Posted by: mattcolvin | August 21, 2014

Retraction on “Quiverfull”

On April 29, 2008, I wrote this retraction on my old Upsaid blog Fragmenta. It was deleted along with the rest of the blog when Upsaid abruptly disappeared. I dug this entry up via Wayback Machine. Since some have been asking for it, I am reposting it here.

The older I get, the less I know.

When Sora and I were first married, we espoused a “Quiverfull” position. This was partly because I had grown up in a church with several large families that I admired; partly because Sora had come to Christianity through the influence of Christian women who were reacting against feminism and everything else. Steve Schlissel’s position on the matter was also an influence.

We talked a pretty hard line against contraception. We were young and arrogant and thought we had all the answers. And of course, I enjoy a good argument, so I didn’t hesitate to stake out the extreme ground and defend it online. I argued with Jon Barlow and Joel Garver. Barlow’s argument was the closest to persuading me out of my position, as he fisked our “QuiverFAQ” and urged that Sora and I were “making the blessing of children into a good unlike any other good.” At the time, I didn’t let on that Barlow had made any dent. But I’m sure that that exchange, and others like it, contributed to my change of mind like water wearing away a rock.

I still respect the Quiverfull position, and am, ironically, grateful that we held it for 8 years, since we got a bunch of lovely children out of it. I have tremendous respect for Steve Schlissel and Valerie Jacobsen and the numerous families we know who are doing a wonderful job with more children than we have. But several considerations have made us change our minds on the issue.

David Daube’s analysis of the issue in his article “The Duty of Procreation” (CWDD 3, p. 951-969 is persuasive to me. His main point is that Onan is not the rule:

[The story] brings out an exceptional situation where you must do your best to produce offspring… To infer from this a basic obligation to procreate is fallacious. Had Onan begotten a child for the deceased and then practiced coitus interruptus, with the widow and ten more women, forgoing the perpetuation of his own name, he would have incurred no reproach. There is nothing strange in this. It is in the very nature of a boon that, while as far as your own person is concerned, you are free to take it or leave it, you must not withhold it from others. a sufficiency of food or a donkey in good shape is a pleasant thing to have. Yet there is no injunction in the Bible against starving myself should I be so minded or against saying good riddance if my own ass break down; indeed I may shoot it even when it is in perfect condition and sell its hide or make a bonfire with it. But – note the analogy to Onan’s case – Biblical law does call on me to allow a corner of my field to be harvested by the poor and to help up another man’s ass that has fallen.

I have also lost a lot of confidence in one of my main arguments: namely, that the church taught against contraception for 1900 years. I’ve come to believe that the church is fully capable of making colossal errors of interpretation, and then hanging onto them for centuries. So I’m now more willing to entertain the idea that Jim Jordan might be right on this issue.

A third factor was Grandpa Mickey, who ever so gently pointed out that the more kids we have, the less time we have with any of them. This rankled like a burr under the saddle, and didn’t seem very persuasive when we only had four. And we answered it by saying that time spent with siblings is a good of which children have more when they’re in a full quiver. But now we have six, and while we’re delighted with all of them, we are feeling the time crunch and recognizing that the maintenance and opportunity costs of many more children will preclude a lot of things we also want to do.

It also seems to me that there are some people who have vocations, even within marriage, that require them to forgo more children. For many years, I was not able to imagine any such vocation, but my imagination has improved with time.

Some parents are uniquely gifted to do a really good job with a large number of children. Our assumption when we only had 2 or 3 or 4 was that if God was willing to keep giving children to a given set of parents, and those parents weren’t doing a very good job of parenting them, then it was ipso facto a result of the sinfulness of those parents: impatience, selfishness, materialism, etc. It was easy to say that they should just get their act together, stop sinning, and keep having kids. But some men are better builders than others, and the Bible says we are to evaluate our resources and act wisely. Saying “just stop being selfish” is not a solution to the problem.

We still think children are a blessing. We still think that the modern birth control mindset should not be the default modus operandi. But we’re no longer willing to say that everyone who uses birth control is sinning.

I am grieved that I was wise in my own eyes, and rejected the counsel of older and more prudent men in the faith. (Doug Wilson’s position comes to mind.) I am sorry that I accused faithful brothers and sisters of sin without Biblical grounds. And I am especially sorry that I bound heavy burdens for other families. I ask your forgiveness.


  1. Here are the original comments left on that entry:

    Matt, I am very grateful you had the courage to post this, and I thank you. DH and I have truly wrestled with this issue, partly because people like you and Sora have argued so persuasively for your position in the past. It seems you and we are now coming down at the same point in some middle ground. Children ARE God’s blessing, and we do need to repent of our national attitude that children are primarily an economic burden and an inconvenience, especially if we have more than one or two (Incidentally, we now have 4; don’t know if you’d heard of our latest arrival on 9/11). But as someone who struggles with depression and whose husband works very long hours, the decision to limit our family size has had to intersect with the very real issues our particular family deals with on a daily basis. As you have very rightly pointed out, different families will make different choices, and I respect their right to do so. Thank you, again, for your transparency. Blessings to you and your family.

    Posted by Heather P. at 12 : 24 pm on 04 . 29 . 08 A.D.

    Thank you for your humble and reasoned apology. I’ve known of your family for several years, in that “cyberspace” sort of way… I ran across Valerie’s web site while looking up homeschool books, then followed her link to your “quiverfull” site. That must have been, oh I don’t know, about 5-6 years ago or so, and I’ve followed your blogs ever since.

    I’ve always been intriqued by the full-blown QF theology and wondered, if the “QF people” are thoughtful, faithful Christ-followers, and I’m striving to be a thoughtful, faithful Christ-follower, why have I never felt pulled in the same direction? And yet at the same time, allowed myself to feel guilty or judged for my non-QF POV?

    I congratulate you on being humble enough to post an online apology… a rarity in the blog-world, don’t you think? I too feel like I know less and less the older I get and the longer I try to walk the narrow road.

    Blessings and cheers to you and yours.

    Posted by Renae at 4 : 15 pm on 04 . 29 . 08 A.D.

    Thank you for your humble and reasoned apology. I’ve known of your family for several years, in that “cyberspace” sort of way… I ran across Valerie’s web site while looking up homeschool books, then followed her link to your “quiverfull” site. That must have been, oh I don’t know, about 5-6 years ago or so, and I’ve followed your blogs ever since.

    I’ve always been intriqued by the full-blown QF theology and wondered, if the “QF people” are thoughtful, faithful Christ-followers, and I’m striving to be a thoughtful, faithful Christ-follower, why have I never felt pulled in the same direction? And yet at the same time, allowed myself to feel guilty or judged for my non-QF POV?

    I congratulate you on being humble enough to post an online apology… a rarity in the blog-world, don’t you think? I too feel like I know less and less the older I get and the longer I try to walk the narrow road.

    Blessings and cheers to you and yours.

    Posted by Renae at 4 : 19 pm on 04 . 29 . 08 A.D.

    I’ll echo your opening sentence as well. As I get older I continue to find that many things I argued strongly for in the past don’t seem to be as well supported as I thought they were.

    Anyhow, just to echo the comments above, I found your thoughts about contraception greatly stimulating to my own thought. I am greatly blessed now by my own 3 little boys, though they also cause us great difficulties as well.

    I suppose the big issue for all of us is to follow Paul’s admonitions in Rom 14 about dealing with differing thoughts. Somehow we need to “each be fully convinced” and yet not allow that to be a detriment to our fellowship. Just from the perspective of a reader I always felt you stayed well within the bounds of appropriateness in expressing your thoughts.

    BTW, I’ll be anxious to hear some of your thoughts on the books I sent you whenever you get around to them. Just in case I haven’t mentioned it yet, Bruce Malina is very interesting. He’s not a christian, and he has a tendency to express himself quite forcefully (or obnoxiously, depending on how you take it), but I’ve learned quite a lot from him. As another scholar put it to me in an email, “I think he’s right on 90% of his points, I just don’t know which ones.” You’ll see what I mean.

    Blessings to you also.

    Posted by Paul Baxter at 5 : 28 pm on 04 . 29 . 08 A.D.

    What a wonderful testimony of God’s grace and mercy to you and Sora. Thanks for sharing.

    Posted by Matt Beatty at 10 : 17 am on 04 . 30 . 08 A.D.

    What a wonderfully well-written post. Thanks for setting a good example to those of us who have a tendency to think we’re right … no matter what! 🙂


    Posted by Brea in Texas at 12 : 25 pm on 04 . 30 . 08 A.D.

    I understand where you are coming from. Dave and I used to think it was sinful to even attempt to arrange or space our children.
    Somewhat surprisingly, and then again not, we have learned yet again the wonderful balance the Catholic Church provides. Contrary to what many (even we) have thought in the past, the Church does not require that we have as many children as our bodies can bear. Prayerfully postponing further conceptions, even indefinitely, is certainly within the rights of parents, and something that is left to their consciences to decide and it is not for their peers to judge them on this. God knows the heart.
    However, something the Catholic Church has never backed down upon is that the method used to postpone pregnancy must be 100% respectful of both spouses and not do damage to the marital act. Artificial contraception would fall under this ban, as I’m sure you know.
    However, natural family planning is a wonderful and effective alternative which truly allows us to be responsible parents — being active STEWARDS of this task as we must be in all of life — while not only respecting one another and the marriage bed, but also bringing more intimacy, a deeper understanding between spouses, and a sense of awe and wonder at how we are wonderfully made.

    Posted by Sarah at 2 : 58 pm on 04 . 30 . 08 A.D.

    One of the things that has occured to me over the years is that our modern lifestyle makes it even harder to have several children, and no, I don’t mean materialism, or do-it-allism, or send-them-all-to-collegeism. I mean simply having a husband who works away from home and being the only adult at home in a houseful of (even well-behaved) children.

    We’ve discussed this with our children off and on… how a multi-generational household would make having a large family so much more do-able, and hoping that they remember it and apply it in their own lives as the opportunity presents itself.

    Posted by Kelly at 6 : 54 pm on 04 . 30 . 08 A.D.

    As I read your post and these comments it is the first time I have ever read anything about you or your wife so I have no background. I got the link to your post from Amy’s Humble musings.

    I understand that this issue is very complex. However I am left to wonder if you and your wife have ever experienced the loss of a baby. In the past year, my husband and I have lost three children. We have friends who have lost children in delivery. At those times we believe that the Lord gives and takes away. But the only time we remind ourselves of this is when there is a loss.

    The other observation I have from our life is watching friends use a form of birth control for a time- even feeling led by God, and then not able to have them when they hope to. They live with a kind of guilt and regret.

    How do those of you that make decisions to use a form of birth control deal with these kind of questions? (and I am not saying that in a sarcastic sort of way… I really would like to hear more.)

    Posted by Elaine at 1 : 51 am on 05 . 01 . 08 A.D.

    We’ve lost three children in utero, Elaine — two right at the beginning of our marriage, a third after our third child (and first together). I am not too worried about regret; we do, after all, have six.

    We have not lost any child after birth. That would be much harder.

    Posted by Matt at 5 : 07 am on 05 . 01 . 08 A.D.

    I don’t think the church had it wrong for 1930 years! There was and is an innate evil that comes from the contraceptive mentality.

    Birth control was supposed to improve marriages.
    The divorce rate soared.

    Birth control was supposed to give us only the children we wanted.
    Abortion not only rose, but became legal and now an acceptable alternative!

    I suggest that before you do anything permanent, that there is a middle ground between artificial contraception, and the quiverfull perspective.

    You might start with Humane Vitae, and then look into The Theology of the Body. Also Why Humanae Vitae was right by Janet Smith.

    Posted by Elena at 7 : 19 am on 05 . 01 . 08 A.D.

    When I first started reading this I thought it was a sort of sarcastic joke. I was shocked, to say the least. I never thought you’d bend on this one. Never. But never say never, right?

    My hubby and I practice NFP due to my health issues and our ages. Is that as far as you’re willing to bend, or will you drop the whole anti-BC stance completely and go artificial (like it’s any of MY business!)?

    Posted by Kim at 9 : 01 am on 05 . 01 . 08 A.D.

    I linked over from Amy’s place, and I’m glad I did. It is so rare (as others mentioned) to see a blogger — or any of us, actually — apologize or retract. Thank you. 🙂

    Posted by lizzykristine at 9 : 29 am on 05 . 01 . 08 A.D.

    The ability to change an opinion when new information or experience is encountered is a mark of maturity, Matt.

    We treasure the time we had with you all and I am so pleased to be able to follow your growth.

    Posted by Deborah at 10 : 38 am on 05 . 01 . 08 A.D.

    Surfing over from Amy’s Humble Musings…

    Yes, there are other factors to consider always, aren’t there? Chronic illness, lack of desire on one or another’s part, etc. Too often the “QF” movement is just so proud–I can’t list the number of ways folks in that camp have hurt or shackled myself or others with their dogmatism.

    Even the name is arrogant; who can tell when my quiver is full? “Open quiver” would be more to the point, but even then– it’s really nobody’s business, is it?

    I applaud you retraction here!

    Posted by Grafted Branch@Restoring the Y at 11 : 14 am on 05 . 01 . 08 A.D.

    I’ve followed your blog and Sora’s for a while now in internetland, and I vaguely remember those exchanges with Barlow. It’s strange how much you can feel like you know someone from just reading snippets of their lives. And how much it can affect you.

    I have been blessed by many of your posts (and found out about the great classic Kristen L. books that I had on my shelf all along and had never read…), and I just wanted to say thank you for this sincere, honest admission. The other commentators are right that this is a rare thing to see.

    Blessings to you and yours.

    Posted by Allison at 11 : 55 am on 05 . 01 . 08 A.D.

    When the pundits find out they will call you a flip-flopper!
    🙂 But as for me, I’m glad you flopped.

    Posted by sarah mosley at 12 : 25 pm on 05 . 01 . 08 A.D.

    Matt – you are very gracious. My wife pointed me to this post, and I told her that what always killed me about arguing with you is that I think you have a great life and that even if I didn’t believe you were technically right in the whole, that your life looked wonderful with many children and a very family-focused outlook. I think that personal experience was part of my changing my mind on this one too. When we were first married, we read Mary Pride and thought it sounded logical. But having now four boys, three of whom are somewhere on the autistic spectrum, I think the time argument your grandfather made is very true – especially with special needs children.

    One great thing to come out of our dialog, though, is that Ann and I gained our favorite euphemism for marital relations. “Approach me with latex”! That was one of your marvelous one liners during the debate.

    Anyway, you’re a good man, Matt Colvin.

    Posted by barlow at 4 : 14 pm on 05 . 01 . 08 A.D.

    Matt, I think a lot of people are at the place where you are now. That’s where I am, and was, back in the days when I briefly interacted with you (or Sora, don’t remember which) on this subject. There are many, many of us who wholeheartedly agree that the “contraceptive mentality” and the rejection of the innate goodness of childbearing is evil. Yet we also find valid, defensible, biblical reasons for stopping short of a “quiverfull” philosophy.

    I appreciate your boldly writing about your change of opinion on this subject. A lesser man (less wise and less humble) might just have kept quiet from here on out.

    Posted by pentamom at 5 : 03 pm on 05 . 01 . 08 A.D.

    I applaud your post and your thinking on this. My husband and I were QF minded for many years and also were blessed with six wonderful children. However, we no longer believe in the QF ideas either, though for some different reasons than the thought provoking ones you mentioned here. I feel that the QF movement often ends up compelling couples to be open to pregnancies even against that couple’s own conscience. I think that the hard-core QF teachings do much damage to many families.

    You can read my post on this subject by following my blog link.

    Posted by Dollymama at 4 : 45 pm on 05 . 02 . 08 A.D.

    You should read the Didache, it was written before some of the Gospels. It talks about infanticide, potions, etc. It wasn’t until the Anglicans at Lambeth in the 1930’s open the door to modern acceptance of artificial birth control. Have you looked into Natural Family Planning? A lot of its adherents are Catholics, but it is natural way of avoiding pregnancy, if that at sometime becomes necessary.

    Posted by Troy at 9 : 02 pm on 05 . 02 . 08 A.D.

    Interestingly, it was over at the QF Digest I first “met” y’all, and remember when y’all were first married. (So odd to have such a long history with people, in various places, you know?) One of the things that impacted my understanding of things was when I started to recognize that impact of living in a fallen world had on the natural rhythms of God’s design. Christians are in the tenuous position of living in the “now, and not yet.”

    On a personal level, having ideas and dreams totally stomped on by reality. . . well. . . I know some would say that I wasn’t “trusting God” enough or having faith or whatever. But I was and am trusting God, however imperfect my childlike faith is.

    Posted by TG at 11 : 36 pm on 05 . 02 . 08 A.D.

    I’ve never read your blog before; just saw this link and hopped over – so I don’t really know you. But it seems like my husband and I were in a similar position years ago.

    We had six kids in seven years, loved them a ton, but felt that maybe that was enough. We never bought into the QF mentality; being Catholic, we are convinced we need to be open to life, but at all points in that journey we need to be prayerfully considering whether our Lord wants us to be open to another child at that moment in time. Obviously at the point of six children, for us, we had hit a wall.

    We had learned NFP early in our marriage but didn’t really have a need to use it. After the sixth baby, we did. But only for a time. It’s funny how time can give perspective, and time can allow the kids to grow up a bit and be more helpful. And time can allow us to get some energy back, to get some sleep, to get some things that were out of order back in order. A couple of years later, we were ready for the seventh, although we never knew if we’d reach that point or not (being open to another).

    By using NFP, a couple does not violate the God given and God created continuum that exists between our sexuality and our fertility. It says to our Lord: “Lord, you are in charge of every area of our lives, including our sexuality and fertility. We have prayerfully discerned that we are not called to be open to another child at this moment, but we also recognize that our powers of reasoning may be flawed and our vision clouded. We will make use of our sexual relationship only during the infertile times in the wife’s cycle, but remain open to the transmission of life if that is Your plan.” That’s the beauty of the Catholic teaching (that EVERY Christian church espoused until the 1930’s) – that we are led step by step in His will, that we can use the reasoning powers He gives us to discern things, and that in the end, He is in charge and we desire to remain open to that. This is not the same as the QF perspective.

    I second the recommendation of the Theology of the Body books and talks by Christopher West. Someone else mentioned Janet Smith – excellent insight into the “Contraception: Why Not?” way of thinking. Again, we do not promote reckless and irresponsible childbearing; simply keeping the door open for our Lord as we do in other areas of our lives. These books/talks can help see this area as less gray and more black/white – that there IS indeed objective truth in the area of sexuality and fertility. I can appreciate the “older I get, the less I know” line of thought. Certainly as we age, we broaden our horizons, so to speak. But I think we’d all agree that there really ARE some objective truths to remain steadfast in, tenets of our Christian faith that do not change. The Catholic Church understands that the natural and moral laws guiding sexuality and fertility fall under these unchangeable truths.

    I do not mean to be preachy or condescending at all in my post. I am not a writer, speaker, or otherwise eloquent person (and unfortunately I don’t have the gift of brevity!). I am a home schooling mom from Ohio, married 18 years, and have nine kids. After that seventh one, we were able to be open to two more, although they were spaced further than our first many. I want to add that family life is very busy with nine kids, but really so much more manageable now that the older kids can contribute significantly – driving to the grocery store to pick up a few things, taking a sibling to piano, making dinner, mowing the lawn, gleefully playing with their younger siblings, etc. Our youngest ones are now 5 and 3, and our older ones all dote on them and treasure their relationships with them.

    I applaud your openness to adopt when your own kids are older; I encourage you to not shut out the possibility that God may ask something else from you. If you get in the habit of using artificial birth control or have a sterilization, you close the door on that possibility. I am in no way saying that you SHOULD have more children; I do not know you, and even for my friends that I do know well – that is up to them to discern. Every family has its own unique path to holiness and heaven. God may very well have some vocation within your vocation, as you put it – to serving the Body of Christ in some apostolic way that would make it difficult to add more children to your family. But again, keep the door open. You never know what God will say to you in 5 years.

    Sorry for the ramble. Bottom line: Why jump ship completely from the QF to the artificial birth control camp? Why not first just jump out of the QF camp and use NFP to postpone pregnancy for awhile or even indefinitely? That way you are still in full cooperation with God’s gift of sexuality and fertility, and remaining open to His will in your lives, which all Christians (Catholic or not) desire to do.

    Humbly submitted,
    Teresa G.

    Posted by Teresa G. at 9 : 09 pm on 05 . 03 . 08 A.D.

    I suppose we could start a new group Quiver Failures. The failure being our own ability to live up to our own righteousness.

    Posted by Cindy at 11 : 26 pm on 05 . 03 . 08 A.D.

    I’m glad that NFP is satisfactory for so many of you. Frankly, though, back before we were Quiver Failures (love it, Cindy), we used to say to each other, “Even if we believed birth control was theologically acceptable, there aren’t any methods out there that we’d be willing to use.” NFP was actually the only specific method that we laid into on the Quiver FAQ. We read 1 Corinthians 7 as clearly forbidding marital abstinence for reasons other than fasting and prayer. Not to mention that the idea of avoiding each other during the precise times that God and nature have made the wife most desirous was not at all appealing to us. Still isn’t. We don’t think that NFP is worthy of the harsh condemnation we used to give it, but we also don’t think it’s any holier than any other method out there either (potentially abortifacient ones excepted) and we’re not going to become NFP converts.

    Posted by Sora at 8 : 32 am on 05 . 04 . 08 A.D.

    The failure being our own ability to live up to our own righteousness.

    I’m not a full-quiver theology person (never have been), but have been watching this thread – This quote reminds me of something that Mark Driscoll said (not a direct quote)…”legalism leads to one of two things…pride because you can follow all the rules…or despair because you can’t”.

    I respect families with lots of kids – I would “get” more of them. But there came a time when good stewardship of my body told me that I should not carry more.

    Posted by Ellen at 9 : 29 am on 05 . 04 . 08 A.D.

    we’re not going to become NFP converts

    Of course, you have to do what you feel God is leading you to do. But never say never re: Matt’s words: “The older I get, the less I know. ”

    I’ve run the gamut of thoughts on this matter. For me, NFP seems the least offensive. If I’m going to withhold myself from allowing children I don’t feel it is right to enjoy sex at the same time. It seems completely selfish to me. But maybe I’m wrong in my thinking. I certainly haven’t arrived. And neither have you.

    Posted by Kim at 11 : 55 am on 05 . 04 . 08 A.D.

    “For me, NFP seems the least offensive. ”

    Because NFP is the least offensive. Hormones and chemicals and IUDs are abortifacient, condoms and diaphragms deliberately put a barrier between spouses, and permanent sterilization deliberately destroys God’s beautiful design.

    There are others who interpret the 1Cor in a way that is supportive of NFP. Again, I would urge A LOT more research and study before doing anything permanent.

    Posted by Elena at 6 : 33 pm on 05 . 04 . 08 A.D.

    Birth control pills very rarely cause miscarriage. Even so, using them is a very serious undertaking. Couples can insure that no miscarriage takes place by refraining from relations for least a month after beginning to use hormonal birth control. A pregnancy test before starting is also a necessity.

    Condoms don’t necessarily feel like a barrier, depending on the quality of the product selected. I don’t know if the idea of a barrier is a rational argument, anyway. It’s a terribly private, utterly personal choice. That Matt was gracious enough to share part of it with us is more than enough. However he chooses to grow in his marriage is no one’s business but his own.

    Posted by Liza at 1 : 13 am on 05 . 05 . 08 A.D.

    In for a penny, in for a pound I guess…

    This is a public blog on the internet with a comment section. I don’t see that as being “terribly private.”

    One of the actions of the pill is to prevent the newly conceived embryo (aka baby) from implanting in the uterus. I consider that an abortion, and so do many other pro-life people. It may happen even before the woman is aware she is pregnant. Don’t believe me? Read the pill inserts – this is one of its actions in the event ovulation isn’t suppressed.

    “I don’t know if the idea of a barrier is a rational argument, anyway”

    It’s a theological argument. The word says the two shall be as one, meaning as one body. Yet the use of a barrier method is saying something else. It says we are as one… sort of. And yes, I anticipate all the arguments of one in our hearts, and minds and souls etc. etc. and yet the word is very simple isn’t it, and I believe very physical in its meaning.

    Posted by Elena at 11 : 48 am on 05 . 05 . 08 A.D.

    “Again, I would urge A LOT more research and study before doing anything permanent. ”

    I’ve been reading Matt’s (and Sora’s) for a few years and while I don’t always agree with him, I don’t think one can accuse him of not researching and studying a topic. Just because everyone may not agree doesn’t make their decision wrong (which I have been guilty of on occasion).

    Posted by chrysalis at 8 : 08 pm on 05 . 05 . 08 A.D.

  2. I thought this was brave at the time, and rereading it now I find it even more courageous.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: