Submission

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by wsw201

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
What ground does she have to disobey?

I don't see this thread as "should a wife submit if her husband wants her to do something stupid" as much as asking the question "when does the wife have the right to disobey her husband?"

When? When she is caused to sin. Anything else is merely personal preference, and then she is the acting head.

Make it fully known, that the balance of the man loving his wife as Christ loves the church is the duty of the husband, and I am not detracting from that in any way. Husbands should lead their families in a Godly way, and glorifying God should be his ultimate purpose in everything.

Well I read it that way.

As far as sin is concerned, assuming we are talking about a mature Christian husband, would it not be sin to demand a wife to do something that was not done in faith?

That depends on what you mean by "done in faith."

If you mean that she believes it is a sin against God, I have already addressed that and affirmed that a woman must always obey God rather than men in this circumstance.

If you mean that she must do what she believes is best in every circumstance (including all areas of Christian liberty), than I say she has no authority to disobey her husband as she is the head placed above her AS her authority. To say that the woman has the right to disobey in these areas is to make her the head.

Think of this as a parallel to how we submit to our church leaders. Are we to submit to the session if they ask us to sin? Absolutely not. In areas where sin is not a factor, should we submit to their decisions in everything? Absolutely! If the session thinks it best that we attend counseling, or whatever they decide is best for the flock, as long as it does not disagree with scripture, we have the duty to obey.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
In this example, it is sin for him to demand such disrespect of his wife. It is also sin for her to act like a fool (this is a false witness). Both are in willful disobedience... the one that demands as well as the participant.

I do agree with you that the wife should disobey IF her actions would be sinful.

But can you Scripturally back up your statement? What Bible passage makes it a sin to sing in the street? Your opinion may be that she would be acting "like a fool", but many may disagree. On what Scripture do you base your assertion?

I think many wives probably try to think up *excuses* just like this one, to justify disobedience. The thought process is kind of like this:
"If this is sin, then I can disobey. So, all I have to do is find some way to convince myself that this is sin. . . ." --- And that is not a godly attitude for a wife to have.

If you can Scripturally demonstrate that singing in the street is sinful, then you will have made your case in this specific instance.

But in any case, the overall principle remains unchanged. If a wife can, in any way at all, obey her husband without personally sinning against God, then she is absolutely Scripturally bound to obey her husband. Wives are to submit to their husbands in everything, as unto the Lord (Ephesians 5:24).

In Christ,
Joseph

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
You also need to remember that a husband's spiritual state has nothing to do with a wife's duty to submit to him. 1 Peter 3 makes this very clear. She is supposed to submit to her husband even if he is an unbelieving pagan! So arguing that she doesn't have to submit because he isn't being a top-notch Christian is not a good excuse at all.

We are starting to talk past each other. I am making the assumption that both are Christians and am attempting (and it is appears rather poorly) to resolve the situation based on that assumption. And based on that assumption I expect both to act like Christians.

 

[ReformedWretch]

And based on that assumption I expect both to act like Christians.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by wsw201
I am making the assumption that both are Christians and am attempting (and it is appears rather poorly) to resolve the situation based on that assumption. And based on that assumption I expect both to act like Christians.

But I think we all agree, as Joseph said above, that in the singing-in-the-street situation, the husband is certainly not acting like a responsible Christian with regard to his request. So granting that he is not, and that he should be corrected by the Church in time, is there a Scriptural reason the wife should not submit in the mean-time? In other words, putting aside the situation from the husband's perspective for a moment, what about the situation as seen fully from the wife's perspective?

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
to Joseph.

Originally posted by wsw201

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by wsw201

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
What ground does she have to disobey?

I don't see this thread as "should a wife submit if her husband wants her to do something stupid" as much as asking the question "when does the wife have the right to disobey her husband?"

When? When she is caused to sin. Anything else is merely personal preference, and then she is the acting head.

Make it fully known, that the balance of the man loving his wife as Christ loves the church is the duty of the husband, and I am not detracting from that in any way. Husbands should lead their families in a Godly way, and glorifying God should be his ultimate purpose in everything.

Well I read it that way.

As far as sin is concerned, assuming we are talking about a mature Christian husband, would it not be sin to demand a wife to do something that was not done in faith?

Take the headcovering issue as an example. Even if the wife does not believe she is biblically required to wear one, would it not be the act of submission itself that renders her wearing of it an act done in faith? That is especially true in light of the fact that her wearing it would certainly not be sin, even if she was not in fact biblically commanded to do so. In cases such as these, if the wife's actions only qualify as being done in faith if she fully agrees with them, how is it submission at all? Is not submitting on non-sinful issues an act of faith as well, particularly in God's prescribed principled for marriage?

I know the initially-described situation seems different, and I fully agree that it constitutes irresponsibility on the part of the husband, which should certainly be reported by the wife to the Church, who should in turn correct the husband. But until that goes through, is there a principled difference between her submission in this case and her submission in the headcovering case, in regard to their non-sinfulness and their act-of-faith natures?

The point I was making was regarding a mature Christian husband. A mature christain husband would not be asking his wife to do something that was not being done in faith. He would hopefully bring her to an understanding that wearing a headcovering was biblically warranted and though she may still have reservations, she would submit knowing that he has her best interest at heart and is guiding her in a particular biblical truth. I believe this is the ideal situation and her submission would in "in faith" as she trusts her husband.

The issue of authority for a husband should not be "what can I do" but "what I ought to do". As Scripture states to husbands "Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered." (1 Peter 3:7). The idea of "I say, you do" should not be apart of any Christian home.

I fully agree, Wayne, as I would certainly hope everyone else here would as well. But the question in this thread was about the situation and response from the wife's perspective, not the husband's.

[Edited on 6-24-2005 by Me Died Blue]

Chris,

The problem is that you can't simply look at a situation in only one perspective. A husband and wife are now "one flesh" you have to consider the situation as a whole. I am not arguing against biblical submission by a wife to her husband. Scripture makes this point perfectly clear. And a wife has a clear responsibility to refuse a command from her husband if it causes her to sin. But with authority comes responsibility and a Christian husband needs to understand his responsibility and also that his wife is not a robot given to him by God to do with as he wills. She is not a horse that needs to be broken.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
But I think we all agree, as Joseph said above, that in the singing-in-the-street situation, the husband is certainly not acting like a responsible Christian with regard to his request. So granting that he is not, and that he should be corrected by the Church in time, is there a Scriptural reason the wife should not submit in the mean-time? In other words, putting aside the situation from the husband's perspective for a moment, what about the situation as seen fully from the wife's perspective?

Think of what some of you guys are saying:

1) If a husband is an unbelieving pagan, then the wife should submit to him in everything.

2) But if a husband IS a believer, then anytime he doesn't act like a Christian should, then it is ok for his wife to be disobedient.

That is inconsistent nonsense! If a wife should submit to an unbeliever, then submitting to virtually anything requested by a believer should be a no-brainer!!!

Where in the Bible does it say that a wife's responsibility to submit is *reduced* after her unbelieving husband becomes a Christian? Show me!

 

[Texas Aggie]

Joseph,

The original question states:

"dance down the street singing at the top of her lungs, must she do it? Is she in sin if she refuses? He is not asking her to sin, though he himself is in sin for lording his authority over her."

This implies that a husband is wishing his wife to do something that is on the verge of being "outrageous." Of course singing in the street is not sinful. Acting like a fool is. You know that.

Singing in the street is not the point Joseph. Doing something contrary to the law of God at the wishes of your husband is.

The original post implies that the husband wants her to do something foolish (this is what I gather from Christine´s statement). "œDancing" down the street and "œsinging at the top of your lungs" implies foolish behavior... not the norm. This is not humble Christian behavior in the public arena (therefore displaying a false witness).

Of course a Christian can dance and cheer, celebrate and sing.... just look at game day down in Aggieland. When the Aggies win a game you can count on all the Christians in the stands cheering in public and singing at the top of their lungs. Nothing wrong with that.

Christine's question implies foolish behavior.

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by wsw201
I am making the assumption that both are Christians and am attempting (and it is appears rather poorly) to resolve the situation based on that assumption. And based on that assumption I expect both to act like Christians.

But I think we all agree, as Joseph said above, that in the singing-in-the-street situation, the husband is certainly not acting like a responsible Christian with regard to his request. So granting that he is not, and that he should be corrected by the Church in time, is there a Scriptural reason the wife should not submit in the mean-time? In other words, putting aside the situation from the husband's perspective for a moment, what about the situation as seen fully from the wife's perspective?

I would say that in general a wife should submit to her husband's request, unless of course she can find book, chapter, verse showing that it would be sinful regardless of how rediculous it was, either running down the street singing or playing in traffic (nothing in Scripture says playing in traffic is sinful!).

But the real question is that if she refuses, is she sinning and subject to the discipline of the Church? And would you as an officer of the Church discipline her?

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
But I think we all agree, as Joseph said above, that in the singing-in-the-street situation, the husband is certainly not acting like a responsible Christian with regard to his request. So granting that he is not, and that he should be corrected by the Church in time, is there a Scriptural reason the wife should not submit in the mean-time? In other words, putting aside the situation from the husband's perspective for a moment, what about the situation as seen fully from the wife's perspective?

Think of what some of you guys are saying:

1) If a husband is an unbelieving pagan, then the wife should submit to him in everything.

2) But if a husband IS a believer, then anytime he doesn't act like a Christian should, then it is ok for his wife to be disobedient.

That is inconsistent nonsense! If a wife should submit to an unbeliever, then submitting to virtually anything requested by a believer should be a no-brainer!!!

Where in the Bible does it say that a wife's responsibility to submit is *reduced* after her unbelieving husband becomes a Christian? Show me!

I don't recall saying that a wife married to a pagan must submit to him in everything.

In my hypothetical world, Christian women are not unequally yoked to unbelievers!

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by wsw201

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by wsw201
I am making the assumption that both are Christians and am attempting (and it is appears rather poorly) to resolve the situation based on that assumption. And based on that assumption I expect both to act like Christians.

But I think we all agree, as Joseph said above, that in the singing-in-the-street situation, the husband is certainly not acting like a responsible Christian with regard to his request. So granting that he is not, and that he should be corrected by the Church in time, is there a Scriptural reason the wife should not submit in the mean-time? In other words, putting aside the situation from the husband's perspective for a moment, what about the situation as seen fully from the wife's perspective?

I would say that in general a wife should submit to her husband's request, unless of course she can find book, chapter, verse showing that it would be sinful regardless of how rediculous it was, either running down the street singing or playing in traffic (nothing in Scripture says playing in traffic is sinful!).

But the real question is that if she refuses, is she sinning and subject to the discipline of the Church? And would you as an officer of the Church discipline her?

If I were an officer of their church, I would definitely rebuke the husband's action and go through a process of discipline to bring about his repentance and fix the situation, since in his request he is not responsibly looking out for the best interest of his wife, which is sin. But at the same time, during the time-period that he still remained in unrepentance, I would not counsel the wife to refrain from submission to his request.

It parallels what I as a police officer would do in regard to a federal law I thought was irresponsible (and even sinful) on the part of the government, but that did not put citizens who follow it in sin. I would try to get the government to change it, but in the mean-time, I would discipline the citizens who did not follow it.

 

[wsw201]

If I were an officer of their church, I would definitely rebuke the husband's action and go through a process of discipline to bring about his repentance and fix the situation, since in his request he is not responsibly looking out for the best interest of his wife, which is sin. But at the same time, during the time-period that he still remained in unrepentance, I would not counsel the wife to refrain from submission to his request.

So let me get this straight, you are saying that she should obey her husband and start running down the street singing at the top of her lungs until he repents? (hopefully he gave her a time limit or distance limit).

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by wsw201

If I were an officer of their church, I would definitely rebuke the husband's action and go through a process of discipline to bring about his repentance and fix the situation, since in his request he is not responsibly looking out for the best interest of his wife, which is sin. But at the same time, during the time-period that he still remained in unrepentance, I would not counsel the wife to refrain from submission to his request.

So let me get this straight, you are saying that she should obey her husband and start running down the street singing at the top of her lungs until he repents? (hopefully he gave her a time limit or distance limit).

For one thing, keep in mind that I would be anything but passive in rebuking in disciplining the husband, not simply "waiting around" for him to agree and repent. But during that process, I suppose my answer to your question would ultimately hinge on whether or not we can classify that action on the part of the wife as sinful. I naturally agree with your point that Scripture does not explicitly forbid something like going out in the middle of traffic, but that it is of course sinful because of irresponsibility with our lives. So could you bring some Scripture to the discussion that speaks out against foolish public actions as sinful in such a way that would include an action like the one under consideration?

 

[Dan....]

I can't believe that no one mentioned what the woman's brothers would do to the man upon finding out about his disrespect of their sister...





[Edited on 6-24-2005 by Dan....]

 

[wsw201]

I believe dancing down the street singing at the top of your lungs would not be considered honorable conduct (1 Pet 2:12) and would more than likely bring reproach upon Christ and His Church.

But I am a bit confused. You say that the husband has made a request that was not in the best interest of his wife by having her dance down the street singing at the top of her lungs and that he should be rebuked for making such a request. So how can a Session ask her to submit to his request that they have deemed "not in her best interest" regardless of being sinful or not?

 

[ReformedWretch]

Originally posted by Dan....
I can't believe that no one mentioned what the woman's brothers would do to the man upon finding out about his disrespect of their sister...





[Edited on 6-24-2005 by Dan....]

I hinted at that iwhen I said if it were my daughter.

 

[ReformedWretch]

In everything the prudent acts with knowledge, but a fool flaunts his folly. (Proverbs 13:16).

One who is wise is cautious[a] and turns away from evil, but a fool is reckless and careless. (Proverbs 14:16)

"A wise person thinks much about death, while the fool thinks only about having a good time now" (Eccl 7:4)

 

[wsw201]

In considering the issue of submission, what do ya'll think of the situation between Nabal and Abigail (1 Sam 25:2ff)? Abigail purposefully disobeyed her husband.

 

[puritangirl]

Thank you for all your replies.

My question was not -"is the husband in sin" - that was kind of supposed to be a given. I agree with everyone who said that the husband who asks his wife to parade down the street singing is in sin. My question was, "is the wife in sin if she does not obey?" I am not married, but I am dating someone seriously and this came up. He has no intention to lord his authority over me in sin once we're married, but we started talking about this hypothetical situation. I wanted to say that the wife doesn't have to submit when the husband sinfully asks the wife to do something that is NOT sin, but my boyfriend was making really good points that led me to think this is wrong. (Both my boyfriend and I agreed that a wife in this situation should go to session about it if the husband refuses to submit.) I guess I posted this on the PB in order to see if I have any Biblical reason for thinking that the wife should not submit to an unreasonable husband. My conclusion is that I don't.

1 Peter 2:18 "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
"Who committed no sin,
Nor was deceit found in His mouth";
who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Wives, LIKEWISE be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear."

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by wsw201

I don't recall saying that a wife married to a pagan must submit to him in everything.

If you don't think they should, then you are directly contradicting Ephesians 5, and are in even more explicit contradiction with 1 Peter 3, which is specifically written for women with unbelieving husbands!

Originally posted by wsw201

In my hypothetical world, Christian women are not unequally yoked to unbelievers!

Your hypothetical world does not exist, even according to Scriptural principals! You forget that sometimes people marry when they are BOTH non-Christians. Then, later, the wife becomes a believer. When they got married, were they unequally yoked? Of course not! Has she done something wrong by becoming a Christian later? Of course not! Should she divorce her husband now that she is a Christian? Of course not!

On the contrary, now that she is a Christian who is *rightfully* married to an unbeliever, she should obey 1 Peter 3. And she should obey Ephesians 5.

 

[Romans922]

the husband would be wrong to ask her to do such a thing because it would not be loving.

the wife though needs to submit to him in all things, just as we are to submit to Christ in all things. (unless it is submitting to take part in sin).

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by puritangirl

I guess I posted this on the PB in order to see if I have any Biblical reason for thinking that the wife should not submit to an unreasonable husband. My conclusion is that I don't.

1 Peter 2:18 "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
"Who committed no sin,
Nor was deceit found in His mouth";
who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Wives, LIKEWISE be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear."

puritangirl!!! Excellent point, Christine . . . I wish I had thought of that Scriptural connection, as well.

God commands wives to be submissive to their husbands in the same way as He commands men to submit to harsh masters. That is tough medicine for anyone to take. That is one reason why it is so important to pick a truly *godly* spouse!!! Wonderful point, Christine.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by wsw201

I don't recall saying that a wife married to a pagan must submit to him in everything.

If you don't think they should, then you are directly contradicting Ephesians 5, and are in even more explicit contradiction with 1 Peter 3, which is specifically written for women with unbelieving husbands!

Originally posted by wsw201

In my hypothetical world, Christian women are not unequally yoked to unbelievers!

Your hypothetical world does not exist, even according to Scriptural principals! You forget that sometimes people marry when they are BOTH non-Christians. Then, later, the wife becomes a believer. When they got married, were they unequally yoked? Of course not! Has she done something wrong by becoming a Christian later? Of course not! Should she divorce her husband now that she is a Christian? Of course not!

On the contrary, now that she is a Christian who is *rightfully* married to an unbeliever, she should obey 1 Peter 3. And she should obey Ephesians 5.

Ease up Joseph.

This whole scenario is hypothetical. And I am not contradicting anything. It appears that you are making the assumption that a woman has no recourse to the Church, which she does, for having her husband make her do something stupid or totally rediculous. If you told your wife to roost in a tree for 8 hours and sqawk like a chicken, and she refused to do it, I guarnantee you that no Session would back you up on that. In fact in the REAL WORLD, as Chris has accurately pointed out, you would be the one who would be having a serious discussion with your Session.

BTW, your advise is correct. Women should make sure they are marrying a godly man or they might find themselves roosting in trees sqawking like chickens!

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by wsw201

BTW, your advise is correct. Women should make sure they are marrying a godly man or they might find themselves roosting in trees sqawking like chickens!

 

[Arch2k]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Joseph,
I'm basically in your corner on this one.

But to offer one more note (someone may have said this near the end--I started to skim),

if the woman has a question of conscience (and I think that self-humiliation can be a legitimate question of conscience) then she should humbly refuse until the two of them have gone to see the pastor/session.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Joseph,
I'm basically in your corner on this one.

But to offer one more note (someone may have said this near the end--I started to skim),

if the woman has a question of conscience (and I think that self-humiliation can be a legitimate question of conscience) then she should humbly refuse until the two of them have gone to see the pastor/session.

Ok, now that makes sense. Even there, I'm sure you and I both would have a problem with a gal regularly using this method as an excuse to not immediately obey her husband. But yes, I would have to agree with you that in a real question of conscience, it would make sense for her to ask the pastor/session for a second opinion. That way, they could either back the husband, or on the other hand, show the husband Biblically why her question of conscience is actually correct!

Good call.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Wow, I don't think there is much left to be said (LadyFlynt is speechless for once, this could be a good thing!).

Other than:

there are times that we are commanded to do things, even things that may seem totally foolish in our eyes, either by our husbands or by God Himself. Just because they seem foolish...do we really know what the full picture is? I know there are times a husband actually has a reason from asking the ridiculous (and not always a malicious reasoning).

However, public and malicious acts don't neccesarily portray the woman as foolish...guess who she is a reflection of? Her husband, what she does reflects him. If he gives her a foolish command (though not sinful), then the consequences directly reflect on him more than her. (and if she is fortunate to have a father or brother around...have at a little brotherly discipline...but respect her for being an obedient wife rather than a spiteful one).

My husband knows of a man who went out everynight after work partying. Treated his wife like garbage. She was a Christian; he was not. She was also a submissive wife in all things. While drinking with his friends and listening to them all put down their wives and girlfriends---how they're bossy, treat them (the men) like garbage, etc...he realized he couldn't say any of that about his wife and decided to brag on it. "My wife isn't like that" Of course with his partying and running around on her, his friends didn't believe him. So he said, "Come with me home right now (about 1 or 2am) and watch". They all went to his house, he told her to get out of bed and fix him and his friends breakfast. She did!
When one of his friends asked her why she was willing to put up with this and do things like this for him...here is what she said, "Because my husband is not a Christian and this is the only heaven he'll ever know."
The husband overheard all of this. Two weeks later his whole life changed because of God's grace.

How much more so should we submit to our Christian husbands as this woman submitted to her unbelieving husband?



Yes, a husband has a duty to love his wife...regardless of her submissiveness or lack thereof to him.
Yes, a wife should submit to her husband...regardless of his love or lack thereof for her.

Too many times I've heard couples cutting eachother..."well, he doesn't show he loves me", "well, she doesn't let me lead the house". They both need to be in their proper places. They are both at fault. But we need to deal with each individually. In dealing with the woman I've been accused of taking "his side". No, I am talking with her and she can only fix herself...not him. By fixing her reponses she can possibly change her circumstances. "Eve, step back!" That is what Adam should have said...sorry, but I think Adam was present at the time. When women think they know best, most men will step back and let her wear the pants (per se). Especially in our feminized society. Many times it takes the woman stepping back FIRST before a man will fulfill his role. WHY? Because men have learned that to try and push their authority makes most women rebel and loudly so "how dare he!" and so they don't. A man needs to feel like a man to act like one...when the wife is busy being the man, then what is the use. (So much for the woman who won't submit till her husband is "right"....right according to whom? Her?) So many times in my early marriage, I caused fights and grief because "I knew" that my husband's decision was a mistake and I didn't want him to make that "mistake". Looking back, how foolish "I" was! I could have been spared much grief by submitting to him. I could have spared him much embarrasement by letting him make those decisions (even when I "felt" he wasn't defending me or thinking of me first)...the whole time, he was thinking of me. I was clueless.

Okay, there's a story or two. Now, go chew.

[Edited on 6-24-2005 by LadyFlynt]

 

[wsw201]

However, public and malicious acts don't neccesarily portray the woman as foolish...guess who she is a reflection of? Her husband, what she does reflects him. If he gives her a foolish command (though not sinful), then the consequences directly reflect on him more than her.

I just had a vision of Colleen roosting in a tree sqawking like a chicken. And while she was sqawking she would say "but I'm just relecting my husband !" and her husband comes out to check on her in a big chicken suit!

Sorry! I couldn't help myself!

 

[Arch2k]

Thanks for that Coleen. Good post.