Thinking Anglicans

Open letter from Inclusive Evangelicals

from Inclusive Evangelicals

A letter signed by over 600 evangelicals* in the Church of England has been published today. In advance of the forthcoming meeting of the General Synod (which meets later this month) the letter — published by the recently formed Inclusive Evangelicals — backs the course of action which was approved by the Synod in February 2023. It throws its support behind the full authorisation of Prayers of Love and Faith (including the standalone services) ‘for immediate use’. It also urges the House of Bishops to issue the Pastoral Guidance (which will replace the outdated Issues in Human Sexuality) ‘as a matter of urgency’ in order to enable Church of England ordained ministers to marry, irrespective of the sex of their intended spouse. It rejects calls for structural differentiation to accommodate those who are unwilling to accept the changes proposed in GS2289, including alternative episcopal structures. However, it does affirm and support the need for legal protection for the consciences of individual ministers, whether they choose to use Prayers of Love and Faith, or whether, on grounds of conscience, they choose not to.

Today’s letter marks a significant change in the political landscape for the debate over Living in Love and Faith. The evangelical voice on LLF has been divided since the conservative evangelical Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) amended its basis of faith to stipulate a traditional understanding of marriage and sexuality. This in turn led to a split in the evangelical constituency on General Synod as the Evangelical Group on General Synod (EGGS) made a similar change to its basis of faith, leading to the formation of the Evangelical Forum on General Synod as a place where affirming and non-affirming evangelicals could continue to meet together.

Inclusive Evangelicals was formed in the summer to provide a unifying point for evangelicals who wished to welcome the place of LGBTQIA+ Christians within the full life of the Church. Since that time, the membership of its Facebook Group has grown to almost 1300 members. Its website (https://inclusiveevangelicals.com) provides resources, stories and a blog to help evangelicals who wish to explore the issue of LGBTQIA+ inclusion in a positive way, from a biblical standpoint.

* If you have difficulty opening the letter PDF, try this link to a local copy: Inclusive Evangelicals LLF Open Letter

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

60 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Susannah Clark
5 months ago

I share the view that consciences on both sides of the sexuality debate should be respected and protected. That’s to say, respect for the ‘right of conscience’ even if not the beliefs are themselves. There are coherent theological reasons for both conflicting views on gay sex and marriage, and there should be a place in the Church of England for the practice of both conscientious beliefs. When it comes to rejecting calls for structural differentiation, I’m sorry to say to ‘conservatives’ that I agree with the Inclusive Evangelicals’ stated position here, on the grounds that if individual ‘conservative’ priests and… Read more »

Pat ONeill
Pat ONeill
Reply to  Susannah Clark
5 months ago

I think the problem for conservative evangelicals who insist on a structural differentiation is that, at least among their clergy, they cannot and will not swear obedience to a bishop or bishops who support anything that differs from their view of the “doctrine” on marriage.

Jane Willis
Jane Willis
Reply to  Pat ONeill
5 months ago

But can anyone explain why? I know it’s a really basic question but I still haven’t heard it adequately explained. Said bishop(s) wouldn’t/couldn’t force anyone to act against their conscience – and we are already a broad church with doctrinal variation.

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Jane Willis
5 months ago

Since you address a question directly at the conservative position I am hoping a response from a conservative will be allowed.

There is a perfectly straightforward explanation in response to your question.

Bishops are supposed to defend the historic tenants of Christianity. If they refuse to do so, they cease to be worthy of the office and should neither seek or expect obedience.

If you do not think Bishops are so failing, then you will have no such problem.

It does not therefore follow that no clear explanation exists for the refusal of conservatives to honour such bishops.

Jane Willis
Jane Willis
Reply to  Peter
5 months ago

Thank you Peter – yes still genuinely trying to understand (having conservative roots myself, and grateful for the church in which I came to faith). Surely there have been many occasions in the past when conservatives have differed theologically from their bishops and yes sworn obedience to them? I have in the past sworn obedience to a traditionalist bishop who was appointing me to an incumbency. Whilst not recognising my orders, he did not prevent me ministering as a priest. Under the current proposals we would be free to act according to conscience. I just don’t get what, to conservatives,… Read more »

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Jane Willis
5 months ago

Jane,

I can only comment from a conservative evangelical perspective. I do not know of any mainstream conservative leaders who would say the ordination of women is prohibited by scripture with the same force with which scripture prohibits sexual intimacy outside of marriage.

I am guessing you don’t want or need a list of scripture references. That seems like ground that has been worked to the point of exhaustion.

In the end, it is a matter of judgement – by which I mean we all have to decide what we think the verses mean.

AJ Bell
AJ Bell
Reply to  Peter
5 months ago

Except we allow no such test on any other issue. Even when it comes to women Bishops, you are not permitted to avoid episcopal oversight from a Bishop who agrees with women’s ordination, only from an actual woman Bishop. The test is not about what the Bishop thinks or says, but just whether you accept the validity of their ordination as a woman or not.

Peter
Peter
Reply to  AJ Bell
5 months ago

Conservatives see the issue as one without precedent.

You state what you see as as the test. That is not the test that is applicable in this instance.

I don’t mean to be discourteous, but either you respect the judgement of conservatives or you do not. Explaining why you think otherwise does not really get anybody anywhere.

We all know each others arguments. The problem is the chaos we face.

Susannah Clark
Reply to  Jane Willis
5 months ago

Thank you Jane. Exactly this.

Pat ONeill
Pat ONeill
Reply to  Jane Willis
5 months ago

I think it’s perhaps the prohibition against false swearing. “I cannot swear obedience to a person who might require me to commit what I think is a sin. I would have to disobey, which would then be a violation of my oath.”

Susannah Clark
Reply to  Pat ONeill
5 months ago

Thanks Pat. I think in a Broad Church we need to accommodate different views on different things, while sharing the absolute key fundamentals: the divinity of Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection, the Holy Trinity, the call to believe and the key commandment above all others – to give ourselves to God in lives that open to love. But there are all kinds of things where faithful Christians may have different views: speaking in tongues, infant baptism and the spiritual regeneration it may endow, the nature of bread and wine at Holy Communion, the sharing of money, how evangelism should… Read more »

Pat ONeill
Pat ONeill
Reply to  Susannah Clark
5 months ago

I think the resistance to same-sex marriage goes beyond Biblical interpretation and matters of conscience. I think it is based, particularly among men, in what has been called–at least on my side of the pond–the “ick factor”. Among a certain segment of the population–both Christian and not–there is such a distaste for the very idea of any sexual contact between two men that it is anathema to even consider accepting it, condoning it or, worse, blessing it. Oddly, the same distaste does not exist about sexual contact between two women. Note the oft-used image of two women kissing passionately paired… Read more »

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  Pat ONeill
5 months ago

This sounds like projection to me. We’re way past this now. What you describe as ‘iky’ is now omni-present in our cultural by-ways and high-ways.

Last edited 5 months ago by Anglican Priest
Simon Dawson
Simon Dawson
Reply to  Anglican Priest
5 months ago

I don’t think Pat O Neill was wrong in his citing of anal sex as still being a factor in homophobia or anti-gay prejudice. Historically, many texts cited the unnatural or degraded nature of this behaviour as evidence for it being a sin against God or an abuse of God’s good creation. But I know from my own conversations that even today, for a significant minority of people, unease about this activity is still there, consciously or unconsciously, although less often stated in public nowadays. But you are right also that the simple conflation of anal sex with homosexuality needs… Read more »

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  Simon Dawson
5 months ago

I saw no reference to that particular practice. I did see a reference to two women kissing as ‘hot.’

This just strikes me as simplistic or projection. Anecdotal rather than substantive.

Objections to same-sex marriage are precisely objections to that.

Our individual subjective reactions vary widely, and that includes everyone East of Eden.

Pat ONeill
Pat ONeill
Reply to  Anglican Priest
5 months ago

“Objections to same-sex marriage are precisely objections to that.”

But what are they based on? Is it purely a Biblical proscription? And where is it stated in no uncertain terms, such as “Thou shalt not marry man to man or woman to woman”?

Susannah Clark
Reply to  Pat ONeill
5 months ago

Um… well I don’t see the connection between the “ick factor” and making it a justification for a whole Church within a Church. To many people (including myself) the thought of anal sex IS a bit “icky”. Not morally wrong, but the thought of the channel involved puts a lot of people off. But that’s a visceral position, not a theological one. The point is, that for some people it is the primary means of union in intimate love. And intimate love is a precious part of fidelity and covenanted commitment to each other. It is verging on the tragic… Read more »

Pat ONeill
Pat ONeill
Reply to  Susannah Clark
5 months ago

I think for some (not all) the Biblical injunction is a convenient cover for what I call the “ick factor”. “I don’t have to talk about why I find this whole thing uncomfortable and unseemly–the Bible prohibits it.”

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  Pat ONeill
5 months ago

I confess I just think you are projecting. I don’t find ‘the whole thing uncomfortable and unseemly’. I don’t give it much thought, frankly. LGBT+ practice and life surrounds us on every side. The isn’t the 50s and Ozzie and Harriett. Your comment almost sounds quaint. Off to church. Be well.

Susannah Clark
Reply to  Pat ONeill
5 months ago

I think the headship of men in marriage and some church contexts may be another example. Guys who viscerally felt an “ick” factor about women (aka misogyny), and saw women as weak or associated with temptation, then could draw on a range of Bible texts to accentuate their prejudice, ranging from women’s exclusion because of (“ick”) their periods, to the claim that ‘Eve’ sinned first, to comments by Paul (who, nota bene, also said in Christ there is no male or female). I think many of us have had to cope with visceral revulsion, arising from our own prejudices, and… Read more »

Simon Dawson
Simon Dawson
Reply to  Pat ONeill
5 months ago

Pat, please don’t be discouraged by “Anglican Priest’s” comments.

You have taken the risk of being honest and authentic about your own feelings and experience. And it is only when we do that that we can communicate across difference, and begin to understand each other, and move forward.

Better that than being cowed into silence by critical comments.

Last edited 5 months ago by Simon Dawson
Pat ONeill
Pat ONeill
Reply to  Simon Dawson
5 months ago

Let me be clear–I have no “ick factor” regarding gay men. I have many gay friends and acquaintances and I celebrate their freedom to marry in my country and to engage in any sexual activity they choose without fear of punishment. (For the record, I am now playing a gay man in an amateur production of the play “The Laramie Project: Ten Years Later”.)

Simon Dawson
Simon Dawson
Reply to  Pat ONeill
5 months ago

Pat, thanks for clarifying. I made that post in response to Anglican Priest’s comment which I thought was unhelpful and trying to shut down debate. But it is clear you are robust enough not to need such support.

That’s the problem with debate across huge distances rather than within the same room, misunderstandings happen. But I still feel that your original comment was helpful.

Best wishes

John Davies
John Davies
Reply to  Susannah Clark
5 months ago

I’m sorry to hear about that awful experience, Susannah. Some people are clearly too thick and insensitive to listen, and no one should be subjected to that kind of predatory abuse. I feel acutely embarrassed by some of the stories I’ve heard from women about male harassment, even within Christian circles – and some of the things I’ve heard personally too. It seems very hard to find any decent role models at times.

Rod Gillis
Rod Gillis
Reply to  Pat ONeill
5 months ago

“I think the resistance to same-sex marriage goes beyond Biblical interpretation and matters of conscience.” Agreed, and you are definitely in the ball park in the global sense. The whole aversion to same sex attraction/marriage in the church is essentially grounded in a taboo. A taboo is learned. It is often based on ignorance, fear, and the perspective of vested priviliged interests. With any taboo, society is enculturated, socialized into it. Religion is often used to reinforce a taboo. Reason, rationality and evidence can help one to ‘unlearn’ the taboo. Clearly Inclusive Evangelicals are relying on more than just rank… Read more »

Tim Chesterton
Reply to  Rod Gillis
5 months ago

I always find it so ‘interesting’ when non-evangelicals purport to be experts on the theology and psychology of evangelicalism.

Honestly, people, you have a living, breathing representative of conservative evangelicalism, Peter, interacting with you all the time on TA. He’s respectful, straightforward, honest, and persistent. Furthermore, he appears to like you! Why not ask him, and make the assumption that he’ll tell you the truth?

Simon Dawson
Simon Dawson
Reply to  Tim Chesterton
5 months ago

You make a valid point Tim, but there is one complexity.

Whilst I would argue that some Christians displaying ant-gay views are affected by “taboo” or unconscious thoughts, I am certain that many others are entirely truthful when they say that they have a healthy attitude to LGBTQ issues, and that their anti-gay views are solely formed by a careful analysis of tradition and scripture.

But that does not explore the unrecognised extent to which taboo and prejudice is embedded within tradition and scripture.

https://rictornorton.co.uk/homopho1.htm

With best wishes

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Simon Dawson
5 months ago

Simon, I think the tribalism that afflicts us all is real burden. I have faced the worst abuse I have experienced online on a “conservative” evangelical blog which shall remain nameless though I am certain people will know the one to which I am referring. All I had done was speak in defence of a group of people (who posted on that site) who are affirming of same sex marriage. They were being harassed by belligerent individuals who purported to be traditionalists. I was really wounded by the abuse. It was people on this site who consoled me. Tim Chesterton.… Read more »

Last edited 5 months ago by Peter
David Runcorn
David Runcorn
Reply to  Peter
5 months ago

Thank you Peter. I am grateful for your words. And your defence of me there.

Susannah Clark
Reply to  Peter
5 months ago

Peter, I want to acknowledge the dreadful abuse you suffered in defence of myself and others like me. I know we have different opinions, but you are courageous and decent. You endured some appalling comments at that place, which were not moderated out. In contrast I am grateful for your presence here, and for enabling us to hear from other perspectives. I believe in your integrity, and you stood up for me. Thank you sincerely.

Tim Chesterton
Reply to  Peter
5 months ago

Thanks, Peter.

Susannah Clark
Reply to  Simon Dawson
5 months ago

“extent to which taboo and prejudice is embedded within tradition and scripture…” This is a very good point. Any mature reading of biblical narrative needs to reflect on contexts, and the possibility that the attitudes of biblical authors are themselves coloured by their societies and traditions. We see this, for example, in various passages in the Old Testament, where there is a real sense that the authors and their communities were encountering and listening to God, and yet what they passed down into writing was ‘filtered’ through attitudes of their own times… The fundamental imperative of God which is like… Read more »

Rod Gillis
Rod Gillis
Reply to  Simon Dawson
5 months ago

Simon, Unless one is a Freudian of some sort ( and I am not) , a taboo is not ‘unconscious’. The point of a taboo is to make it very conscious, that social boundaries are kept with strict conformity together with the requisite sanctions and punishments. Ritual is a way of maintaining a taboo. One sees this in the R.C. sex abuse scandal where pedophiles committing criminal acts were absolved time and time again in the confessional. One sees this in the debate over same sex marriage. The opposition to same sex marriage whether in secular or ecclesiastical contexts pertains… Read more »

Rod Gillis
Rod Gillis
Reply to  Rod Gillis
5 months ago

dropped the last sentence there. That should continue to read: Another instance? Biblical texts that were once used to justify exploiting the natural environment are now flipped in support of environmental responsibility.

Simon Dawson
Simon Dawson
Reply to  Rod Gillis
5 months ago

Thanks Rod, one part of why I post here is like being in an academic seminar room, and testing out ideas. Sometimes you get it right and get approval, and sometime you make a mis-step and are corrected. Both are useful.

Tim Chesterton
Reply to  Simon Dawson
5 months ago

Yes, of course. I get that. But it’s still highly presumptuous of people who have never been evangelicals—and in some cases can barely disguise their contempt for evangelicalism—to offer confident explanations of the evangelical psyche and theology. I am a white settler living on Treaty 6 territory. But I would never presume to propose explanations on a public website of the history and spirituality and worldview of Cree, Saulteaux or Dene people. There are plenty of living, breathing elders and knowledge keepers who are more than capable of doing that. If you want to find out about indigenous spirituality, go… Read more »

Last edited 5 months ago by Tim Chesterton
Rod Gillis
Rod Gillis
Reply to  Tim Chesterton
5 months ago

Tim, you replied to me initially with the opener about non-evangelicals. . And I’m having trouble discerning whether your frustration is aimed at me or not. My initial comment regarding the notion of taboo is a critique of religion in general. It is not limited to one particular religious sub-culture, Christian or otherwise. Indeed, how would you know whether I or not I have never held views consonant with evangelicalism?

Tim Chesterton
Reply to  Rod Gillis
5 months ago

Hi Rod, three or four people were involved in that discussion.

All i know about you is what you have posted here.

Simon Dawson
Simon Dawson
Reply to  Tim Chesterton
5 months ago

Tim, believe me, I get it too. You are right that on TA there has been an endless stream of posts by non-Evangelical Christians telling us all what Evangelicals think and believe. It must be frustrating. But how do you think I feel, as a gay man facing a 2000 year history of (firstly) celibate men and (more recently) married straight men tell us all what homosexuals do or think or feel. I try not to let the frustration show in my posts, but I know I sometimes fail. I can’t speak for others, but that’s why in my own… Read more »

Tim Chesterton
Reply to  Simon Dawson
5 months ago

Simon, yes, my apologies to you on that score. It’s true that I’m straight, but being the father of a daughter in a same-sex marriage, who came out to me nearly twenty years ago, has certainly given me a glimpse of what that must be like. If I’ve ever been part of that, I apologize without reservation.

Simon Dawson
Simon Dawson
Reply to  Tim Chesterton
5 months ago

No apology necessary, but thank you for your post, it will help me to understand more completely as we continue with these conversations.

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Tim Chesterton
5 months ago

Tim,

Your grace and generosity of spirit is a wonderful blessing to me.

I wish you and all those you love every blessing.

Peter

Rod Gillis
Rod Gillis
Reply to  Tim Chesterton
5 months ago

Tim, rather than follow up on your suggestion to interact with the anonymous ‘Peter’, I would prefer to put a question to you, an evangelical who is not anonymous. I’m intrigued by the sentence from Inclusive Evangelicals below. They don’t really indicate what their inclusive position is exactly, or how they arrived at it other than in general terms by “prayerful reading”. You’ve moved on this issue. How did that come about?

“As evangelicals whose prayerful reading of scripture has led us to an inclusive positon on same-sex relationships…”

Tim Chesterton
Reply to  Rod Gillis
5 months ago

Rod: You’ll find a number of pertinent articles on our IE website here: https://www.inclusiveevangelicals.com/ The ‘about’ section on that website gives our position on same-sex blessings/marriage. Note that it is in a Church of England context – different from the situation you and I are in: https://www.inclusiveevangelicals.com/about I wrote these two: One about what it means to me to be an inclusive evangelical: https://www.inclusiveevangelicals.com/post/evangelical-and-inclusive And one about my own journey (which, I have to say, took place in full view of all the regulars here at TA): https://www.inclusiveevangelicals.com/post/from-rejection-to-affirmation-my-personal-journey By the way, I find it strange that you would describe Peter… Read more »

Last edited 5 months ago by Tim Chesterton
Peter
Peter
Reply to  Rod Gillis
5 months ago

Rod,

You reference my anonymity.

I hold no office. I am not an academic. I have no position of influence or authority in either the church or the world. If I posted under my full name, I can assure you that you would have no idea who I am, or any reason to esteem my comment.

I say, or strive to say, nothing that is malicious and I can assure you that I do not use anonymity as a mask behind which to hide.

I comment as a traditionalist member of the Church of England.

That is all.

Rod Gillis
Rod Gillis
Reply to  Peter
5 months ago

Tks Peter. While I have sometimes engaged anonymous comments, I have a general aversion to doing so. I’ve expressed that here before. Not sure what you mean by esteeming comments. I try to engage comments based on the argumentation and evidence. I don’t care who is making them. Alas, sometimes bumptious attitude more than comment has from time to time fried my fanny.

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Rod Gillis
5 months ago

All I meant was I am entirely ordinary.

I am not a professor or anything similar. I appreciate that will be all too obvious anyway.

Rod Gillis
Rod Gillis
Reply to  Peter
5 months ago

Nor am I. Just a retired parish priest. cheers.

John Davies
John Davies
Reply to  Pat ONeill
5 months ago

Must admit I’ve not heard that expression before, but I do understand it. Its a very difficult subject, and a lot could depend on past experiences. A Christian friend of mine, abused by paedophiles as a child, still has trouble sixty years later in physical contact of the mildest sort with men – a bit awkward in charismatic or pentecostal circles! I can understand that because, while I feel reasonably comfortable hugging men, I am very uneasy with women – for a lot of reasons. One is because as a long term single straight, the slightest touch caused problems of… Read more »

Susannah Clark
Reply to  John Davies
5 months ago

Thank you for a very honest post, John. I think it’s a very helpful reminder of how perfectly decent people may have different feelings, life experience, views on modesty or expression. Helpful, because it may make me think a little more of others. I am personally quite relaxed in my own approach to showing affection to my wife (I think). But on the other hand I dislike the way some singers exploit sex by wearing next to nothing, for commercial reasons. When I was studying with the sisters at East London Mosque, one of the things I found frankly beautiful… Read more »

Robert Ellis
Robert Ellis
5 months ago

Wow! That really does begin to feel a bit like a gamechanger….or is it that hope springs eternal?

EagletP
EagletP
Reply to  Robert Ellis
5 months ago

The latter I think. To me the strengths of the group are also its weaknesses. Inclusive Evangelicals doesn’t actually provide a definition of ‘Evangelical’, so on one level it’s broad and, well, inclusive to anyone who self-identifies as evangelical, or who doesn’t like statements of faith. That can be a strength in getting the numbers up and providing a home to like-minded people. Conversely, though, the list of signatories includes lots of people who it’s a big stretch to consider themselves as evangelical in any classic sense. For instance I just happened to investigate one signatory who’s a lay member… Read more »

Last edited 5 months ago by EagletP
David Runcorn
David Runcorn
Reply to  EagletP
5 months ago

EagletP. All those signing the letter were required to affirm they self identified as evangelical. In the Facebook group discussions are many who now feel they can own the name again having stopped using it became in their context it was only understood as ‘very conservative’ – and they were not. That would probably explain your example. This has always been a broad tradition. The present issue is that it has been led into significant narrowness. To describe the folk meeting in the group discussions as “not naturally tight on verbal definitions and developing common language” and holding views “more… Read more »

Tim Chesterton
Reply to  David Runcorn
5 months ago

David says, ‘In the Facebook group discussions are many who now feel they can own the name again having stopped using it became in their context it was only understood as ‘very conservative’ – and they were not.’

Agreed, David. In my context I know many people are afraid to use the word ‘evangelical’ because in popular usage it means ‘Trump-supporter’.

Perry Butler
Perry Butler
5 months ago

Given two PEV’s were among those who dissented and +Richborough and +Fulham didn’t sign. Are the Trad Catholics of one mind?

Graham Holmes
Graham Holmes
Reply to  Perry Butler
5 months ago

Nor did +Wakefield (Tony Robinson) Chair of the Bishops of the Society. While +Tony exercises his right not to ordain women as priests, as Archdeacon, Suffragan and Area Bishop, he has the grace to appoint and support women in their ministries. The old Wakefield Diocese was perhaps a rather more civilised and gracious place in which to minister than some of the areas covered by the other Bishops mentioned in this thread, thanks to the influence of David Hope and Nigel McCulloch.

JOHN CLAPTON
JOHN CLAPTON
5 months ago

It is interesting, in my view, that the purveyors of self-righteousness are so often perpetrators of injustice. It is wonderful to have these voices so strenuously say that they will no longer engage in perpetuating injustice in the church.

Susannah Clark
5 months ago

It is very encouraging to observe the public and open support building up for Inclusive Evangelicals, and the fact that many people were happy for their names to be published and visible for anyone to see. It remains a sad fact that in today’s Church of England some people felt unable to ‘go public’ like that, which is very understandable, but I’m glad that so many were able to. In contrast, how much support does CEEC have? And do the vocal leaders actually carry their church congregations with them? It’s less clear. In mid March this year CEEC published ‘The… Read more »

Last edited 5 months ago by Susannah Clark
Tim Chesterton
Reply to  Susannah Clark
5 months ago

Susannah, it’s also important to say that we gathered those signatories in 24 hours, because we wanted it done and dusted for Friday’s meeting at Lambeth. There were people who asked us afterwards if they could still sign, but since the letter had been delivered, we said no – they could help us by publicising it.

Susannah Clark
Reply to  Tim Chesterton
5 months ago

Well I think it was an important initiative, Tim, and well done to everyone involved!

60
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x