John Lennox

The Top 20 Christian Apologists

Frank Turek with the world's most credentialed and likable apologist, Dr. John Lennox.

Frank Turek with the world’s most credentialed and likable apologist, Dr. John Lennox.

 

These are the Top 20 Christian Apologists from whom I’ve learned much.  They were the subject of today’s radio program.

Outside of Dr. Norman Geisler being in the top spot (since I studied under him for several years), the rest are not necessarily in order.  Do I agree with everything these men say?  No.  (I don’t even agree with everything I say!)  But I think you’ll find a wealth of wisdom and practical insights about the truth of Christianity from these men and organizations.  Many of these men have appeared on our radio program.  You can listen to them anytime by downloading our free app here.

  1. Norm Geisler:  normangeisler.net.
  2. William Lane Craig:  Reasonable Faith.org
  3. Ravi Zacharias:  RZIM.org
  4. John Lennox: John Lennox.org
  5. Greg Koukl: STR.org
  6. J. Warner Wallace: ColdCaseChristianity.com
  7. Paul Copan: PaulCopan.com
  8. Ed Feser: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/
  9. Lee Strobel:  Lee Strobel.com
  10. Josh McDowell:  Josh.org
  11. Discovery Institute  (Dembski, Meyer, Richards, Luskin, Wells): www.Discovery.org
  12. C.S. Lewis: CSLewis.org
  13. Gary Habermas:  GaryHabermas.com
  14. Timothy McGrew:  http://historicalapologetics.org/
  15. Dr. Michael Brown:  AskDrBRown.org
  16. Richard Howe: Richardghowe.com
  17. Tim Keller:  TimothyKeller.com
  18. J. Budziszewski:  Undergroundthomist.org
  19. Hank Hanegraaff:  Equip.org
  20. Hugh Ross: Reasons.org

Bonus (includes some cultural commentators):

R.C. Sproul

Wayne Grudem

J.P. Moreland

Mike Licona

Southern Evangelical Seminary 

Apologetics315

CARM

David Limbaugh

Scott Klusendorf

Mike Adams

Ryan T. Anderson

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
53 replies
  1. Robert says:

    “The very need for a thing called ‘apologetics’ is an example of the weakness of the theistic argument. ‘God’ always needs apologies, rationalizations, explanations, equivocations, excuses.” – Mark K. Bilbo

    These men make the worst arguments in the history of bad arguments. If you want to see how absolutely silly and deluded they are watch the debate between Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig. Craig is no different than Ken Ham. He makes the same arguments only couches them in pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. I doubt Craig will ever debate another scientist

    Reply
    • Joyce Clemons says:

      Apologetics isn’t apologizing, that’s a very disingenuous implication. Since Hawking made himself the “God” of modern thought by pronouncing philosophy dead, I have a very jaundiced eye toward the avocations of cosmologists and theoretical physicists, and the like, who are not satisfied to not believe, but have a jones to proselytize. It’s not as if they are needing to peddle the scientific method. It’s not as if they haven’t won the k-12 science classroom, in the courts. They have. They need and deserve to have diametric opposition. The debate is the right place for this. People as arrogant as Singer and Dennett (and you) need to be exposed to the possibility that empiricism is not all there is for finding truth. Kant said rightly, that the rational mind processes experience to then derive knowledge. Craig will most certainly debate a scientist again someday. You don’t really understand the people that you see, through your senses, do you? That’s kind of sad but instructive. Thanks for showing us the flaw in your argument. God doesn’t need anything. You need something.

      Reply
      • Nate says:

        Very well stated. God bless!!very well stated, I pray for wisdom to reach Robert and that his eyes be opened. God bless.

        Reply
      • Jesse says:

        Joyce,

        To be fair to Robert, your comment is riddled with confusion. For starters, it’s not entirely disingenuous to compare apologetics to the act of apologizing. The English usage of “apology” is different, yes, but they are both based on the need to say something in response to being caught with your pants down, so to speak… hence the reason that the modern word “apology” was in fact derived from “apologia,” the Greek word for defending a position. So in the case of apologetics, the need for this discipline derives from the fact that religious explanations are not rooted in anything solid, and hence the holding of a tenuous religious position requires a “defense” or justification. This defense is generally given in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, in much the same way that an apology is often given in lieu of a good reason for having done something unacceptable. Mark K. Bilbo, in his quote, is perhaps having a little bit of fun and maybe even doing a little equivocation, but he’s not far from the mark.

        The fact is, many atheists like Robert use this sarcastic tone because they are frustrated… not by any weakness in their own position, but by the refusal of people on the other side to notice how many times their awful, vapid, silly apologetics have been debunked. It’s painful to see William Lane Craig repeatedly have simple concepts explained to him and then to watch him dance around the subject until he’s woven some “defense” that to a casual observer not well-trained in logic (you, for example) doesn’t seem to require further justification. Robert has a right to be annoyed. Apologetics are routinely based on false or unproven premises, e.g. “Something can’t come from nothing,” a statement that, while it might seem true, has never been necessarily “proven.” Craig begins every debate with the same unproven premise: “The universe had a beginning”… a statement that has never been justified. He then makes an art of NEVER addressing the opposition when they repeatedly — and repeatedly — call him out on it. Meanwhile, Joyce Clemons is sitting in the audience nodding like a sheep, repeating in her head, “Yes… there’s no chance that the universe never had a beginning… I guess this is an open and shut case…”

        The fact is that theism is a very, very weak position to hold if you’re in the logic business. Most believers, if asked, will admit that they aren’t. But there are some, like Craig, who claim to be… and spend their time trying to make up theistic justifications out of whole cloth. There’s nothing there, Joyce, and the entire institution of apologetics may as well be, for all intents and purposes, an apology for believing in “God.”

        Reply
        • Al lawson says:

          How can you say, with a straight face that something can come from nothing? I would not show my stupidity with such an answer. If there is such why don’t you and all of your kind show one ???
          I know why. In all the years this ignorant statement has been used not one, not one, thing has ever been proven to exist with out some help from something else. Just like our universe, it had help from God. He created it. Simple and to the point. It seems to me that after all these years of saying something stupid you would find something else to say. On top of all that has been said,, what will you say when you face Jesus???? It will happen. al

          Reply
      • John Gunia says:

        My personal favorite is Dr. James R. White–and I’m frankly surprised his name was nowhere to be found. He has over 150 moderated debates and is an extremely intelligent man who’s debated Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, atheists and Roman Catholics. Not even an honorable mention?

        Reply
        • Richard Chelvan says:

          James R. White is not even mentioned here because he dared to challenge the likes of William Lane Craig (who uses middle knowledge or the Jesuit Molinist scientia media argument – which even the Sunni Muslims rejected long before Molina!) and Norman Geisler! This tells me that this site is not worth the bandwidth expended!

          Reply
    • mike says:

      Hmmm. So, every discipline that matures and evolves over time should be labeled as defective, according to your rationale. Does that include science, which has seen profound reorganizations in its ideas, over time. Try this. Since the human mind is finite and prone to error, everything it conjectures (concepts, ideas, beliefs, current understanding of reality, etc.) will likely find correction in the future. Does that invalidate that which stands exterior to it? Of course not. Christianity is only strengthened by the assaults on it. Whether people choose to investigate or reject it is mostly determined by the filter through which people view it.

      Reply
    • Eduard C says:

      First, apologetics is not a need. It’s just being a part of the agora of noble ideas, of the community. And as it has more than a philosophical standing, it can legitimately debate. God does not need anything and anybody. But the lost sons sometime need reminding that they have a hope because they belong to Someone, their Creator and that science should not be debating against God. But then, after all, you misunderstood the term itself – it is not coming from apologies, but from the Greek ‘apologia’, which is a verbal defence. It’s the type of rhetoric people like Cicero or Demosthene have practiced in the old times. .

      Reply
    • K.C says:

      I say, you utter fool. As of the lack of knowledge which you have, you have done is Googled “apologetics”, and adopted the first definition you saw. The people above are of no ridicule for it is you who is “silly and deluded”. Nevertheless Robert, God has given you innate value, please, use it well.

      Reply
    • tom says:

      when ever a book claims its assertions are true, you have follow the book very closely. out of 2500 Holy Bible prophesies, nearly 2000 have been fulfilled and the remaining will be fulfilled…the odds for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 102000 (that is 1 with 2,000 zeros written after it). you can go to http://www.reasons.org and check the accuracy of the prophesy. since God of the ‘Holy Bible exist out of time, he can prophesy events before they happen and his name is ‘Glorified’ in the process……..i can go on and on and on….you can watch ravi zach debating with people with other world view on youtube

      Reply
      • toby says:

        Prophecies written down were then fulfilled later and written down. Or they weren’t fulfilled and just written as if they were. Because . . . it was written later and you could do that and would if you were trying to show that your candidate was the messiah.

        Reply
    • Jimmy says:

      Robert,

      William Lane Craig slaughtered Sean Carroll. Sean’s entire position rested upon misrepresenting the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem. After the debate, William Lane Craig got into e-mail contact with Alexander Vilenkin (one of the three founders of the BGV Theorem, the one I just listed), and had it personally confirmed to him that William Lane Craig had accurately represented the theorem, and that it does inquire that the universe had a beginning. Craig posted this e-mail to his website. Sean attempted to say the theorem does not say this by pointing to a video where Borde speaks merely of his opinion on the universe, not on the theory, and his view clearly contradicts his theory.

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        I’ve not heard anyone else say that Craig even managed to hold his own against Carroll. To say he slaughtered Carroll is absurd. Craig was quoting Borde to back up Craig’s view, when Borde himself disagrees with that view.

        Reply
  2. Robert says:

    By the way all of these apologists have seen all of their arguments refuted and know every well they do not stand up to scrutiny. Frank Turek has seen the refutations of the First Cause argument. He knows it isn’t valid and knows why it isn’t valid. Yet he makes this argument on the air all the time. This makes me question Frank’s honesty, his ethics and his morals. This is because he has no objective basis for morality and ethics. Divine Command Morality can be used to defend any crime no matter how hideous as the Bible clearly states over and over and over again. So ignoring objections to your claims and repeating your claims over and over and over again as if no objections to them were ever made just seems like the right thing to do for a Bible believer.

    Reply
    • Frank Turek says:

      Robert, thanks for participating on this blog. Please keep your comments to arguments rather than attacks on the person.

      Blessings,

      Frank

      Reply
      • Paula says:

        Frank, I heard your show for the first time this last Saturday. Thanks for the list. I had to laugh a little when my husband said, “He didn’t include Augustine or Schaaf or…” and he went on to name a few more! He didn’t catch the show and I didn’t hear the first part. I assumed you were naming more contemporary apologists and thought it would have been a most difficult exercise to limit yourself to only 20!
        I’m going to have to listen on podcast…Saturday morning (on my station) at 9 a.m. isn’t a typical time for me to listen!
        I loved your show! Thanks for serving the community of believers. Blessings!

        Reply
    • mike says:

      You make very silly points. First, if Turek is convinced of the soundness of his argument, why should he abandon it? Second. The comment you make about no objective morality is foolish. To make that claim, I’d like to see you provide a coherent, logical defense of that statement with solid support for you premises. Many have tried but they all fail due to the fact that any other human being who decides to can simply claim his own moral superiority and refuse to bend to your ideas, claiming the absolute right of the Self to do so. That is the final fruit of moral relativism. It must remain relative. A free for all. Don’t agree? Just look at the sexual license of the 1960’s, the booming drug trade, and the coarsening of society since that time. Funny how most of that would have never happened if people had accepted the objective moral posture of the commandments of Christ. Like most atheist arguments, you just throw up canards to disguise the emotion that drives your unbelief.

      Reply
    • Marty says:

      Funny Robert. You question Dr Turek’s morals but you say there is no objective basis for morality. Where did you get your basis for questions to his morals? Just wondering.

      Reply
    • K.C says:

      If one is an atheist, as you are, then you are the one without the “basis for morality and ethics”; if you do not believe in God then there is nothing stopping you from doing anything you please. If one is a theist, we fear the Lord as much as we love him, thus we are to commit no crimes.

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        “If one is a theist, we fear the Lord as much as we love him, thus we are to commit no crimes.”

        Right, that’s why no Christian ever commits crimes.

        Reply
        • toby says:

          Absolutely right. All statistics indicating that the vast majority of prisoners in the USA are christian is a lie propagated by the liberal media.

          Reply
      • David Stump says:

        “If one is an atheist, as you are, then you are the one without the “basis for morality and ethics”; if you do not believe in God then there is nothing stopping you from doing anything you please. If one is a theist, we fear the Lord as much as we love him, thus we are to commit no crimes.”

        I’m NOT an atheist, but your comment as per the quoted above, is simply ignorant. Here is why: People don’t necessarily need an invisible Deity in order to have a very real basis for morality and ethics. People sense, and feel, morality and ethics, and often, this sensing, is indeed, very very REAL on the personal plane. For example, at the thought of murdering or raping someone, sane people are quite naturally abhorred at this. Those that aren’t, we typically deem as sociopaths. The point is, the natural reactions that sane people have at what we label immoral, are VERY REAL, with or without a proposed deity to where the buck stops at, so to speak. In biblical parlance, does not the bible, teach that the “law of God” is written on the hearts of humankind, even those that don’t recognize that God? It would seem that many who don’t believe in God, do indeed, have a very REAL basis for being moral: every fiber of their being is against doing immoral things. I know plenty of atheists that are completely moral to the core. Secondly, and along the lines of that, no it is not the case that unless one believes in God then they could just do whatever they want. There is this thing called an inner sense of feeling good or bad about what we do, and atheists have it too. That inner sense, is VERY REAL. (however one wants to explain it, the fact is that in reality, there are plenty of non-theists and atheists that do indeed have very real inner states of being that prevent them from doing “whatever” they want) Lastly, there are plenty of full blown THEISTS that DO commit crimes, such as any number of priests, pastors and preachers who get caught in immorality or ripping off the church, etc etc. So uh, yeah, please do try to put a bit of the awake from the neck up thought in your ignorant apologistics nonsense. And remember, I’m NOT an atheist.

        Reply
  3. Joe says:

    Robert,

    Really. Do you really believe that the universe and everything else came into being spontaneously? Why does life exist? Why does the church exist? I have to assume you resort to assertions because you have no real arguments.

    Frank, I would add JP Moreland and Peter Kreeft to this list!

    Joe

    Reply
  4. BJ says:

    You mentioned on air, that you don’t agree with any of these guys 100% and neither would I. So I think you missed an opportunity to include maybe 3 names on your honorable mention list that you wouldn’t agree with too. Weakest to strongest… Scott Hahn, Francis Beckwith, GK Chesterton. No, I’m not Catholic, however these guys have contributed greatly to my development.

    OK, maybe Hahn isn’t technically an Apologist, I’m not 100% sure, but he did help me to think through some basic Theology and his EWTN program called “Our Fathers Plan” grounded me in the birds eye view of scripture and the way the Bible is ONE story.

    I don’t think I need to tell you about Beckwith’s contributions before he converted BACK to Catholicism.

    Lastly, GK Chesterton is off the hook brilliant and even though to protestant ears he seems to put his Catholicism before his Christianity (like Hahn), I think we could say that about some Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, Baptists etc. At the very least, Orthodoxy should be on everyone’s shelf who studies Apologetics. His Essays on Aquinas and St Francis are also edifying.

    It hits me while I write, that you didn’t mention Francis Schaeffer or his “protege” Nancy Pearcey. “How Should We Then Live” and “Total Truth” are textbooks on worldview. Other recent favorites are John Coe from Biola, and Frank Turek, whom I download and listen to while truck driving.

    To me, everything is Apologetics, because everything needs to be integrated with a Christian worldview to be more completely understood. Also, any and every topic may arise during witnessing, discussions on Theology and Doctrine etc.so we have to know the terrain to make better decisions about where to make a stand and what to let pass (not majoring in the minors).

    I don’t live in an AFR area so I’ve started downloading some of your podcasts. Great stuff, a real blessing.

    Reply
  5. Ski says:

    I listened to the broadcast while I was driving – there were many book recommendations, including one for Systematic Theology. Could you please post those here as well – I didn’t have a chance to get the authors names & titles…

    Thanks for your ministry!

    Reply
  6. e116@inbox.lv says:

    What?!? James White is the best. He is the most consistent apologist and defends Christianity against soooo many different attacks, against the best of the other side. And wins over and over, doesn’t mater how elite is hes opponent.

    So my opinion – James R.White Nr.1

    Reply
  7. Jonathan says:

    Where is Peter Kreeft?! I guess he was excluded for being Catholic… which is really a shame because he is excellent.

    Reply
  8. Ed Phillips says:

    Why such hostility in some of the comments? It seems that some will go to great lengths to convince themselves and whoever will listen that there is no God. The implications of an all-powerful God who actually sets some limits on their behavior is a scary thought that brings about fear, irrationality and hostility. Frank, thank you for posting this list of great men. -Ed

    Reply
    • H H Andrewson says:

      Ed,

      My guess is that it is not enough for some to be atheists only. They must also be anti-theists because of their outright disdain for Jesus Christ and his followers.

      Of course it is also possible this guy Robert is a simply a web troll who likes giving Christians a hard time. Those guys don’t just lurk in their caves anymore.

      My friend recently wrote an insightful note on Facebook called “Are you a critical thinker or an angry mob?” This guy Robert seems more like the angry mob type to me.

      Regards,

      H H Andrewson

      Reply
  9. RickW says:

    Agree with some of the other posters who mentioned Plantinga, Kreeft and James White. All are brilliant apologists. Cornelius Van Til has also been very influential to later generations of apologists such as John Frame, Scott Oliphint and the great, late Greg Bahnsen. Bahnsen’s debate against atheist Gordon Stein in 1985 is a classic. Other useful mentions include Dinesh D’Souza and Robert Spencer.

    Reply
  10. Steve Taylor says:

    Great list, Frank. I am truly disappointed with Robert’s contribution to this piece – seems he misunderstands what apologia means, and how apologists integrate the scientific discoveries with the theological and philosophical position supporting the existence of God. Seriously, I’d like to see Robert debate yourself, Bill Craig, Greg Koukl or John Lennox and see how he gets on.

    I know limiting the list to 20 must have been hard. I agree with others suggesting Augustine and Alvin Plantinga.

    Keep running the race.

    Reply
  11. Brian says:

    I would recommend Os Guinness being on the list. He is very good at Christian Apologetics through mostly the use of literature, both Christian and secular.

    Reply
  12. Matt says:

    Belief in God can’t be refuted by Western rational thought for one simple reason, regardless of particular beliefs in the origin of the universe or humans. All explanations are either based on one of two patently irrational beliefs, which are that everything spontaneously came into existence at the hands of a divine being, or that everything spontaneously came into existence without the existence of a divine being. Both are equally irrational. Hence, the point that you missed the only choice for #1 – Blaise Pascal, who made the only apologist argument worth considering.

    Reply
  13. Bryce says:

    Thank you, Frank, for posting this list. When I first found it when I was 15, I had just become a Christian, and I was looking for answers to a lot of questions that I had. I saw this list, and I started to look at these men and the way they defend the faith. Today, I am 17 years old with a faith in God and Jesus that I think is so strong that I will never, EVER walk away from it. So thank you so much for opening the door for me to study and learn under all of these men!

    Blessings to you forever, Frank!

    -Bryce

    Reply
  14. gands says:

    Robert,
    Your inspiration from Bilbo that God needs apologetics is flawed. It is a well thought of quotation but misplaced. God needs one thing, glory arising from his oneness with mankind. Atheists are on rampage against God and logic demands that theism responds. Not that God’s survival depends on it but the evidence of his existence overwhelms his defenders. Defining what God needs from outside the camp is like missing a memo on green hair day haha.

    Reply
  15. Luke says:

    Mike said::”Don’t agree? Just look at the sexual license of the 1960’s, the booming drug trade, and the coarsening of society since that time. Funny how most of that would have never happened if people had accepted the objective moral posture of the commandments of Christ.”

    Mike, I don’t agree. When I look at things like crime rates, crime has gone down dramatically over the last 20 years. The number of teenagers having sex is lower than we’ve ever recorded. Drug use is down. Abortion numbers have been declining for decades. All of this has happened while religiosity has declined. (And less religious states in general have less abortion than the religious states.) Sure, the world and people’s behavior is far from perfect, but when I compare it to the 1960s, or 1950s, or 1850s, it seems that we have made great moral strides. “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” it has been wisely said. Can you honestly argue that our country today is not more just, more moral than it’s been through most of its history?

    In the 1950s, laws in this nation sent people to different water fountains and forced them into poor schools, based on nothing but the color of their skin. When they tried to stand up for justice, the authorities went after them with dogs and fire hoses. Some moral paradise that was.

    Want to look farther back, back to when our country was young, supposedly founded as a Christian nation? Yeah, we not only acquiesced to slavery, but with horrendous bureaucracy like the three-fifths compromise. And just look at what was done with the native Americans. A claim of some lost glorious past of morality is at best innocently mistaken.

    You asked for a logical example with premises of how Divine Command Theory allows for any action to be moral (therefore no action can be categorically labelled immoral). I can sketch that for you:

    1. G-d is omnipotent.
    2. G-d can command anything He wishes (follows from 1)
    3. Anything commanded by G-d is by definition moral.
    4. Since G-d can command anything, and anything commanded by G-d is moral, there is no action that can be categorically labelled immoral. (follows from 2 and 3).

    He said examples can be given. One famous example is Pslam 137: “How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
    Against the rock.”

    Targeting babies in war is something that strikes almost every human alive as immoral, yet, under Divine Command Theory, we cannot say that dashing little babies against the rock is categorically immoral. (Note that this isn’t collateral damage of the sort we might see now “this was our chance to kill a terrorist leader, but unfortunately a small child died and there was no way to avoid it”. This is literally someone picking up a little baby, on purpose, and hurdling it’s innocent body against a boulder. And that man is blessed!)

    (This is probably best argued against by attacking Premise 2 and saying “G-d can’t just command anything” but then it sure begins to sound like either there is a standard G-d must follow — therefore people can just follow that, or it sounds like a lowly human telling His creator what the Creator can and cannot do.)

    Just to be clear, I’m not personally advancing this argument about DCT. You just seemed to want to see such an argument, so I thought I’d be nice and sketch it for you.

    Thanks,

    Luke

    Reply
  16. Bill says:

    Thank you for the list. I happened onto it looking for podcasts that may offer some diversity to the standard fare. I did want to ask a question if I may.
    When assessing their credintials do you take into account the character of the man( or woman) or only the effectiveness with which he delivers his content, and the content itself?
    Having grown up with the greatest of regard for Dr. Geisler, my family and I have been sorely disappointed these last years with his tendency toward attacking fellow appologests. These have not been substantive criticisms, but ones so without basis as to seem personal in nature. When rebuffed by other mainstream contemporaries, he has turned his attacks on them. Are you keeping track of Dr. Geisler’ ministry? If so do think his rantings are of a man in his later years seeking a dwindling significance by creating debate where there is none?
    Or is it perhaps more innocent. Perhaps he is losing his faculties? Regardless, your placement of him at number 1 caused me concern. Anyone who is introduced to the man he has become will be confused by the seeming disconnect between the message and the messenger. Finally, because I do care about the endless recordings that have the ability to win the lost for years to come, I would appeal to you who have known him personally to have an eye on protecting his legacy. Perhaps whatever umbrella he has put himself under in an accountability position can begin to temper whatever is driving the man. Bless you for the honor you have given your mentor, and continued blessing as you give back what you have been given.

    Reply
  17. Jason Martin says:

    I am suprised that James White from aomin.org has been left out of this list considering his vast contribution to issue of debate and apolegetics. Over a 150 moderated debates on a wide variety of subjects and the lead when it come to debating Islam. Is there a bit of an issue as to why he was left out?

    (Please delete previous comment / wrong info for email/name)

    Reply

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] scholarship. Go ahead and look at this link of 20 apologists (and other cultural commentators): http://crossexamined.org/top-20-apologists . I suggest you look into how these people share their biblical […]

  2. […] The first of these questions ask who are the prominent apologists, atheists, and agnostics. crossexamined.org gives a comprehensive list of the top 20 apologists in the world. Among them are William Lane Craig […]

  3. […] Top 20 Christian Apologists – Cross Examined […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *