Peter had urged Christians NOT to put their hope on earth but put their hope in heaven? 2 Peter 3 clearly taught us that our chief end is not about this present life, but about the life to come. For this current earth will be destroyed in fire, therefore we ought to look for the new heaven and the new earth where righteousness dwells, and be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless (,which in Dan’s phrase “to be good enough” to enter the eternal kingdom of heaven).

    2 Peter 3:10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. 14Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;

    Apostle Paul in Colossians also affirmed this view:

    Colossians 3:1If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. 2Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. 3For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.

    It seems that in Dan’s view, the Spirit is not in the Word, the Power is not in the purity, the display has to be some kind of outward manifestation of physicals. What kind of power was he promoting? I had to ask. I totally agree that we need to have godly power to live as Jesus lived, and that a mere head-knowledge of doctrines is not enough to ensure us to go to heaven, but to seek charismatic experience pertaining to this life is not the way to go!

    Another thing that concerns me is his downplaying and discouraging the preaching of the Word and ridiculing of doctrinal discernment and critical thinking. He made statement like these: “the kingdom of God is not a matter of word, but a matter of power …. it’s not preach preach preach preach…” , “I don’t think they killed Jesus because he is the good preacher, I think they killed Jesus because he did what they couldn’t do.” I consider this last statement as totally false. I believe that had Jesus only worked miracles, the Jews would not have crucified him; the Jews crucified Jesus because Jesus condemned them for their sins and preach the gospel of repentance and judgment (Luke 4:14-30). They crucified Jesus because Jesus preached the message of the cross and refused to give them a temporal kingdom pertaining to this world, but proclaimed that he is the King of the eternal kingdom of the new world to come (John 2:23-25, John 6, 8)!

    Another bizarre thing is that he talked about preaching to animals. Whether he meant it or he was simply making some coarse jokes, I don’t know, but he sure spent a long time talking about these kind of nonsense, which at minimum was distractive. I feel those speeches were very unsanctified idle talks.

    Over all, Dan Bohi alert me a lot. He remind me of the false Christianity of the Word Faith Movement, the Kansas City Prophets, and of Todd Bentley. Todd Bentley was the notorious preacher who led the Florida false revival in 2008. Todd Bentley also claimed that he has the anointing and the charismatic power to heal people. But after he laid hands on people, many of them just laugh hysterically and behave like being demon possessed. Todd Bentley himself ended up with having an affair with one of his staff during or shortly after the false revival and eventually he divorced his wife and married the co-worker.

    Here are some footage of Todd Bentley’s manifestation of “power”, and “the signs and wonders”. You can see for yourself whether they were manifestations of the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirits.

    Anyway, discernment is an individual responsibility. I will keep my eyes open and my mind and heart carefully guarded, and I hope everyone in the church will do the same. For “Some men’s sins are clearly evident, preceding them to judgment, but those of some men follow later. 25Likewise, the good works of some are clearly evident, and those that are otherwise cannot be hidden” (1 Tim 5:24-25).

  12. Thanks very much for this report, Grace. Many of us have been concerned about Dan Bohi and his methods and also his preaching. This just adds to the concern. I appreciate your scriptural insights as compared to what he has said, and I agree with you. It is my prayer that those who really like Dan Bohi a lot, will be objective in their scrutiny of his teachings and not turn a blind eye to what he is saying and promoting.

  13. Dan also states in his U Tube video that he does not like the definition of faith given in Hebrews 11. Then Dan goes on to give his own definition of faith.
    Do we really want to trust somone who states he reads Gods word but the states he doesn’t agree with it and redefines it
    No wonder Dan doesn’t criticize the Emergent Church.
    Isn’t that
    what they do.?
    Tim Wirth

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s