Hi Jonalyn! I read The Shack at the all church campout a few weeks ago and I couldn't put it down. I loved it. It has caused me to think deep thoughts about God and I have to say it's one of my favorite books. I plan on doing a 4 week elective here at Granada on The Shack's picture of God. Thanks for the review! -- Mike Sanborn
Caryn
· 1 year ago
Well said, Jonalyn! I read it for my church's book group earlier this summer. For sure the book needed an editor like nobody's business (YAY for book editors!!!) and sure there were moments where I winced a bit, but that book allowed conversation among a very diverse group that never would've happened. And I'm grateful for that. It opened up God in wonderful ways I think.
Dianne
· 1 year ago
You're the 2nd person this week to recommend The Shack to me! I tend to be wary of the watchdogs anyways, and those kind of opinions always drive me to check stuff out for myself. Great review; good stuff here on your blog as well. BTW, I love your point that "Jesus dignified and validates our humanity."
un-nerved
· 1 year ago
While I have not yet read the whole book, I did not find the reason for calling God "Papa" comforting at all. He says most people have had a bad experience of fatherhood and so need a redeeming image (p.94). To me, this excuses the centuries of misogyny where God is always seen as male AND twistedly excuses men from their perhaps fine and good gifts as fathers while perpetuating the stereotype that women are "good" and "gentle" but not leaders. I had a really hard time with that, and don't know if I can pick up the book again.
Jonalyn Grace Fincher
· 1 year ago
Mike- kudos for you introducing this book to the GHFC clan. I'm so glad they have you!
Caryn- glad to hear a discussion group found the book good for deeper thinking and sharing
Dianne- you've tapped into one of the main reasons my husband and I run our non-profit... the formal title for this branch of thought is "Christian humanism" for more see our website: www.soulation.org And let me know what you think of The Shack once you're throught!
Unnerved- You make a very good point. I cannot defend Young, though I can say that God has chosen to reveal himself with both male and female attributes. I want you to see how Young redeems the picture of Father, Papa in the book, but I cannot do that without revealing some plot spoilers. Do you want me to share? If so, email me at jonalyn@soulation.org Know, however, that however "papa" grates again you, "Papa" grated against Mack as well. Mack's father and Young's own parents were part of some pretty horrible abusive moments in both men's lives. I would encourage you to delve in again if only to see how Mack is healed.
About perpetuating the idea that women are not good leaders, I did not see that anywhere in Young's work. God the Father is feminine in the book and she is a wonderful leader, as is the Holy Spirit who appears in unadulterated (she isn't called by a male word) female form. What did you think of the Holy Spirit (Sarayu)?
If you haven't got this far, I think you'd enjoy Young's depiction of her!
Molly Aley
· 1 year ago
AMEN and AMEN again.
A powerful powerful podcast interview with The Shack's author is here: http://stevebrownetc.com/podcasts/steve-brown-etc/the-shack-william-paul-young-on-sbe/
AJ
· 1 year ago
Warning: I have not read 'The Shack,' though I eventually will.
My wife reads your blog and shares various posts with me. Because one of our friends has read 'The Shack' and highly recommends it, my wife showed me your review.
I have a question about this passage from your post (I apologize if the quoting style is incorrect):
'Later Young has Jesus explain what mutual submission really looks like "That's the beauty you see in my relationship with Abba and Sarayu. We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not about obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way."'
I think I understand what Young means when he has Jesus explain mutual submission. What I don't understand is what Young means when he has Jesus say, "we are submitted to you [humans] in the same way." Do you think Young means that humans and God are equal in authority, or something completely different?
I could be reading my own view (and current issues with God I'm working on) into that quote, which is something like this: God has authority over humans, even though humans are his friends--and humans should submit (or, perhaps a better word is surrender) to His authority or will because He knows what is better for us than we do.
I know I have several(if not many) messed up ideas about God--and I'm working on trying to figure out the lies I'm believing about God and getting the truth to travel from my head to my heart. From your review, it appears that 'The Shack' will help me in getting at the truth about God.
Jonalyn Grace Fincher
· 1 year ago
Molly, Thanks for the link. That is an good interview though it takes awhile to get through Steve Brown's self-conscious emceeing. Since your text got cut off, here's the link "Interview with William Young" I hope others will see it to listen to how Young is both humble, wise and admirable. He makes a great point about shame and secrets. "Authenticity and secrets just don't go together . . . for me there's nothing I can't talk about. There is something in us that is driven into authenticity . . . the lies and secrets have made shadows of us all. We are as sick as the secrets we keep. Once the lies drop away, there is something attractive about that."
AJ, This is an excellent question because it brings up the issue of what submission is. We've been defining submission for so long (I'd say too long) as something an inferior does to a superior that we have lots of authority residue when we hear submission. How would you define submission?
I would define submission as "giving my life for yours" it includes both respect and love, meekness and humility. Submission can and often does flip typical hierarchies. Submission can be done by a parent toward their child, by a boss toward his employee, by a president toward the citizens.
I'd say that when God submits to us, he is giving his life for ours, he is being loving, gentle, meek, respectful of us. It is the ultimate bowing for God to submit to us, because God has so far to bow from. It doesn't diminish God's essential superiority for him to bow to us, to lay his life down for us. This is what theologians call "kenosis" , the emptying of Philippians 2.
I do believe God will give us much authority because that's what his submission looks like for us. The Bible teaches that we will rule angels (I Cor 6:3), that we are co-heirs (very much putting us on "his level") with Christ (Romans 8:17), and God says he will give authority over to us, the nations (Rev 2:26). So while God's essence is greater than us, he shares his authority with us. Does that make sense?
I would challenge you to back up the concept of "surrender" with Scripture. I do not see surrender as something God wants from us. He wants our love and delight in him. He wants strong wills for good, not inert wills which is what surrender denotes.
What are your follow-up thoughts?
I do think The Shack will help in restoring your concept and picture of God. Glad you're willing to walk this road.
AJ
· 1 year ago
Warning: This post is rather long. Really long, actually.
Hello again.
I think my definition of submission would be something like “coming under to support,” which I think I’m getting from a sermon I heard in which a pastor was talking about the famous (or perhaps infamous) passage from Ephesians 5:21-33. The pastor said that in the Greek, the meaning of submit was something like “coming under to support,” and he also mentioned that, in the Greek, there is no verb ‘submit’ in v. 22, so that the literal translation would be something like “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ, and for an example, look at wives and husbands.” He also said that in a previous series he went through the Greek in more detail, but I haven’t gone back to find that message yet. But, I digress.
I completely agree that “while God’s essence is greater than us, he shares his authority with us.” I think it’s somewhat scary how much authority He does give us, although it’s also an awesome privilege.
I think I get a lot, if not all, of my concept of “surrender” from steps 1, 2, and 3 of the 12 steps of recovery. My will isn’t very good at running my life, so I have to surrender my will for God’s will, because He actually knows how to run my life. I understand that God wants to make us into “little Christs” as Dallas Willard says in one of his talks in ‘Knowledge of Christ in Today’s World’ (which I highly recommend to anyone, and I think they are sold on amazon). Willard says in one of those talks that the process by which we become little Christs is by “the transformation of the will, or as I call it in the book, the renovation of the heart.” So that is where my concept of “surrender” is coming from.
Biblically, I would say that my concept of “surrender” would be found in these three quotes:
John 4:31-34 “Meanwhile his disciples urged him, "Rabbi, eat something." But he said to them, "I have food to eat that you know nothing about." Then his disciples said to each other, "Could someone have brought him food?" "My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.”
John 5:19-20 "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these.”
Luke 22: 39-42 “Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. On reaching the place, he said to them, "Pray that you will not fall into temptation." He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
I think that those three passages illustrate my concept of “surrender,” in which Jesus is trying to do the Father’s will. I don’t think I’m taking the quotes out of context, or reading into the quotes what I want them to say. It is possible that I’m misinterpreting them, though—my wife would know, since she introduced me to hermeneutics.
I totally agree that God wants us to love and delight in Him, and that He wants strong wills for good. I have a tough time loving God and delighting in Him for who He is, rather than all the cool stuff He can do for me. But I’m working on that—and likely will be for the rest of my life. I’m not sure that my concept of “surrender” would lead to an inert will, because I would be using my will to figure out what God wants me to do, think, etc. Perhaps that makes me sort of like a robot, though—although I think God would still want me to ask for His input on decisions instead of just ignoring Him.
I suppose, though, that my concept of “surrender” also ties into my concept of “dependence” on God. I think that when I start to use my will apart from God, then I start to lose my dependence on Him, even if I’m doing good, non-sinful things. So, perhaps through my concept of “surrender” I stay dependent on God.
Dale Fincher
· 1 year ago
aj,
I like all your discussion on the comments. Willard is great.
Mind if I add a few clarifying points?
On the topic of surrender, there seems to be a couple of ways to approach it. One is passive: a ceasing of the will (because many assume the will is wrong and strong will is worse). It comes out in language of "I just want God to work through me. I'm not doing the work, God is."
While this view probably has its roots in 19th century revivalism, it is often akin to modern spirituality movements where we lose ourselves into the energy of the universe.
This is a tough view for me to swallow, though I know reading some verses from a certain angle could lead to this view.
Another form of surrender is "changing our allegiance." It is as Lewis said, when we come to Jesus we must lay down our arms. Many of the verses you listed fall into this category. Even Jesus wrestled with the human emotion of the prospect of death, pulling natural desires of aversion into the divine plan.
While Jesus didn't have to change his allegiance, the rest of us have to, at some point, put down our weapons on the battlefield. And in process of finding hidden weapons on our person throughout our walk, we lay those down too.
And when we're bringing ourselves into allegiance and 'surrendering' in that sense to a new kingdom, then, yes, it is surrender.
All that said, I don't know if that second view is what most people mean. Usually surrender is a passive thing, a beating oneself into a weaker will so God can have us (as if our wills are keeping us from him). I've heard few conversations where people actually speak of having a strong will and merely re-orienting it.
So for all practical purposes, I'd rather use 'allegiance' or, as you stated, 'dependence.' I avoid 'surrender' when I can because of smuggled in additional meanings.
Onto the idea of 'submission,' yes, the Greek word of it means to 'order under.' At least that's what the lexicons say. Extra-Biblical sources are finding it could also mean 'to be associated with.' This second meaning requires a lot more out of wives than the merely 'follow the leader' that has come with it.
That doesn't mean 'order under' isn't also a proper definition, like when obeying civil authorities, etc. But 'obedience' is not always associated with 'submission' (like the Eph 5 passage). And when it isn't there, then I wouldn't attach 'authority' as an automatic assumption.
Scripture sometimes doesn't use specific words to say things we can look up in a dictionary. This is something modernism has required. May times Scripture gives a story, paints a picture, turns a metaphor. The clinching word may not be present, but the concept is in vivid detail.
I think love is like this, as is burden bearing, etc. When the husband is called to 'love,' it is no less a submissive act. Jesus was submissive in this way (the older KJV word might be more helpful--subject). Jesus subjected himself to us, to the cross, to our sin, to our dirty feet, to our brokenness. His patience was played out, his compliment of condescension, his raising us up to be co-heirs with him. This shouldn't imply we have authority over him by any means. But the word 'savior' doesn't imply authority as does the word 'lord.' And in his saviorhood he subjected himself to us in love and asks we do it to one another.
Other examples of submission: when I go out in nature, I submit (subject) myself to the elements. When I speak to an audience, I submit (subject) myself to their opinion. When I pray for my neighbor, I submit (subject) myself to their burden. When I play basketball, I submit (subject) myself to the rules of the game. These are all examples of submission not carrying authority of me, but it does require the will to be involved in situations where we may be scarred or hurt... and there's usually also the potential for reward and gain. There's a vulnerability that is implied, but, again, being vulnerable doesn't automatically mean being under authority. Yet there does seem to be one unalterable rule to the universe: unless we submit (subject) ourselves to one another, we do not find love.
Mark 10 unfolds the role of the greatest in this world: they become last. That's become a cliche too often in the church, but if we meditate on what this means, I think we'll arrive at a much deeper sense of submitting (subjecting) to one another means. I think this can be illustrated well in marriage, with mutual submission... the woman freely associating herself with her man and the man freely laying his life down daily. Paul's created a paradox of submission: when we do it to one another, something blossoms that would otherwise have remained untapped.
That's the Trinitarian picture Young is painting in The Shack. When there is love, there is no need for heirarchy within the nature of a species, no need for government, each and every bowing the knee to Jesus and living for each other... everyone is not only look after his own interests, but equally looking out for the interest of others.
Those are some thoughts on this.
Deb
· 1 year ago
For the love. Mark Driscoll is afraid of... what? sigh...
But I shouldn't have been surprised to read that he was upset. As one of my very wise and observant friends said, 'it has the fundies jumping outta their undies.' :)
Have read several of your blog posts... will def be back! deb
All Comments
Caryn- glad to hear a discussion group found the book good for deeper thinking and sharing
Dianne- you've tapped into one of the main reasons my husband and I run our non-profit... the formal title for this branch of thought is "Christian humanism" for more see our website: www.soulation.org And let me know what you think of The Shack once you're throught!
Unnerved- You make a very good point. I cannot defend Young, though I can say that God has chosen to reveal himself with both male and female attributes. I want you to see how Young redeems the picture of Father, Papa in the book, but I cannot do that without revealing some plot spoilers. Do you want me to share? If so, email me at jonalyn@soulation.org Know, however, that however "papa" grates again you, "Papa" grated against Mack as well. Mack's father and Young's own parents were part of some pretty horrible abusive moments in both men's lives. I would encourage you to delve in again if only to see how Mack is healed.
About perpetuating the idea that women are not good leaders, I did not see that anywhere in Young's work. God the Father is feminine in the book and she is a wonderful leader, as is the Holy Spirit who appears in unadulterated (she isn't called by a male word) female form. What did you think of the Holy Spirit (Sarayu)?
If you haven't got this far, I think you'd enjoy Young's depiction of her!
A powerful powerful podcast interview with The Shack's author is here:
http://stevebrownetc.com/podcasts/steve-brown-etc/the-shack-william-paul-young-on-sbe/
My wife reads your blog and shares various posts with me. Because one of our friends has read 'The Shack' and highly recommends it, my wife showed me your review.
I have a question about this passage from your post (I apologize if the quoting style is incorrect):
'Later Young has Jesus explain what mutual submission really looks like "That's the beauty you see in my relationship with Abba and Sarayu. We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not about obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way."'
I think I understand what Young means when he has Jesus explain mutual submission. What I don't understand is what Young means when he has Jesus say, "we are submitted to you [humans] in the same way." Do you think Young means that humans and God are equal in authority, or something completely different?
I could be reading my own view (and current issues with God I'm working on) into that quote, which is something like this: God has authority over humans, even though humans are his friends--and humans should submit (or, perhaps a better word is surrender) to His authority or will because He knows what is better for us than we do.
I know I have several(if not many) messed up ideas about God--and I'm working on trying to figure out the lies I'm believing about God and getting the truth to travel from my head to my heart. From your review, it appears that 'The Shack' will help me in getting at the truth about God.
Thanks for the link. That is an good interview though it takes awhile to get through Steve Brown's self-conscious emceeing. Since your text got cut off, here's the link "Interview with William Young"
I hope others will see it to listen to how Young is both humble, wise and admirable. He makes a great point about shame and secrets. "Authenticity and secrets just don't go together . . . for me there's nothing I can't talk about. There is something in us that is driven into authenticity . . . the lies and secrets have made shadows of us all. We are as sick as the secrets we keep. Once the lies drop away, there is something attractive about that."
AJ,
This is an excellent question because it brings up the issue of what submission is. We've been defining submission for so long (I'd say too long) as something an inferior does to a superior that we have lots of authority residue when we hear submission. How would you define submission?
I would define submission as "giving my life for yours" it includes both respect and love, meekness and humility. Submission can and often does flip typical hierarchies. Submission can be done by a parent toward their child, by a boss toward his employee, by a president toward the citizens.
I'd say that when God submits to us, he is giving his life for ours, he is being loving, gentle, meek, respectful of us. It is the ultimate bowing for God to submit to us, because God has so far to bow from. It doesn't diminish God's essential superiority for him to bow to us, to lay his life down for us. This is what theologians call "kenosis" , the emptying of Philippians 2.
I do believe God will give us much authority because that's what his submission looks like for us. The Bible teaches that we will rule angels (I Cor 6:3), that we are co-heirs (very much putting us on "his level") with Christ (Romans 8:17), and God says he will give authority over to us, the nations (Rev 2:26). So while God's essence is greater than us, he shares his authority with us. Does that make sense?
I would challenge you to back up the concept of "surrender" with Scripture. I do not see surrender as something God wants from us. He wants our love and delight in him. He wants strong wills for good, not inert wills which is what surrender denotes.
What are your follow-up thoughts?
I do think The Shack will help in restoring your concept and picture of God. Glad you're willing to walk this road.
Hello again.
I think my definition of submission would be something like “coming under to support,” which I think I’m getting from a sermon I heard in which a pastor was talking about the famous (or perhaps infamous) passage from Ephesians 5:21-33. The pastor said that in the Greek, the meaning of submit was something like “coming under to support,” and he also mentioned that, in the Greek, there is no verb ‘submit’ in v. 22, so that the literal translation would be something like “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ, and for an example, look at wives and husbands.” He also said that in a previous series he went through the Greek in more detail, but I haven’t gone back to find that message yet. But, I digress.
I completely agree that “while God’s essence is greater than us, he shares his authority with us.” I think it’s somewhat scary how much authority He does give us, although it’s also an awesome privilege.
I think I get a lot, if not all, of my concept of “surrender” from steps 1, 2, and 3 of the 12 steps of recovery. My will isn’t very good at running my life, so I have to surrender my will for God’s will, because He actually knows how to run my life. I understand that God wants to make us into “little Christs” as Dallas Willard says in one of his talks in ‘Knowledge of Christ in Today’s World’ (which I highly recommend to anyone, and I think they are sold on amazon). Willard says in one of those talks that the process by which we become little Christs is by “the transformation of the will, or as I call it in the book, the renovation of the heart.” So that is where my concept of “surrender” is coming from.
Biblically, I would say that my concept of “surrender” would be found in these three quotes:
John 4:31-34 “Meanwhile his disciples urged him, "Rabbi, eat something." But he said to them, "I have food to eat that you know nothing about." Then his disciples said to each other, "Could someone have brought him food?" "My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.”
John 5:19-20 "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these.”
Luke 22: 39-42 “Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. On reaching the place, he said to them, "Pray that you will not fall into temptation." He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
I think that those three passages illustrate my concept of “surrender,” in which Jesus is trying to do the Father’s will. I don’t think I’m taking the quotes out of context, or reading into the quotes what I want them to say. It is possible that I’m misinterpreting them, though—my wife would know, since she introduced me to hermeneutics.
I totally agree that God wants us to love and delight in Him, and that He wants strong wills for good. I have a tough time loving God and delighting in Him for who He is, rather than all the cool stuff He can do for me. But I’m working on that—and likely will be for the rest of my life. I’m not sure that my concept of “surrender” would lead to an inert will, because I would be using my will to figure out what God wants me to do, think, etc. Perhaps that makes me sort of like a robot, though—although I think God would still want me to ask for His input on decisions instead of just ignoring Him.
I suppose, though, that my concept of “surrender” also ties into my concept of “dependence” on God. I think that when I start to use my will apart from God, then I start to lose my dependence on Him, even if I’m doing good, non-sinful things. So, perhaps through my concept of “surrender” I stay dependent on God.
I like all your discussion on the comments. Willard is great.
Mind if I add a few clarifying points?
On the topic of surrender, there seems to be a couple of ways to approach it. One is passive: a ceasing of the will (because many assume the will is wrong and strong will is worse). It comes out in language of "I just want God to work through me. I'm not doing the work, God is."
While this view probably has its roots in 19th century revivalism, it is often akin to modern spirituality movements where we lose ourselves into the energy of the universe.
This is a tough view for me to swallow, though I know reading some verses from a certain angle could lead to this view.
Another form of surrender is "changing our allegiance." It is as Lewis said, when we come to Jesus we must lay down our arms. Many of the verses you listed fall into this category. Even Jesus wrestled with the human emotion of the prospect of death, pulling natural desires of aversion into the divine plan.
While Jesus didn't have to change his allegiance, the rest of us have to, at some point, put down our weapons on the battlefield. And in process of finding hidden weapons on our person throughout our walk, we lay those down too.
And when we're bringing ourselves into allegiance and 'surrendering' in that sense to a new kingdom, then, yes, it is surrender.
All that said, I don't know if that second view is what most people mean. Usually surrender is a passive thing, a beating oneself into a weaker will so God can have us (as if our wills are keeping us from him). I've heard few conversations where people actually speak of having a strong will and merely re-orienting it.
So for all practical purposes, I'd rather use 'allegiance' or, as you stated, 'dependence.' I avoid 'surrender' when I can because of smuggled in additional meanings.
Onto the idea of 'submission,' yes, the Greek word of it means to 'order under.' At least that's what the lexicons say. Extra-Biblical sources are finding it could also mean 'to be associated with.' This second meaning requires a lot more out of wives than the merely 'follow the leader' that has come with it.
That doesn't mean 'order under' isn't also a proper definition, like when obeying civil authorities, etc. But 'obedience' is not always associated with 'submission' (like the Eph 5 passage). And when it isn't there, then I wouldn't attach 'authority' as an automatic assumption.
Scripture sometimes doesn't use specific words to say things we can look up in a dictionary. This is something modernism has required. May times Scripture gives a story, paints a picture, turns a metaphor. The clinching word may not be present, but the concept is in vivid detail.
I think love is like this, as is burden bearing, etc. When the husband is called to 'love,' it is no less a submissive act. Jesus was submissive in this way (the older KJV word might be more helpful--subject). Jesus subjected himself to us, to the cross, to our sin, to our dirty feet, to our brokenness. His patience was played out, his compliment of condescension, his raising us up to be co-heirs with him. This shouldn't imply we have authority over him by any means. But the word 'savior' doesn't imply authority as does the word 'lord.' And in his saviorhood he subjected himself to us in love and asks we do it to one another.
Other examples of submission: when I go out in nature, I submit (subject) myself to the elements. When I speak to an audience, I submit (subject) myself to their opinion. When I pray for my neighbor, I submit (subject) myself to their burden. When I play basketball, I submit (subject) myself to the rules of the game. These are all examples of submission not carrying authority of me, but it does require the will to be involved in situations where we may be scarred or hurt... and there's usually also the potential for reward and gain. There's a vulnerability that is implied, but, again, being vulnerable doesn't automatically mean being under authority. Yet there does seem to be one unalterable rule to the universe: unless we submit (subject) ourselves to one another, we do not find love.
Mark 10 unfolds the role of the greatest in this world: they become last. That's become a cliche too often in the church, but if we meditate on what this means, I think we'll arrive at a much deeper sense of submitting (subjecting) to one another means. I think this can be illustrated well in marriage, with mutual submission... the woman freely associating herself with her man and the man freely laying his life down daily. Paul's created a paradox of submission: when we do it to one another, something blossoms that would otherwise have remained untapped.
That's the Trinitarian picture Young is painting in The Shack. When there is love, there is no need for heirarchy within the nature of a species, no need for government, each and every bowing the knee to Jesus and living for each other... everyone is not only look after his own interests, but equally looking out for the interest of others.
Those are some thoughts on this.
Mark Driscoll is afraid of... what? sigh...
But I shouldn't have been surprised to read that he was upset. As one of my very wise and observant friends said, 'it has the fundies jumping outta their undies.'
:)
Have read several of your blog posts... will def be back!
deb