ABUSE & VIOLENCE IN THE CHURCH, Clergy Misconduct, It's All About the Image, No-Talk Rule, Ravi Zacharias, Spiritual Abuse, Spiritual Authority

Two Posts Containing Ravi Zacharias’ Personal Emails Were Removed: Why? (Updated)

Ravi Zacharias, RZIM, Clergy Sexual Misconduct

Ravi Zacharias, sex scandal, falsified credentials, lawsuit
Twitter photo


NOTE: This post is updated. The earlier version is at the bottom of this post.

When I began blogging, I did so to tell my own spiritual abuse experiences. There were no rules. I followed my heart. I still do the same today. I probably do things that make trained journalists cringe. Oh well. But, I must stay true to myself, true to victims, and true to my God. And sometimes that gets complicated.

This week, I published two articles which included private e-mails which were sent to me by the victim in Ravi Zacharias’ alleged sexual  misconduct case. (As was noted in the now-deleted post, these emails were sent to me long before any demand letter was sent, lawsuit filed, or settlement was reached.) I posted them because it was my understanding that the victim wanted the world to know what happened, how it happened, and as a warning to others because we were both convinced that this was predatory behavior and could likely have happened to others, and could happen again. I also published them because there was a lawsuit against this victim in which Ravi Zacharias’ narrative was shared in public court documents, but no one was able to see the other side before the case was settled out of court (and sources have told me there was a payout).

Because the case is a Federal lawsuit and available to the public, people will only be allowed to read Ravi Zacharias’ side. The victim’s side remains silent – which is exactly what all perpetrators want: silence.

I want to be clear. What I read and heard from the victim via phone and email testimony (including personal e-mails between the victim and Ravi Zacharias) showed a clear pattern of sexual grooming. I believe Ravi Zacharias took advantage of this woman as she shared her personal struggles with him. I believe that he took advantage of her vulnerabilities. I believe he shared with her personal information about himself which made her feel very special in his life. But this was all a ploy so he could then get sexual favors from her (nude photos). This is how the grooming process works.

This morning, I woke up to find an email in my inbox from the victim. The note asked me to remove the private emails. Out of respect for the victim, I have done so.

I do not know if the victim was pressured to ask this by anyone from RZIM or by Ravi Zacharias himself, or if this was of her own initiative. Regardless, I need to honor the victim’s request first and foremost.

Does it change my opinion of the victim? Absolutely not. Does it change my opinion of Ravi Zacharias as a possible predator? Absolutely not. Does it change the validity of her testimony and e-mails? Absolutely not.

Thousands of people saw the e-mails. I believe that Ravi Zacharias and this case should be fully investigated. It is not acceptable to pay people off and silence them when there is sexual misconduct – and it is my opinion that this is what happened in this situation.

Once again, I will mention that Ravi Zacharias is a person of public interest and import. I have shared my personal opinions and beliefs based on my years of studying patterns of abuse and sexual misconduct. What I have shared, I believe to be true, and I have shared it with the intent to help and protect others from harm. I have no malicious intent whatsoever .

This is what was posted earlier today 12/2/17.

I think this is only the second time I have done this in my nearly 6 yrs of blogging. I was requested by the victim to remove the posts containing personal emails between Ravi Zacharias and the victim, and have done so.

I will be following up with a statement shortly about this and will add it to this post.

128 thoughts on “Two Posts Containing Ravi Zacharias’ Personal Emails Were Removed: Why? (Updated)”

  1. I can understand her fear of getting into hot water. Lots of us read it and it can’t be unread. We will keep it with us and remember he is slime.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. If Ravi did engage in sexual abuse, there is no point of defending him. And the victim needs all our sympathies and support. But the way you are manipulating the internet in destroying Ravi’s name with this case sounds very fishy and totally an agenda driven campaign; possibly orchestrated by many players, including the “alleged victims”. When I read those emails; they look as if anyone could have created an account with Ravi’s name. The very language in those email betrays the victim’s mindset. I think we should not exonerate the schemers while defending the genuine sexual abuse victims. There goes my angry 2cent toward a society that glories in big Sin while falling headlong in small matters.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. I agree we should withhold a certain amount of judgment. RZIM however needs to address this ASAP they mentioned it on their FB page and said they will be addressing it. However, everyday that goes by, more damage is caused.

    It’s puzzling that they claim that the accusations are totally baseless, there is evidence that is compelling and should be explained.

    What is also troubling is the fact that the lawsuit was settled outside of court and Ravi paid out of his own pocket.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The continually revising bio of RZ tells me all. RZ and his organization are unwilling to publically admit he/they screwed up/lied for decades. What ever the actual details of this “misconduct” are, it has been handled in a very poor manner, just like the misrepresentation (lying) of RZ credentials. The irony of a RZIM “honesty/integrity” business comference going on at this moment is just incredible.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. http://www.raviwatch.com/news/story/sex-scandal/

    There is enough posted over at Raviwatch.com, and other sites, to give anyone pause that something not right is going on in Raviland. Theologically, I am in many ways in Ravi’s “camp”, but I get very concerned when Christian “celebrities” use their status to cover up their own sins and threaten others. This incident won’t go away, although I am sure that many Ravi supporters will pretend it never happened.


  6. Wonder if he’s paying people to post in his favor? This has been a strategy of intimidation in other cases.


  7. Julie Anne, I love the way you honour and prioritise the requests and the voices of those who been been targeted and abused by malignant evildoers who are bent on aggrandising themselves and slaking their lusts at the expense of others.


  8. JA “I’ve been seeing that Ravi supporters simply don’t care that it happened”

    I’ve seen this too. It’s an issue in its own right, but a serious one. This attitude to well-known ministries is a serious error if it leads to sin being covered up.

    When Paul had to confront Peter when he had gone into error (admittedly not immorality), what would have happened if the Peter supporters had got together to shut Paul up?


  9. Hmmm. I don’t consider a person asking for 5 million dollars of “hush” money a victim. I called them an extortionist. Also, this isn’t her and her husband’s first rodeo with going after a ministry leader on ludicrous claims.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. @Steve Baughman: Let’s suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Ravi is indeed a liar and a predator. Can you tell us, Steve, what exactly is “wrong” with those things?


  11. Julie Ann, I’m so sad that you even have a voice, you need to vet your sources better before you greatly discredit truly godly men like Ravi. Maybe you’re better suited in another line of work…say bar tending?


  12. Julie Anne,
    Maybe you have to look into your own heart before you start tearing down people’s lives. Proverbs 3:30 sounds a terrible warning for those of us who try to make it our business to tear down others even though they have done nothing against us.
    “Don’t accuse anyone without cause, when he has done you no harm.”


  13. andydoerksen said,

    @Steve Baughman:
    Let’s suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Ravi is indeed a liar and a predator. Can you tell us, Steve, what exactly is “wrong” with those things?

    I see what you’re driving at.

    You can get into arguments about what foundation does an atheist have to say if adultery or lying is immoral-

    But does that really matter, when Christians themselves say there is a God, and they further stipulate that God defines some of his moral values in the Bible, and among them, is that adultery and lying are sins?

    And that in 1 Corinthians 5, the apostle wrote to dis-fellowship any man who says he is in Christ but who is living in unrepentant sin?
    And isn’t there a Bible verse that says that the sins of God’s people who claim God’s name bring reproach on God in the mouths of the pagans, which is a bad thing?

    What good is it to have a belief in a deity, and to appeal to a book you say was written by that God, if you’re not willing to do as it says?
    Even Jesus said, “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord’ but do not do what I say?”

    I think that is one thing some atheists are pointing to in situations such as this. It’s sure one thing that has caused me to have doubts about the faith the last few years.

    Atheists may not have a deity or something solid they can use to explain why adultery or lying is a sin, but Christians who claim to believe in a deity but don’t honor that deity and that deity’s teachings aren’t that much better, but are sort of living life like ‘practical atheists,’ no?

    Liked by 1 person

  14. “Disgusted by Clouds” wrote,

    …discredit truly godly men like Ravi

    The Bible says in 1 Cor 5 (and I think in another section or two) that Christians are too call out other self-professing believers if they are living in sin.

    So, yes, they’re supposed to discredit, if it is applicable.

    Also, if Ravi is inflating or exaggerating his educational credentials, that is not behaving in a “truly godly” manner.
    If Ravi was flirting with a married woman, that is not “truly godly” behavior, either.


  15. And by “flirting” above, I was thinking more about Ravi sending the lady nude photos or asking them to send them to him, or whatever they were doing.

    I don’t know if innocent flirting it altogether horrible for married people. I suppose that’s a grea area and debatable, but going behind your spouse’s back to send someone else nude photos, or asking some married person for their nude photos, is more than crossing a line.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Dang, so many typos in my last post. It’s late, I’m getting sleepy, I should go to bed anyway.

    “Grea” was supposed to be “grey.”
    “asking them to send them to him,” should be, “asking her to send them to him…”

    An “it” above was supposed to be “is.”


  17. @Julie Anne: My line of questioning goes to the plaintiff’s intellectual and moral foundation for his grievance, your honor. 😉


  18. @ Daisy: Your points are well articulated – and well taken. However, (a) since an atheist posted here, l voiced a question relevant to both this thread and the atheist’s way of thinking. An atheist has no basis for suggesting that there’s something “wrong” with a Christian’s hypocrisy. Indeed, for an atheist to voice such a judgment is hypocritical of the atheist!

    Yet (b) among Christians themselves, you are entirely correct to argue that we must hold one another accountable – and that when we don’t, we damage our corporate witness. Thanks for reminding us of this truth!

    Nonetheless, (c) while Ravi was sloppy and unwise, l don’t (yet) consider his actions ethically hypocritical.


  19. Ravi Zacharius doesn’t get an automatic pass from me but I’m trying to understand some points:
    1 The victim asked for mediation, right? Doesn’t that mean she has something to hide, instead of Ravi having something to hide?
    2 Ravi was the one sueing, so if there was a pay out, it would be to him, right?
    3 How does saying,” 5 million dollars will keep me silent,” back up her claim that she just didn’t want someone else to go through what she did?
    4 An adult woman sent nude photos of herself to someone else’s husband. . If she was a young girl, I could possibly think the coercion argument possibly valid, but from a woman old enough to know better? That would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious. In essence, she’s saying that Ravi has such a persuasive way with written words, that though they weren’t seeing one another in person, she just couldn’t help but remove her clothes, while she was many miles away from him, and take pictures of herself. Sorry, but how did Ravi hold any power over her that she didn’t choose to give him? IF he came on to her in emails, just because he’s a prominent man, doesn’t equate with abusive grooming. IF he made a personal connection with her via email, just because he’s a prominent person, doesn’t mean he was sexually grooming her.. No one made her email him repeatedly. He had no power to hold over her, other than the power of attraction. Being foolish enough to do something of the nature of what she did, and crying, “Abuse,” is in my opinion, a slap in the face to most sexually abused women. I could understand fear of speaking out afterwards, but fear of not participating in the sin? No.
    I have concerns with Ravi’s story but I have bigger problems with hers. No, that doesn’t give him a pass.


  20. I have shared here on this blog (thank you again, Julie Anne!) my face-to-face experiences with Tullian Tchividjian and Bob Coy. I witnessed their pulpit arrogance firsthand. I warned people about them. In Tullian’s case, I went through a destructive church split because of him that wrecked friendships. Coy and Tchividjian are not only suspected spiritual and sexual abusers, they are PROVEN spiritual and sexual abusers. They destroyed people as well as their marriages and families. To this day, as far as I know, they remain unrepentant in their arrogance despite being rightfully deposed from their pastorships.

    Then comes Ravi’s situation. It is different from that of Coy and Tchividjian.

    From the beginning, I had some doubts about the woman’s accusations. I briefly posted here that I was waiting for more facts to come out. I have read the banjo atheist’s posts. I have read the woman’s emails, her lawyer’s demand letter, Ravi’s lawsuit and RZIM’s public statements of December 4.

    I believe Ravi.

    Also, I believe that Ravi has acknowledged the mistakes he made in engaging this couple. I believe RZIM has addressed the rightful concerns about the inflated credentials. I believe Ravi and RZIM have acknowledged their sins openly, they have repented and are acting to correct them.

    Now, what next?

    Keep the faith, keep leading the fight against spiritual and sexual abusers.

    Your thoughts?


  21. In this current environment of #MeToo, there is not only new credibility and freedom given to women who have endured much and said little; there is also plenty of room for agendas and revenge for spurned advances. This is nothing new- such accusations were old even in Potiphar’s era. Hell hath no fury.

    This will certainly be the opportunity that some have been waiting for, and it will no doubt be exploited as much as possible. However, it would seem that nude photos – provided and sent by this married woman- are more an attack on RZ’s perhaps unrealistic fortress of integrity than anything else.


  22. Donner – sometimes my comments here go into moderation as well, and I’ve posted here for a few years. I think certain words trigger a filter or something. Julie Anne will probably “Okay” your comments to appear as soon as she checks in and sees them.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. BusyMom said,

    Sorry, but how did Ravi hold any power over her that she didn’t choose to give him? IF he came on to her in emails, just because he’s a prominent man, doesn’t equate with abusive grooming.

    Busy Mom, I don’t know about this lady specifically who Julie Anne is blogging about, but I can see that happening, even with a grown adult woman.

    I get into my story in more detail on my Daisy blog, but the way my mother raised me, I was like a girl in a grown woman’s body.

    I had a college degree and was “book smart” and can sound like an adult, but I was not terribly good at “People Smarts.”

    I was not taught basic adult life skills when I was growing up by my parents. I was encouraged to be meek, mild, passive, go to my mother (or my father) for all decisions (instead of making them all on my own).

    I was not taught to have boundaries or to be assertive but was discouraged from having them.

    As such, it was very easy for people to abuse me or take advantage.

    Not all adults who are “chronological” adults are mentally or emotionally grown-up.

    You can be 35, 45, 55 years old, have a normal I.Q., but still be emotionally or mentally around 10 years old, in some respects. I don’t know how else to explain it.


  24. @ 530 said,

    n this current environment of #MeToo, there is not only new credibility and freedom given to women who have endured much and said little; there is also plenty of room for agendas and revenge for spurned advances. This is nothing new- such accusations were old even in Potiphar’s era. Hell hath no fury.

    This will certainly be the opportunity that some have been waiting for, and it will no doubt be exploited as much as possible. However, it would seem that nude photos – provided and sent by this married woman- are more an attack on RZ’s perhaps unrealistic fortress of integrity than anything else.

    Oh jeeze, it’s historically that very horrible attitude which kept women from coming forward when they were sexually harassed or abused: people would accuse them of being spiteful, or just going after money, inviting the abuse by something they may have done, etc.

    Also, I don’t think Ravi Z. qualifies as a biblical, Genesis “Joseph.”


  25. “Oh jeeze, it’s historically that very horrible attitude which kept women from coming forward when they were sexually harassed or abused: people would accuse them of being spiteful, or just going after money, inviting the abuse by something they may have done, etc.”

    But that’s exactly what this appears to be- just going after money. Read the CT article- she and her husband were already implicated once.


  26. @ 530

    Even if it’s true…. most women are not after money, or lying, or are spurned lovers.

    Again, that sort of doubt-casting on one woman in that manner makes other women hesitant to step forward when they’re sexually harassed. It’s still contributing to the fear sexual abuse victims have in going public or reporting incidents to police, HR, whomever.


  27. “When I began blogging, I did so to tell my own spiritual abuse experiences. There were no rules. I followed my heart. I still do the same today. I probably do things that make trained journalists cringe. Oh well. But, I must stay true to myself, true to victims, and true to my God. And sometimes that gets complicated.”

    Did you do ANYTHING to establish the truths of this woman’s claims?


  28. Even with the woman as the initiator, the relationship went on way too long and was obviously consensual on Ravi’s part. If it had been an online “counseling” relationship, it would have still be inappropriate because it was conducted on Ravi’s private e-mail account/devices (the Blackberry). Anything with a payout reeks of inappropriate.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. KAM,

    Actually it’s the other way around. This whole mess started when Ravi went after that couple for a donation.

    And Julie Anne has already done plenty of investigation. Please do your research as well.


  30. Avid Reader: “And Julie Anne has already done plenty of investigation. Please do your research as well.”

    Evidence, please.

    I may do research, or not. Because I’m not playing with weapons of mass destruction. The burden of proof is on Julie Anne. “Oh well” doesn’t cut it.


  31. KAM,

    The evidence is right in front of you if you would just open your eyes.

    Please tell us that you are not too lazy to do your own research because you feel entitled to demanding that everyone else do the work for you.

    Julie Anne and the team here have already done their research even though you are choosing to ignore that.


  32. I read an article by Abigail Sanchez in
    Hello Christian newsletter Dec 5. It’s entitled Ravi Zacharias Dismisses Lawsuit and Addresses Sexting Claims.
    It says “Stated in the lawsuit is the fact
    that the couple previously sued a pastor in Ontario, Canada for allegedly
    coercing them into unadvisable loans and investments.” Is this true? You may have already covered this, Julie Anne but I find it concerning.


  33. busyMOM, “Sorry, but how did Ravi hold any power over her that she didn’t choose to give him? IF he came on to her in emails, just because he’s a prominent man, doesn’t equate with abusive grooming. IF he made a personal connection with her via email, just because he’s a prominent person, doesn’t mean he was sexually grooming her..”

    I think this is a really important point that should be discussed. The purpose of all authority, be it spiritual, familial or governmental, from a Biblical perspective, is to remove roadblocks to obedience to God, as well as remind people of their need to obey God. Each “sphere” of authority has their own unique role to play.

    However, what Jesus has said is that people in those positions have the tendency to “domineer”. Boiling that down, what that really means is that people in positions of influence and authority have a natural tendency to use those positions to claim honor for themselves and to subtly shift peoples’ focus from God to themselves.

    Now, some people like that are more obvious. I think people are pretty aware that Trump is pretty big on having his name on lots of building and making sure he looks good, and not so big on removing roadblocks to obedience to God.

    But, there are also people who have the strength of personality and interpersonal skills to deceive people into all sorts of horrible things. For example, Charles Manson just died. He was able to convince his followers to commit murder without remorse by the strength of his personality. These were adults. So we’ve seen these sorts of things in the past.

    Also, in Evangelicalism, there is a system of undue reverence for those seen to be spiritually gifted – pastors, evangelists, and especially those who are in the book writing/conference circuits, where their followers don’t have the right boundaries in dealing with them. I knew I grew up being taught that it was okay to tell the pastor everything (although there was also evidence that people who did tell the pastor ‘too much’ often ended up in big trouble)

    So, I’m not going to dismiss offhand that someone is somehow ‘lesser’ because she was able to be seduced by an obviously gifted speaker into letting down her guard in personally embarrassing ways.


  34. ​New post up at Spiritual Sounding Board: “Resource Archive and FAQs on the Ravi Zacharias and RZIM Situation.” It includes numerous links to primary source documents, plus links to posts with observations, analysis, and interpretations. This was developed in response to what look to be the most frequently asked questions about all the parties involved. So far, concerns addressed include about the prior lawsuit by the couple involved, the current legal documents and follow-up statements by Mr. Zacharias and RZIM, Zacharias family members on the RZIM board of directors and staff employees, Mr. Zacharias’ use of credentials and titles, updating of his biographies and titles, and the impact of the non-disclosure agreement.

    If you’ve got concerns about some of these issues, you will likely find sources to study so you can come to your own informed conclusions.



  35. I am greatly puzzled by the fact that the alleged victim had through her lawyer demanded for 5 million to stop her from bringing it public. Is that a pursuit of justice and truth or is it a case of greed or what some would call extortion. What ever value in her story is destroyed by her own desire for money. Yet you try to make her look like a saint beyond reproach. Is that double standard.
    For all the 48 years or more of the sacrificial service of Ravi Zaccharias at the expense of his family and the untold millions of lives impacted by his ministry and lives changed and transformed and given a new lease of life and hope, you have not even mention it but a few words from a woman that you hardly know , you treated it as as gospel truth and pursue it at the expense of man who had given so much to give people a hope and a reason to live. Can you cast aspersions on a person integrity through social media by sheer word of a woman who stands to benefit from her doubtful accusations, a cool 5 Million. She started the process with a lawyer’s legal demand letter . When Ravi Zacharias sued her and took her to court and under legal advise , she settled the matter. What else can a reasonable man say in regards to the credibility of her claim without putting up a fight ? Ravi Zacharias putting his integrity on the line , went public with a federal court case rather than to succumb to the extortion of 5 million. She had all the right to tell her story but she choose not to defend when she was the instigator who fired the first shot with her lawyer demand letter for 5 million.That speaks volume of the veracity of her alleged claim.

    Is that about truth and the quest for justice or fairness or is there more to it then meets the eye.
    The parties have settled the matter amicably. The integrity of a man of world standing has been put in question and he has responded.
    It is time that we move on. Lets focus on building people and lives and make the world a happier place.
    I trust that none of us will say that we are so perfect that we are incapable of committing a judgment of error or mistake. So pause and judge not less we are judged in our own frailties and weakness.


  36. Hi CS, thanks for the comment: Be sure to check out this post with resources/links. I would not be so quick to make up your mind.

    If you saw Zacharias’ salary, I’m not so sure you would say it was sacrificial (oh, and his family is on the payroll, too).

    Why did he write suicide e-mails? That’s an important question that has not received attention. Why would he threaten to end his life?


  37. “I trust that none of us will say that we are so perfect that we are incapable of committing a judgment of error or mistake.”

    Correct, but mistakes have consequences. People are fired for lying about their credentials, and people are fired for many forms of exploitation of people that their ministries are ministering to.

    Should we have the expectation that Christians who are in ministry are held to a higher standard or to a lower standard? What witness do we have to the world if we insist on overlooking judgment errors in our leaders? I know of a few cases where people who lied about their credentials were fired on the spot. One a Vice President of a Fortune 500 company, and one a city manager.

    “Can you cast aspersions on a person [of] integrity”

    I think, by definition, a person of integrity would not present himself as something he’s not (i.e. “Dr.” Zacharias), so, we are just calling attention to the truth. Isn’t that what Christians are called to do? We shine a light on the deeds of darkness. Is lying about your credentials a deed of darkness? Sure is.

    “Lets focus on building people and lives and make the world a happier place.”

    I think your assumption here is that the world would be a happier place if we just let everyone sin without being held accountable. Or at least if we let our Christian idols sin without being held accountable. I think the world would be a happier place if there were less sin, and as Jesus says, sin hides in the darkness. So, it seems like you’re fighting for the wrong team. You say, let’s let Ravi’s sins hang out in the darkness so everyone is happier, and I think that’s not what Jesus would say.


  38. So the victim thought it was appropriate and the right thing to do to blackmail RZ because RZ took advantage of her ? This itself speaks a lot.. Many who do not agree with the truth RZ speaks want to ruin his Name..


  39. Perhaps I am ignorant of those who defend Ravi and his “Name – why capitalized?”, his “great apologetics” and his “truthful ministry(?)”. Call me ignorant, misinformed, a back-forty hillbilly, and a stupid lower laity sheep, de-churched from the last conservative, Republican, abusive Baptist church with a former immorally sexual Assembly of God pastor man seeking the pleasures of the “women he counseled,” but….

    …..call me all of those names, however, doesn’t Scriptures have a say in the lying tongue concept? What did Jesus have to say about liars, “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.” Jesus speaking in John 8:44.

    Perhaps a Proverb parallels Ravi’s lifestyle to a “t”…..”The getting of treasures by a lying tongue is a fleeting vapor and a snare of death.” Proverbs 21:6.

    Does Ravi have a lying tongue? Is Ravi one to be trusted with interpreting the Holy Scriptures when the lying tongue speaks no truth? Is Ravi using a form of ministry for gain……taking the LORD’S Holy Name in vain for gain? Is Ravi storing up treasures for himself using Jesus’ Name as his marketing/selling point? Do Ravi’s credentials place him above the One and Only Master that we are to believe/follow (Jesus)? In defending Ravi and his ways, are we not mocking our LORD Jesus and His Ways? Do not vipers (figuratively speaking here) speak smooth vain words out of their own hearts and imaginations, flattering those with whom they come in contact with, and yet like a viper, they bite you with a vengeance and never let go, leaving their victims to suffer slow, painful deaths…..including spiritual death?

    The “spiritual” leaders of our day aren’t too excited about listening to those who like to point out that Jesus didn’t choose the religiously educated hierarchal leaders of His day to become His Disciples and His Apostles. Funny how that is…..

    Ironic how Ravi’s name is defended, placing him on the platter of victimhood, when in fact his tongue indicates otherwise.


  40. honest question. did the accuser mention the other law suit she brought against a different church under the similar circumstances? If so, did she seem credible to you in that scenario? thanks


  41. Hi Mike, I don’t recall her mentioning anything about the previous lawsuit. It’s quite different, however. I looked up the case and also have some documentation pertaining to the pastor. He was a very spiritually abusive and corrupt pastor. He used their money and they were suing to get their $$ back.


  42. hi Julie anne,
    thanks for the response. I think the past history muddied the waters even more and provides additional doubt with respect to the claims made by the lady in question. I am not sure I am confident in the validity of the emails posted previously. that said, only God knows for sure, as their are no independent verifiable facts to be measured. Therefore i will reserve final judgment and caution your readers to do the same, until Christ judges all things and we merely say amen.


  43. Mike,

    Remember that Jesus told us to know people by their fruits. That includes recognizing what people in ministry positions do and making a decision of whether that behavior is good or bad.

    If you have the time to read the previous lawsuit—appears to be a minister using his congregation for money. Someone had to stand up against that. Don’t hold being willing to stand up against misuse of funds against that couple.

    Jesus told us to be on our guard for wolves infiltrating the flock. That discernment can’t wait for the judgment seat of Christ.


  44. Avid reader;
    That is the point. you presume to know what those fruits are. you presume that Ravi is guilty. fruit is one thing presumption is another. I will not judge either Ravi or the lady based on presumption, nor should you or any rationale Christian.

    I referenced the law suit for that very purposee in this context. Anyone taking sides at this point must either attest that either 1) God has directly revealed the truth of what happened to them OR 2) they are following the desires of their own heart to see this party or that party found wanting.

    Did God reveal some facts to you that are hidden from the rest of us? or are you willing to admit that you dontknow what the Fruit is and therefore should reserve judgment?


  45. Mike,

    Think about how much God hates a lying tongue. (Prov 6:16-19)

    If there were no lying tongues then there would be no con artists. No one would be getting ripped off. No one would be getting taken advantage of. There would be no cults. There would be no wolves attacking the flock.

    God hates a lying tongue because that’s what opens the door for people to get hurt.

    Mike, I’m asking you this question—did Ravi lie about his credentials?


  46. Mike wrote:

    “Anyone taking sides at this point must either attest that either 1) God has directly revealed the truth of what happened to them OR 2) they are following the desires of their own heart to see this party or that party found wanting.”

    That’s the logical fallacy of false dilemma—saying that we have only two choices. That we are only allowed to decide between the two options that someone else has given us. That’s actually the type of logic that cults like to use. They give you two choices—but they are controlling those two choices—manipulating you to believe that you have no other options outside of what they are giving you.

    Nope. Not even close. We have much more than two options.

    Option #3: We can do the research, look at the facts and then decide whether Ravi fits the NT qualification list for Christian leaders.

    That’s exactly what Jesus commanded us to do:
    “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?”
    Matthew 7:15-17 (BSB)

    Now Mike, you are adding extra hoops to jump through that Jesus never required of us. We don’t need a personal revelation from God in order to look at someone’s behavior and discern whether there’s a pattern of deceit.

    Look at the lawsuit. Study the facts. Do the research. The patterns are clear.


  47. While doing research, I’ve read several biographies of ladies who grew up in polygamy groups and then were able to escape. I remember one lady describing how her group prided themselves on not having any underage marriages. When she was of age, they gave her a list of men that she could marry.

    Of course, they never told her that she had the option of leaving the group. That she could have a much better life outside the group. That there were lots of other men who would love to have a monogamous relationship with her. That she didn’t have to settle for being a sister wife.

    That’s what a lying tongue does. It pretends that there are only a small specific set of options—all of which are carefully controlled to maintain power over that person.

    No wonder God hates a lying tongue. If everyone spoke the truth—no one would be taken advantage of. Then no one would be wounded by the wolves that are prowling around looking for easy targets.


  48. no, I don’t think so.

    I doubt he even writesthe brief bio that is his web site. even if i “thought” he did. it would still be just my thinking. to your point- the accusations of lying about his bio. muddies the water further.

    it still does not even pertain to this issue, just as you said earlier – the accusers other law suit doesn’t pertain to this issue either.

    At some point we get back to lathe same issue WHAT HAPPENED HERE? YOU DO NOT KNOW !!!! NOR DO I. !!!!

    so again unless God has revealed something to you, just withhold judgement.


  49. Presumption was how the devil tempted Christ when he told Jesus to jump from the temple because the Bible says that angels would intervene. The devil was quoting real Scripture and then twisting it around to try to deceive.

    Jesus saw through the temptation of presumption—willfully making a bad decision presuming that God will clean up the mess for you. Nope. Don’t be deceived, God is not mocked. Whatever we sow we will reap.


  50. Mike,

    Are you telling us to disobey the command of Christ to know them by their fruits?

    That requires us looking at their behavior and recognizing whether that’s good or bad fruit.

    Mike, we are obeying God’s command in 1Timothy 5:20 (GW)

    “Reprimand those LEADERS who sin. Do it in front of everyone so that the other leaders will also be afraid.”


  51. Mike,

    Here’s another reason why we are commanded by God NOT to wait until the judgement seat of Christ to exercise our discernment in the church. Remember this verse where the Apostle Paul had to get on the Corinthian church for not dealing with the person doing wrong in their midst?

    God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.”
    1Cor 5:13 (NLT)


  52. We have 2-1/2 yrs of solid proof that Ravi has been notified many times by Steve Baughman that his credentials are exaggerated or falsified. RZ and RZIM have chosen not to deal with that until all the recent publicity. We also know that he was told at least a couple of decades ago by Dr. John Stackhouse. So that shows over 2 decades of being corrected on the appropriate use of academic credentials, and he chose to ignore them. That shows a lack of integrity and transparency on the part of Ravi Zacharias and RZIM. It easily could have been handled quickly 2 decades ago, but he/they continued to use the “Dr.” title.

    With regard to the e-mails. They were sent to me from Ms. Thompson’s e-mail address (the same one shown in court documents).

    There are some very important questions that Mr. Zacharias has refused to answer. Why did he give Mr. Thompson his private Blackberry number if she was as evil as he was painting her out to be? That makes no sense at all. Why did there relationship last for over a year? It doesn’t take months to shut down a relationship. I have a block feature on my phone. It’s simple to use. These are only a couple of questions. Sadly, the man in a position of power and influence was able to shut down Ms. Thompson by use of a nondisclosure settlement. He gets to say his story and she is prevented from sharing hers. I’ll keep sharing her story. You can be sure this is not the end of the Mr. Zacharias story. I would not be surprised if there are other victims out there.


  53. For the past 25 years I have congregated in conservative, elder-led churches. If a situation such as that mentioned in Ravi’s lawsuit had come up, it’s a sure thing that if he were in leadership he would have been put on standby until the situation had been thoroughly vetted. Same if he were a candidate looking for a leadership position. Last year I was on a pastoral search committee, and when we approached references, one the first questions was “do you know of any situation-past, current, or potential-that might prevent this person from being involved in ministry?” What Avid Reader is saying is very important.


  54. completely disagree that 1 matter has anything to do with the other matter. the same way that you dismiss the accusers law suit as having anything to do with this matter. I call it a wash. God will reveal all in time and enjoy waiting upon the Lord. Merry Christmas to you all


  55. I just now read this. “patterns are clear.” so clear that ypou know what happened. again, I would caution you against presumption. you are being silly to assert you know facts where you clearly dont.


  56. (Avid Reader sees Mike’s comment of 12-23-17 at 5:57PM and grins).

    The more you read—the more that words begin to look like patterns. Words start looking like the patterns in embroidery. Then you start to recognize where those patterns are going.

    This is a great opportunity for us to study how logic and reason work. If you look at Mike’s comment from 5:57PM—there’s no logical argument. He’s just making accusations and ridiculing us. That’s just a diversion tactic. Easy to recognize and just move on.

    There comes a point in life when we have to grow strong in discernment. Strong enough to stand our ground even when other people say that we’re “silly.”

    Nope. Not even close. Our discernment here is right on point—regardless of whether everyone else agrees with us or not. We’ve done our research. We know the facts. We don’t need anyone’s approval for us to make conclusions based on the facts.


    Take some time to study how the Bible spends a lot of time warning us to be on our guard for the wolves that would try to infiltrate the flock. As the Apostle Paul wrote:

    “I know that after I am gone, others will come like fierce wolves to attack you. Some of your own people will tell lies to win over the Lord’s followers. Be on your guard!”
    Acts 20:29-31(CEV)

    How many more Scriptures on the need for our discernment would you like?


  57. Avid Reader – I think you and Mike Bland are talking at cross-purposes. I don’t see him as saying you shouldn’t exercise discernment. Rather that discernment requires knowledge, which can either come by the Spirit – ‘distinguishing of spirits’ or ‘word of knowledge’, or by more ordinary means of investigation. Neither excludes the other.

    When it comes to obtaining knowledge, the internet must be read with adventurous discernment. There is a lot that is good, but a lot that is little more than people sharing their ignorance. You have to sift the wheat from the chaff. Reading the internet is not ‘research’ if the information is second hand.

    In the case of Ravi, my own view is to reserve judgement, even assuming it is my job to make a judgement. This doesn’t affect me personally at all. The whole thing has not been helped at all by the involvment of lawyers, something the apostle Paul warns us against. Both parties have been guilty of this in the matter of the online affaire.

    I’ve only seen Ravi fairly recently on youtube, and I don’t wish to be uncharitable but when you have seen three you have seen them all. But as a populiser of arguments for the Christian faith he has been in the front line for decades. The spiritual hosts of wickedness will seek to bring him down, either by being ‘accusers of the brethren’, or inciting him to fall into sin. If this happened, he is responsible for this, for allowing his own lust to get the better of him, for falling for temptation.


  58. few final comments from me as I don’t think we will ever agree here.

    1) your unwillingness to admit that you don’t know what happened as matter of fact is troubling.

    2) your concern for finding wolves is valid biblically. And there are many commands and directives in the Bible for the Believer.

    3) I do not monetarily support Ravi or his ministry. in so far as he has spread the gospel I applaud him for so doing, just as Paul was pleased to hear preaching Christ weather it was out of self aggrandizement or out of truth and in spirit.

    4) finding wolves as a command must be balanced against all other commands. if that is the primary focus of your lives, you have subordinated the best to what is merely good. a common error we all make. if suggest you concern yourself with working out your own salvation and spreading the gospel, rather than claiming authority to be God’s official fruit inspector.

    have merry christmas


  59. Mike,

    More accusations? Let’s analyze this logically:

    Mike wrote:

    “Unwillingness to admit that you don’t know what happened as matter of fact is troubling.”

    That accusation ignores the reality that we have done our research. The logical fallacy is saying it’s impossible for us to research and learn the facts. Unless we were actually there and witnessed everything that happened—he says we are unqualified to discern the truth.

    Think about what happens in a jury room. Does the entire jury have to be eyewitnesses to the actual crime in order to recognize what happened? Of course not. They examine the facts. Listen to the witnesses. Then they reach a conclusion that doesn’t have to wait for the judgment seat of Christ.

    Mike, would you tell a jury that they are disqualified from reaching a verdict unless they were eyewitnesses to every single event?

    Mike wrote:
    “Finding wolves as a command must be balanced against all other commands.”

    Well—duh. Of course we know that. The existence of all of God’s other commands doesn’t diminish the importance of obeying Christ’s command to discern wolves in the church.

    Mike: “If that is the primary focus of your lives, you have subordinated the best to what is merely good.”

    Accusation #2—Mike is saying that because we have discerned something troubling therefore, we must be too focused on the wrong thing and not focused on “good.”

    I’m cracking up reading this because the logical fallacies are so obvious. How does Mike know what we are focused on? Can he look through the computer and see our hearts? Of course not. The root of Mike’s argument is attacking our obedience to Christ’s command to utilize our discernment.

    Remember when the Apostle Paul got upset at the Corinthian church because they weren’t using their discernment in judging issues that they could have dealt with themselves.

    Paul wrote:
    “Don’t you know that God’s people will judge the world? Well, then, if you are to judge the world, aren’t you capable of judging small matters? Do you not know that we shall judge the angels? How much more, then, the things of this life!”
    1Cor 6:1-3 (GNT)

    Oh wait—was Paul wrong because we can’t use our discernment until the judgment seat of Christ? 🙂

    Mike: “Suggest you concern yourself with working out your own salvation and spreading the gospel, rather than claiming authority to be God’s official fruit inspector.”

    Accusation #3—Using our discernment automatically proves we’re not focused on
    1) Spreading the Gospel
    2) Working out our own salvation

    Accusation #4—Using our discernment automatically proves that we are “claiming authority as God’s official fruit inspector.”

    That one made me burst out laughing. Again, that’s attacking our obedience to Christ’s command to “know them by their fruits.” Jesus didn’t put that warning in the Bible for us only to turn around and go—oops that was a mistake.

    Nope. No one here is trying to “claim authority.” Discernment doesn’t require a hierarchy. Discernment just requires “eyes that see and ears that hear” which the Bible talks about a whole lot.

    From wikipedia:
    Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, hoping to make them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target’s belief.

    Sound familiar? Step one in learning to utilize your discernment is learning to recognize when someone is gaslighting you. Pure logic can sometimes sound cold and detached. That’s never my intent. But I’m not going to allow someone to gaslight the group here. This was just pure logical analysis.

    Mike, I wish you the best.

    Merry Christmas to you all. Hope you all have a wonderful time with your families.


  60. KAS,

    Mike is welcome to share his opinion and make as many comments about Ravi as he wants. Things would be different if he had just stayed on topic about Ravi.

    But when he became condescending to us and started making personal insults towards me—then he crossed a line. Then it was necessary for me to respond with some logical analysis.


  61. KAS –
    I don’t recall making any comments directed at you, nor do I think I made any personal insults.

    I a dually thought your comment about cross purposes was on point. the only insults / personal comments in this thread has been from Avid Reader and therefore I am disregarding anything further from him/her.



  62. From Psychology Today

    Gaslighting Step two:

    They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof.

    “You know they said they would do something; you know you heard it. But they out and out deny it. It makes you start questioning your reality—maybe they never said that thing. And the more they do this, the more you question your reality and start accepting theirs.”

    Mike is denying how condescending he was. Trying to get us to doubt our own perception. Of course he’s going to blow a gasket when confronted on his own words because he refuses to recognize the difference between making a logical argument and making accusations.

    I’m glad this conversation happened because it gives us a great example of how to utilize our discernment to recognize gaslighting.


  63. Your statement is pure conjecture. What kind of woman would send unsolicited nude photos to a public minister she’s met twice, and then threaten to “expose” him unless paid $5 million dollars? This whole situation is suspicious, and your projecting your own issues onto others is also immature.

    Did you also send unwanted nude photos to a pastor and then demand millions in payoff? If so, then maybe you and this unstable woman do have much in common, but certainly nothing to be proud of or expect public praise for on your “blog”.

    Moderator note: We already have a Kate who posts here regularly, so I have changed your name to Kate2.


  64. “your projecting your own issues” and subsequent conjecture:
    Irrelevant and immaterial ad homimem. The court of public opinion will kindly disregard.


  65. The fact that this woman along with her husband, have already sought damages – money – once before from a party,previous to this situation with Ravi Zacharias….is a sensible person supposed to ignore that as it relates to the question of credibility? Of course not. My question to the person running this blog site is: you had communications with the self alleged victim in this story; how is it possible for you to know for certain this person is telling the truth….other than ‘believing’ what you were told, what else validates the ‘victim’s’ story as true? You know, everyone is fallible, that includes Ravi Zacharias. If he did anything wrong in this instance, it shouldn’t be ignored. But you know what else, it’s really hard to believe this woman when pardon me, both her and her husband smell like rats. Regular people may on occasion muster up the fortitude to go through the process of pursuing someone legally, and may even seek significant damages in monies. Most people are too intimidated to do so….most people…but not everyone. However when I see that someone has not only done it once, a first time, but twice, then I see a questionable pattern even if the pattern is two times rather than five, or ten. And when I see that I begin to question the individual(s) behind that pattern. Common sense forces me to do that. It takes a bit of lightning and vinegar to muster up the gumption to pursue this kind of thing, not just once, but twice. But if you’re successful, you only need to do it perhaps once if a million dollars or something close to that is the prize. Though it takes a lot of nerve, you might try it again a second time…IF you weren’t successful the first time you tried it. There are real victims in this world, and there are also real perpetrators as well. There are also liars and frauds who pretend to be victims for some form of gain. Just as there are perpetrators who are liars and frauds. In this case, whatever the truth is, I am not at all impressed with the cloud, like it or not, that surrounds this alleged victim. Her and her husbands personal credibility is questionable, at best. Until that was answered truthfully, I’m unclear how anyone could rush to give full support to her story. I guarantee that if this case was in court, any attorney worth their salt would be pressing for an answer to that question, and there would have to be a credible answer given by such a party if they expected their claim to be advanced.


  66. Hi Zoran. I have investigated the previous lawsuit and also have documentation about the pastor in that lawsuit. It’s legit. It is completely unrelated to their lawsuit against Ravi Zacharias.

    As far as Ms. Thompson is concerned – she was referred to me and was vetted by at least 2 others before she connected with me, late 2016. The emails she sent, along with the personal account she told me by phone and in a 20-page document line up. I found no inconsistencies. I believe her. She described a classic case of a person in a position of power using that power for selfish sexual gain. She was groomed.


  67. Hi Zoran. Go to http://raviwatch.com/ and read the email excerpts at the top. Then approach Ravi any way you can and ask him these questions: 1: Did you or did you not promise to bid this world goodbye if Mrs T were to tell her husband it was you?
    2: Did you or did you not beg Mrs T to meet at lest (sic) once before she did this?
    I believe he will refuse to answer. Let us know if he does.
    Here’s the thing — either the emails are fake or they are real. IF they are fake there is NOTHING on God’s green earth preventing Ravi from saying this. They are, in that case, NOT included in the lawsuit settlement and he’s free to denounce them. But he has not done so. NO denials as to the validity of the emails previously posted here. IF they are real, they call into question the story presented by Ravi that he was the victim of a stalker who kept sending him unwanted messages and photos and tried to meet up with him despite his best efforts to block her and flee from her. She could be the devil incarnate, but if those emails are real, he absolutely did NOT resist as James recommends. He wanted to meet up with the devil one last time before bidding this world goodbye.

    Liked by 1 person

  68. Hi Julie Anne,
    First of all, it’s interesting when you stand on the outside looking in on something, not having all the available information at your fingertips that concerns the thing, nor having examined it. It’s very easy to comment on it, as a lot of people,including myself, do. What appears simple from the outside may when all is said or done, require a closer look at real information first, to even begin to form an opinion about what the heck is really going on. I respect the fact Julie Anne that you have access to what hopefully is credible info, and that you have looked at it. My post was an impression, which doesn’t mean I’m right, and it might not mean I’m wrong. But a better approach is looking at the information you have access to, and of course being very critical when examining such info, just like people do in court when trying to get to the bottom of something. I would definitely be interested in that, but I don’t have the info, so I stand in a position with limited understanding of what may have really transpired here.

    So, I have respect for the idea of digging deeper, but it would come down for me personally, to going thru such info MYSELF. I can’t comment on your having examined the other case this woman was involved in, nor on your conclusion that it is ‘legit’. Credibility remains a question mark in my mind because of two reasons: 1./this type of thing occurred once before her involvement with Ravi…I would really want a close look at the info involved in that first case before I let her credibility off the hook. 2./ though this would not prove Ravi is innocent, and goes to what people do when influenced by another negatively, I would be interested in probing the fact that if she was groomed, why did she herself decide to play along? There are questions to be asked of her in relation to that last point that can’t simply be answered by saying, ‘he groomed me, what could I do to stop this thing?’ We are talking about long distance communication, and not being influenced by someone who is in much closer physical, geographical proximity, I would have hard questions for someone who tells me they have been wronged in a situation like this but also appear to have voluntarily compromised themselves but are blaming it solely on the other party. Do you understand my concerns about her credibility along this line of things? What prompts an adult woman to send nude photos of herself via computer, am I to believe that’s all Ravi’s fault? The only way to deal with that question for me is to look at the info you looked at, and then see where credibility sits. Even then it might not be clear….or maybe it might clear up. Then there’s the question about all the info relating to Ravi. So this is why I say simple is not so simple until one looks at the information themself.

    Hi Dave,

    I agree with your reasoning. If Ravi is free to denounce the emails, and if they are fake, which would be the only good reason to denounce them, why isn’t he? The big question is: are these emails real, or fake ? Pretty big question! I’m not exonerating Ravi unless I know they’re fake. I don’t know if they are fake. Which goes back to your point, he is free to denounce them if they’re fake…..why in the world hasn’t he?

    At this point, based on what little I know, and just on your and Julie’s input, my position is that they both have serious questions to answer to. As a teacher presenting himself as he does, Ravi is responsible to a high standard, which is to be walking honestly and uprightly after the example of Jesus. If he’s hiding something, which appears possible, then Jesus and Ravi may have a serious problem that needs addressing immediately. It’s a big deal. Not sure what else to say apart from the fact that looking at the info on ones own wouldn’t hurt for the sake of clarity.


  69. Zoran said: “But a better approach is looking at the information you have access to, and of course being very critical when examining such info, just like people do in court when trying to get to the bottom of something.”

    I have to be very careful when looking at specific cases and then exposing it on my blog. I have been sued before. I have no time, money, nor desire to be sued again. So, you better believe that thought is always at the back of my mind whenever I post on such a case as this. To the best of my knowledge given the information I have, how this woman was referred to me (through people who are professionals and deal with abuse), this story has run true to me. I completely understand that people will think otherwise, and I probably would, too.

    Zoran said: “I would be interested in probing the fact that if she was groomed, why did she herself decide to play along?”

    The way this sentence is worded makes me wonder if you understand what grooming is. Grooming is when a person uses their position of influence to manipulate, control, create an emotional bond with another person. Someone who is a predator will seek out someone who is weak and vulnerable. Ms. Thompson was vulnerable, and Mr. Zacharias took advantage of that vulnerability to keep her connected to him emotionally. These strong emotional ties can lead someone to do what they never would have done otherwise (send nude photos).


  70. I understand what grooming is. I said what I did above in the way I said it, because I’m still looking at it from a position further than you. Therefore, though you feel certain about who’s who and what’s what in this situation as a result of of going thru this process of examining and judging info, etc….I don’t. I accept what you tell me about how you got the info, and how you now feel about it. That doesn’t mean I automatically arrive at your verdict. Nor does that mean I think you’re wrong. It just means unless and until I myself go thru the process you have gone thru in being involved with this thing, I’m not able to arrive at anything close to a personal judgement. I dont have any issue with what you have explained to me, but surely you don’t expect me to fully join you in the position you have arrived just because you’re satisfied but I’m not, me not having gone thru a proper, personal, critical examination of real information that goes beyond conversation on a blog site? I would think you understand that, and that therefore you also understand that for me it’s not a question of not understanding what grooming is. In my position I have questions that are unanswered about both parties, so I can’t at this point walk across the floor and just join the Grooming party quite yet so to speak, if you know what I mean. And yes, if you want to know, I do believe the concept of grooming is a real thing that really does occur in life. But every instance needs to be looked at separately to see if the charge of grooming is true and warranted. So really, it kind of sucks standing on the outside trying to determine the truth. I’m a person who prefers not just to hear from credible people about it, but to have a close look at it myself. I think that’s a fair position on my part. In the meantime I’m respectful of the position you have taken about this.


  71. I completely understand, Zoran. I am still stewing about the information I have and if and how it should be released without causing unnecessary harm to Ms. Thompson and her family, yet exposing the sequence of events that led to Ms. Thompson sending nude pics. I really think people need to know what happened. I’m waiting for enough green lights to go forward. Please pray that I have discernment about this.


Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

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