Eternal Perspectives

Before any motorcycle came along, major changes transpired in the church of which I was a member. The vote on the new constitution, about which I have written elsewhere, finally took place in mid-January. Lacking the two-thirds majority required for adoption, the constitution was defeated.

What the vote was ultimately about, however, was not the constitution; constitutions are necessary but relatively unimportant documents in a church. The vote was a referendum and conclusion to something that began before I ever arrived at the church.

The referendum involved the path that some of us sought to follow and, hopefully, lead others down. Our path was one of believing in the authority of Scripture and submission to it; one of the elders of the church, in contrast, said that he was not going to be bothered by what the Bible says, that he had his tradition and religion, and that was enough for him. Others referred to the Old Testament as “sharia,” a disparaging dismissal of the OT and a misappropriation of a term used for the code of law derived from the Koran. The things Paul wrote were true for Paul, another said, but were not God’s word to us. It goes on and on.

In short, the philosophy apparently subscribed to by the dominant group in the church was a mixture of Catholicism – wherein the church has greater authority than Scripture – and humanism, which winds up practicing the tragedy of the Book of Judges: “In those days Israel had no king. Each man did what he considered to be right” (Jdg 21.25, NET). Without an absolute authority, people are left to their own morality – a dangerous path that winds up wandering – or sprinting – away from God.

The vote was also the final act of a purge that had begun a year before and six months before I arrived on the scene. A popular pastor who taught the Bible from the pulpit had been removed by many of the same people who were instrumental in defeating the new constitution. Whether or not the pastor needed to be removed or not is moot; what resulted following his dismissal was the departure of many of the people who had begun attending the church when the pastor had come to the church. Some of those desirous of biblical teaching and submitting to the authority of the Bible remained, however, and it was these who were finally purged with the vote. The schism in the church was not about personalities but authority, the Bible, and the raison d’être of the church.

One night after the vote a group of us, representing a dozen families or so, met and decided to leave the church and start a new one. Thanks to diligent work by a few, we were able to meet the following Sunday for our first church service. We were roughly organized and it showed in our service – but it was a beginning.

Shortly thereafter, a decision was made to select a formation committee who would do the work necessary for pulling the church together and pointing it in a biblical direction. I was named to the group along with four other men, tasked with doing something none of us had done before: found a church.

Towards the end of last year I had run across a book by Aubrey Malphurs entitled Ministry Nuts & Bolts, which provided a general overview of what he had been teaching (at Dallas Theological Seminary) and practicing for over twenty years. Impressed by what I read there, I quickly ordered seven or eight of his more specific, more detailed books and began reading and studying them. These books became our guide for the work we were about to undertake.

That work, which (I think) was one of the most important things I’ve done in thirty-plus years of being a believer, and which (I know) was one of the most enjoyable things I’ve done in ministry, will be the subject of my next post.

As I think about these days in which we live, about the voices that hold sway over Christendom from the pulpit, and the captivating reasonings in well-constructed books, as well as in the reams of words written here online – as I reflect on these matters, I am reminded of Tolkien’s words in The Lord of the Rings, Book III, a chapter entitled “The Voice of Saruman.”

The Riders of the Mark have accompanied King Théoden of Rohan and Éomer his nephew, Gandalf and Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli to the stairs of Orthanc, the stronghold-turned-prison of Saruman, now the Wizard of Many Colors. The Riders eavesdrop on the speech of Saruman to their king.

Suddenly another voice spoke, low and melodious, its very sound an enchantment. Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell. . . .

“The Riders stirred at first, murmuring with approval of the words of Saruman; and then they too were silent, as men spell-bound. It seemed to them that Gandalf had never spoken so fair and fittingly to their lord. Rough and proud now seemed all his dealings with Théoden. And over their hearts crept a shadow, the fear of a great danger: the end of the Mark in a darkness to which Gandalf was driving them, while Saruman stood beside a door of escape, holding it half open so that a ray of light came through.”

Those who would mesmerize us with words and ear-soothing tones may still be found among us, drawing us under their spell with their seductive speeches and attractive demeanor. They are strong, powerful, and popular; by agreeing with them, we reason, we will share in those qualities. Those who speak roughly or without the allurement of rhetorical skills are dismissed as unfaithful, ignorant rabble. We will give them no hearing and will hearken instead to velvet-tongued orators whose voices we find comforting.

Such modern-day Sarumans hold open a door, and from the door emanates a warm, inviting, and seductive light. But the door is only half open, and thus we cannot see that the light streaming towards us is not generated by the glory of the Son but by the fires of hell.

The above picture arrived via email this afternoon, accompanied by the following explanation and information. Click on the picture for a larger image.

USS New York

It was built with 24 tons of scrap steel from the World Trade Center.

It is the fifth in a new class of warship – designed for missions that include special operations against terrorists. It will carry a crew of 360 sailors and 700 combat-ready Marines to be delivered ashore by helicopters and assault craft.

Steel from the World Trade Center was melted down in a foundry in Amite, LA to cast the ship’s bow section. When it was poured into the molds on Sept. 9, 2003, “those big rough steelworkers treated it with total reverence,” recalled Navy Capt. Kevin Wensing, who was there. “It was a spiritual moment for everybody there.”

Junior Chavers, foundry operations manager, said that when the trade center steel first arrived, he touched it with his hand and the “hair on my neck stood up.

“It had a big meaning to it for all of us,” he said. “They knocked us down. They can’t keep us down. We’re going to be back.”

The ship’s motto? “Never Forget”

Emergent people tend to wear me out. Not all of them, of course, but only the vast majority, i.e., the ones who run around talking about things they don’t understand and possessing all the qualities of a dog except loyalty.

Here’s what touched off this rant:

Scot McKnight wrote a wonderful rebuttal of Spencer Burke’s A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity, especially rejecting Burke’s contradictory universalism, denial of the Trinity and Personhood of God, and lack of an orthodox gospel. The post above is the fourth in a series on the book and, while all are worth reading, it can stand alone without having read the previous posts.

So far, no rant.

Then I read Andy Jackson’s response and – whoosh! – up goes the blood pressure! Andy says, to begin with,

First, No one should use Burke to condemn everyone in the Emergent movement. Condemnation by association is not right.

First, why is it that everytime an emergent author gets nailed for poor or heretical theology, all the drones start squawking, “Oh, no! Not us! We’re as innocent as lemmings doves!” Well, it seems to me that if you hang out in with charlatans, praise charlatans, and gobble up the books written by charlatans, you’re asking for condemnation by association.

Now it is true that Jesus hung out with outcasts (such as prostitutes) but it didn’t pervert His theology and He didn’t distance Himself from them when they were attacked. Neither, however, did He defend their philosophies or theologies: He sought to change them. Big difference. Critical difference. And I can’t recall Him associating with charlatans, although I do seem to recall Him going off on a rant or two against them.

Just once I’d like to hear someone in the emergent movement – excuse me, conversation – stand beside one of their own authors instead of running like scared little puppies when the big dogs arrive at the fight. Or, at the very least, admit that their leaders are heretical at this or that point and that the conversation needs to change its tone, direction, and assumptions. Getting an emergent to criticize another emergent is like getting a liberal to criticize a liberal – or a conservative a conservative. Actually, it’s more difficult, I think.

Andy does go on to say,

Second, Emergent leaders should continue in their conversation, but also realize that they have biblical leadership responsibility for those they influence. God will hold all biblical leaders accountable for our teaching and ministry. In other words, our ministry effects people.

Third, Recognized Emergent leaders need to ’show their cards’ as it relates to Burke’s theology. We need to hear what key Emergent leaders think, and provide correction. Hopefully, it will start with McLaren.

Second, using the word “biblical” with regard to emergent leaders is akin to the trite Jello and a tree metaphor. Besides, surely God won’t judge them because He just wants everyone to get along with one another: Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Jew, Protestant, atheist. After all, He’s a generous kinda God, isn’t He? Calling for emergents to adhere to biblical standards is too broad: they tend to pick and choose which standards they want to accept.

Third, Burke is one of the “key Emergent leaders,” being the inspiration of the emergent The Ooze website. So we’ve heard what a leader has to say. Does anyone seriously believe that McLaren will say anything negative or corrective about Burke? If there is but one fatal flaw (this is optimistic: their fatal flaws are legion) it is the total unwillingness of emergents to clean up their own houses.

But my point is this: don’t jump on the emergent bandwagon if you’re going to jump off as soon as it starts to stink. Have the courage to take a stand – somewhere, anywhere. Either get with them – which in this case means leaving orthodox Christianity behind – or get away and stay away from them. You can (as I have) read their books, publicly reject their theology (if you can call it that), and pay attention to their at-times valuable insights into problems in the church.

It must be recognized, however, for all the wonderful exposure of problems they might offer that they have zero solutions that will benefit anyone beyond this lifetime. Denying the Godhead, espousing pantheism, and making the gospel unnecessary is no solution at all; in fact, it is worse: it is snake oil, i.e., it is no solution packaged as the only solution and sold to people dead in their sins.

Addendum: Andy at Smart Christian responded to this post here; I sent him the following email which I’ll reproduce here for anyone who’s interested or has voyeuristic inclinations.

Andy:

“First, a suggestion: you might consider leaving comments open when you mention someone by name in one of your posts. That would allow people like me to clarify a thing or two at your site as well as mine (I’ll be adding a post script shortly).

“Second, my beef is with fence-straddlers, as I tried to make clear (but may have failed). Taking a stand does not mean totally abandoning the emergent group: my role model would be John Stott (I think it was John Stott) who stayed with his own denomination for years and years even though he had serious theological disagreements and concerns. As long as they didn’t depart from the gospel message, he said, he thought he could do more good on the inside than on the outside. But he never hesitated to speak out or write against the errors in his denomination.

“So that’s the main point, although it may have gotten lost in tangential thoughts and ideas.

“Finally – and this is what I’m going to add at my post – my rant was triggered by your post but not aimed at you. Your post was merely the proverbial “last straw” that caused me to break. Sometimes I think emergent churches should meet at a Waffle House, since that’s what they seem to do best – waffle.

“So, sorry if the attack seemed personal; it wasn’t meant to be.”

Related Tags: emergent, emerging, Spencer Burke, Scot McKnight, theology, church

(Tim Challies has a thought-provoking – but not necessarily influential – post up at his site. I left the following there as a comment but thought I would post it here for anyone who reads EP but not Challies - although I cannot imagine such a person actually existing.)

I’m not sure what the value is of determining who is “most influential” in the Kingdom of Blog. If that appellation is bestowed, should we all rush to the site to be influenced? I don’t understand the point. I read blogs that edify rather than influence me: edifiying blogs facilitate the work of the Holy Spirit; influential blogs facilitate the work of . . . the flesh? the blogger?

Or maybe I don’t understand what is meant by the term “influence” as used here.

This discussion also reminds me of the disciples squabbling over who was going to be greatest in the Kingdom of God. I think we all need to stop looking at our own numbers and accomplishments and begin looking to God for His estimation of what we write. I might be caustic, abrasive, and arrogant (come to think of it, I am all those things) and be very influential and very popular – I won’t name any other names here – or I might tell the truth and spend my time in relative obscurity with only a handful of readers.

(Or, as in my case, I might be caustic, abrasive, and arrogant and then languish in total obscurity!)

Who is greater? More importantly, who among us is fit to say who is greater?

Or maybe I’m just too old for this kind of competition.

Why not this: you read what you want to read and find edifying, and I’ll do the same. What you (Tim) find edifying in the writings of some dead Calvinist, I might find uninspiring; conversely, what I think is profound in the writings of an “heretical” dispensationalist, you might find to be the source of all problems in Protestantism.

Who is most influential is likely to come down to who confirms the biases of most blog readers. Cynical? Perhaps, but probably true all the same. Ultimately, we are influenced only by those whom we allow to influence us, for better or for worse.

Addendum: I was thinking this morning about a sermon I heard long ago by Ron Dunn, a remarkable, expository, Baptist preacher. One of his points in his sermon on prayer was that the apostles had virtually no influence in Jerusalem following the Day of Pentecost. In the corridors of worldly influence, they were paupers.

But, although they didn’t have the influence to keep Peter out of jail, they did have the power to pray him out!

We have mistaken influence for power; we have settled for the influence of political lobbyists, book sales, and blog hits but neglected the power available to us by the Holy Spirit as He answers our prayers.

So there may be blogs of influence, but that is not the same as being a blog of power. Keep the influence, if you like, but I’m hoping to tap into just a small bit of the power of God that He offers to His children.

That’s not meant to sound smug, superior or like “sour grapes” from someone on the far end of the tail, but just a reminder about what is important and what is not, what is valued in the eyes of God and what is valued in the eyes of men.

Having been to seminary (twice), I understand the importance of knowing what one believes before undertaking a study of any subject or issue. This all-but guarantees that whatever material is selected for the purpose of research will either support or fail to refute one’s predetermined conclusion. It is one of the many valuable things one learns in seminary and why I recommend a rigorous course of seminary studies to everyone.

Wisely, I have learned to generalize my highly-honed approach to learning beyond the Bible to subjects not specifically or exclusively theological. It is for this reason that, before I actually read and studied Brian McLaren (hereafter, BM), I came to the conclusion that I didn’t like him, that his teachings were dangerous and false, and that I should warn others about him. With my position firmly established and made public, I began to study BM for myself.

Before going any further, however, I must confess two things: first, that I had had some exposure to BM prior to reading and studying him in earnest, albeit accidentally. The initial exposure was strictly visual: the ubiquitous photo of him that seems to be lurking everywhere these days. Whether I was physically perusing books at Barnes & Noble or digitally browsing on Amazon, I could not seem to escape BM’s I-know- something-you-don’t-know grin: it was everywhere, peering out at me like a baptized version of Baba Ram Dass. (more…)

I am not posting today because it is 06.06.06 and, as you should already know, the world has ended and I am no longer here.

Thank you for your understanding on this matter.

Sincerely,

The Dead Guy

I had always thought that the purpose of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was to protect the American way of life: that is, the people involved in the development and enforcement of DHS policies were men and women who understood the values and virtues of our nation and would work hard to guarantee the safety thereof. They claimed to know and believe something, to have put their trust in it, and to embody it in their manner of life. I put my trust in DHS and, especially, in the leadership.

Now, however, it appears that Brian Doyle, a deputy press secretary in DHS, has been charged with attempting to have sex with a non-existent, 14-year-old girl (the “girl” was in reality some federal agent posing as a nubile young girl on the internet. Visions of a pot-bellied, badly-in-need-of-a-shave, wife-beater-undershirt-wearing, balding man with a cigarette dangling from his lips comes to mind, but that – I guess – is reflective of my own fantasy issue.)

But I digress and must return to the point. Here we have Doyle, charged with protecting our values and virtues from those who would destroy them – and us – engaging the unacceptable behavior; indeed, in behavior that is in direct conflict with the claims, responsibilities, and purposes of DHS.

Thus, I no longer believe in the U.S. Department – or Church, which is an assembly of “true believers’ – of Homeland Security because they are hypocrites. Yes, I know that only one member of the department has been charged, but they’re all the same, aren’t they? They’re all just a bunch of hypocrites, so I say the DHS is nothing but an illusion, the desperate attempt of a frightened nation to comfort itself with the fantasy of a savior that would deliver it from its nightmares and fears.

The DHS, obviously, is a myth, a “sedative of the people,” created by those in power to deceive the masses and maintain their own positions. In truth, there is no DHS: there are only a bunch of deluded people pretending to protect something that they cannot even live up to themselves, primarily because it does not exist.

There is no department, there is no homeland, there is no security. I, for one, will not be so foolish as to believe in something that cannot be scientifically proven. Brian Doyle has exposed the hypocrisy and lie of DHS which, in turn, falsifies the entire possibility or reality of such a department.

I have seen the light, and the light has shown me the darkness, and in the darkness we all should dwell.

I received the manuscript for this book several weeks ago through the Diet of Bookworms. My only compensation is that I am to receive a free copy of the book when it is made available. This is no compensation at all, however, since (a) the book is available free for online reading at Crossway’s site, and (b) it is not a book I would buy, recommend, give away, or use as a doorstop.

Recommendation: Save your money and read it online. Better yet, save your time and don’t read it at all.

I had intended to do an in-depth review of God Is the Gospel, pointing out the serious reservations I have about it while also attempting to salvage what good there is within its pages. The surprise release and availability of the book online, however, makes my review superfluous and so I will primarily share many of the notes I made in the margins of the manuscript during my two readings of the book. I trust you will get an idea of my areas of concern.

Let me begin by highlighting some of the disturbing statements in Piper’s writing. (All emphases are mine.)

What makes the gospel good news in the end is the enjoyment of the glory of God in Christ. The Holy Spirit provides the present experience of that enjoyment. Therefore the promise of the Spirit in the gospel is what makes it good news.” – p. 31

“The effect of this peace with God is eternal life. This too is what makes the gospel of Christ good news.” – p. 33

“That any of us has believed is owing to the mighty work of God’s grace – the grace made possible by the blood of Christ. And this blood-bought grace is essential to what makes the good news good.” – p. 36

“Now the point of this book must be pressed. The point is that the precious gospel events and gospel blessings that I have outlined in this chapter do not suffice to make the gospel good news.” – p. 37

This annoying doublespeak would be minor if it were not for the next step Piper takes in his reasoning. Through some creative hermeneutical gymnastics, he makes seeing the glory of God in Christ at the moment of effectual calling necessary for salvation.
(more…)

I would rather have my ignorance than another man’s knowledge, because I have so much more of it.” – Mark Twain, 1875

One of the benefits of seminary is that it teaches you two things: first, it provides you with tools with which to study; second, it proves without question how ignorant you are. And I’ve learned these lessons twice! So far.

It is as an authority on ignorance that I write this post.

I have watched with interest the firestorm and pyromarketing surrounding the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible, especially the comments and posts spawned by Adrian’s continuing series on the new translation. I have read some (but certainly not all) the posts and comments, filtering them through my perceptual grid of ignorance. I respect the right to opinions and observations on both sides of the argument/debate/discussion, but feel it necessary to offer the following observation and caution.

Before getting to that, however, I should say that my comments are not limited to this particular issue. They apply to almost all subjects and might be profitable for all of us to keep in mind – especially when you’re on this blog and I begin one of my own rants or prattles as though I have a word from on high. So my comments apply everywhere, but especially here.

(This seems to result in a paradox or dilemma: do these comments apply to what follows, i.e., to themselves? It would seem that they must – as in

The following statement is true.
The preceding statement is false.

- but then their applicability is significantly impacted. Perhaps negative or restrictive statements are somehow exempt. Oh, the bane of ignorance!).

Here are my comments and observations on the ESV and its critics:

The undertaking of a translation of the Bible, whether the ESV or any other true translation, is a difficult and demanding matter. The people that work on translations are (hopefully) experts in the languages and committed to providing the non-Greek/-Hebrew/-Aramaic speaking lay people with a reasonably readable and accurate version of the manuscripts. There are always variants and texts that require a choice for the translator, and disagreements will arise from time to time. The work of translating is a very technical, very disciplined endeavor requiring diligence and expertise on the part of the translator.

Translators and exegetes disagree at times. Perhaps they disagree for linguistic reasons or theological reasons, but they do disagree. This is generally not a big problem since variant readings are often provided in the margins or notes of most reputable translations. The committee has had to make a choice in a particular passage, but it provides viable alternatives for the serious student.

My point is this: we should be careful in our criticism of any scholarly translation to make clear to our readers that our objections or observations are not necessarily superior – or even equal – to that of the committee’s choices. Good people disagree on such matters and dogmatism must be avoided.

Additionally, we need to respect the scholarship of the individuals and committees. In most cases, the people charged with translating the text are experts who have committed their lives to the study of the Greek and/or Semitic languages and the nuances of translating ancient writings into modern English (in this case). This is not something that these women and men do on a part-time basis or as a hobby on the side: it is their life’s work and a field to which they have devoted their lives.

Again, this is not to say that opinions should not be offered but only that they need to be tempered with an admission of our own limitations as well as – and here’s where my expertise comes in – ignorance. We should be gracious to those who take a different path since it is almost certainly one that can be defended linguistically, exegetically, or otherwise (although I have no idea what the “otherwise” could be – I told you I was ignorant).

One of my heroes in this regard is Douglas Moo, whose commentary on the Book of Romans in the NICNT series is regarded by some as the best English commentary on Romans. He is a legitimate exegete and scholar, but he is also humble enough to recognize the viability of views different from his own. Consider the following discussion of Rom 7:13-25 (from his commentary on Romans in the NIV Application Commentary):

The debate over the meaning of this text affords a classic example of a certain kind of interpretive problem. I think most expositors would admit that the exegetical evidence (i.e., lexicography, grammar, etc.) does not all point in the same direction. Each basic interpretation of this passage can cite evidence in its favor and a long and distinguished list of advocates. Anyone who thinks the matter is clear-cut lacks either objectivity or charity — or both . . .

“I have taught Romans now for over fifteen years in all kinds of contexts: seminary classrooms, extension classes, high school and adult Sunday school classes, retreats, and so on. Invariably, when I come to 7:14 – 25 and ask people what the passage means and why, I will get from a good number of students this kind of response: ‘This passage must be about the normal, or mature Christian because Paul describes the same kind of struggle with sin that I am having.’ I usually respond, first, by gently pointing out two key assumptions in this argument: that the speaker is a ‘mature Christian’ and that the struggle is only one that a Christian could have. Both are necessary assumptions if this argument is to work.

“Can we make these assumptions? Do I not run the risk of forcing the New Testament to conform to my own level of spirituality rather than letting the New Testament stand in judgment over my spiritual condition? Perhaps my struggle is not a struggle that mature Christians should be having. Now I don’t want to suggest that mature Christians do not struggle with sin. They do, and I believe that struggle is one we will always have in this life (see Contemporary Significance section). But I think we also need to do justice to the New Testament insistence that genuine believers will produce fruit exemplifying their new life in Christ and that such fruit is necessary if we are to go free in the judgment. It is dangerous to assume that I am a mature Christian and then conclude that any passage that fits my situation must also be describing a mature Christian.

“But the other assumption also needs scrutiny. If pushed to the wall, I will usually admit to my classes that verses 15 – 20 could, indeed, be describing the struggle of a mature believer to fulfill God’s will in his or her life. But those verses are part of an argument, the conclusion of which is that the struggle ends in defeat (vv. 21 – 25). Verses 15 – 20, in other words, may be describing the struggle any sincere religious devotee has in doing what his or her god is demanding. It may, indeed, fit Christian experience; but unless it fits only Christian experience, the point at issue is not proven.

“I have selected an example from one side of the argument to illustrate the danger of bringing our assumptions to the text without realizing we are doing it or allowing for them. And I chose this example because it is the one I have most often been faced with. But let me hasten to add that the assumptions can be just as pernicious on the other side.”

Moo is saying, in essence, that he has made a choice about this particular passage but he understands that others see it differently. He stands by his choice and believes it to be the best approach when all the factors are taken into consideration. But he is not so presumptuous or arrogant to be dogmatic or to dismiss opposing views. He, an exegete of the first-order, understands the difficulties with the passage and respects those who come to different conclusions (e.g., C.E.B. Cranfield in this instance).

There is a valuable lesson for us all in Moo’s humility. Certainly we can choose to disagree, but we must be honest with ourselves and admit our ignorance and limitations. We must be cautious in passing judgment or presenting our opinions as though they are the final word in the matter.

Few of us could carry on a meaningful conversation with scholars such as Moo, the ESV translation committee, or other experts in this narrow discipline. That does not mean that we are not entitled to an opinion; it does mean that our opinions likely do not carry as much weight as those of the experts.

Personally, I don’t feel as though I have enough knowledge or expertise to call into question the decisions made by scholars in such matters. Rather than voice my own opinions, I read the observations of other bonafide scholars. For example, Moo takes a certain position on Rom 7 but Cranfield takes a different one. I have read both of them (several times) and have chosen one over the other. But I am not dogmatic about it, since I respect both exegetes. I could be wrong.

So it is with the ESV. The committee has made choices based on its expertise. Some will disagree. Although one must be wrong – or both – we do not know which it is. With that uncertainty we must be content.

If you’ve noticed any improvements (mostly technical) about this blog, it’s not any of my doing: through Amy, I learned of Valerie, who has taught me a lot about what’s OK and what’s not OK, why my feeds weren’t working, and stuff like that. And, as a freebie, she tossed in the favicon that you can see if you use Firefox. IE users: well, once again, you’re denied. Sorry. Talk to Billy G.

Better yet, she fixed the problems; best of all, she’s inexpensive – but not cheap. So if you need some tweaking done, send her an email!

(She’s also quick: I got all this done in less than eight hours!)