The Real Reformed?

Over the last couple of weeks I have been reading an ongoing debate between to gentlemen over what amounts to the Reformational understanding of the relationship between Scripture and tradition (understood as the history of interpretation of the Bible). Both men say they hold to the true Reformational view, and accuse the other of failing to do so.

One of the two participants, a Presbyterian, seems to think he holds the high ground on what it means to be Reformed. His logic seems to be that since he holds to more of Calvin's views, then he is the one who can and should claim to be Reformed. Clearly then this person views being Reformed as an adherence to the letter of the beliefs of the Westminster Catechism (WC). To an extent I can agree with that notion; one cannot hold doctrines antithetical to Reformed beliefs (like Arminian views of predestination) and still consider themselves Reformed.

That said, must one be lock step with the WC to be Reformed? The other participant, a Reformed Baptist, seems to think not. He seems to think that there is an ethos of the Reformation that is more important when it comes to being Reformed. He seems to be of the opinion that there is a philosophy of handling Scripture that is more at the heart of what it means to be Reformed than the particular conclusions that were reached in the past, and are enshrined in the WC.

So there we have the two positions. One person thinks that the conclusions of the Reformation matter more than the process of reformation, and the other thinks the process of reformation more important than the conclusions of the Reformation. Personally I think the process is more important. One of the central tenets of the Reformation is the idea of "semper reformanda," of the church "always reforming." By definition this would seem to indicate that the conclusions of one generation are not the end of what it means to be Reformed.

The Presbyterian seems to argue that we can do exegesis of Scripture if we want, but we must not venture beyond the matrix of the WC, and that to reach conclusions contrary to the WC is to engage in "nuda scriptura" interpreting the text in a vacuum. But the Reformed Baptist argues against this very thing; he asserts that there is of course a context, but that context that must not be ventured away from is not that of the interpretation represented by the WC, but that of the biblical authors. The Reformed Baptist insists that the Word must mean what it always meant. The Presbyterian seems to insist that the Word must mean what the WC says it teaches.

The Presbyterian has, ironically, given in to a very Roman Catholic way of thinking. His arguments are in fact very similar to that of Roman Catholic apologists; both he and RC apologists argue for the primacy of a historical interpretation of the Bible regardless of whether that interpretation is supportable by normal means of interpretation or not. In cases where the Scriptures do not speak with one voice, as is the case in the question of the proper subject of baptism, the Presbyterian, like the RC apologist, asserts the authority of a creed.

In short, the only two differences that I can see between this Presbyterian and the RC apologist are in the temporal locus and content of the authoritative historical interpretation. The two may disagree on what the content of tradition is, and where in history it is to be found, but both agree that tradition defines what Scripture teaches, rather than the reverse.

The Presbyterian calls himself a Reformed Catholic. It seems more appropriate to regard him as a Catholicised Presbyterian. In my view, as soon as he embraced the primacy of historical theology over sound exegesis, he abandoned the right to call himself Reformed.

Interpretation

Lately I have come across a number of occasions where people quote a sripture in a way that suggests that the interpretation is self-evident, and it self-evidently agrees with them, and disagrees with me. My standard response to them is to ask "Can you please show me how the passage teaches that in context?".

Rarely is an actual effort made to justify the interpretation . Usually the response is to make some sweeping generalisations about how scripture teaches a thing elsewhere, as if if the presence of a teaching in one passage somehow proves the teachig exists in others.

Let me give an easy example in Romans 7. Is Paul referring to himself as a Christian there, or as a non-Christian? Personally I say he is referring to his life before Christ. Now, there are good arguments to support the idea that Paul is referring to the Christian life in Romans 7. However "Paul teaches that there is a struggle against sin elsewhere" is not one of them. I can agree that Paul teaches about the struggle that the Christian has with sin, in say Galatians 5, without having to agree that he is teaching it in Romans 7. The fact is, if you want to say that Paul is teaching abotu the Christian life in Romans 7, you are going to have to appeal to evidence from within and immediately around Romans 7. Galatians 5 does not fit.

Whenever I make that point in such a debate, I usually get accused of not allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. That isn't tue though. Allowing Scripture means letting clear passages help us understand unclear ones. It is not an excuse to let us take one clear scripture and override the teaching of another clear scripture. That practice is less "letting Scripture interpret Scripture" and more "cherry picking".

Enough for now. Blessings!

Jesus Is Risen Indeed!

The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus

I Need A Vacation

The last few days have seen me slow down substantially simply due to being too fatigued to maintain my usual frenetic pace. Not good. I need a vacation.

But what would I do on a vacation? if I could choose anything? Good question. I suppose would have to make two lists; one with and one without my family. Yes, I refuse to feel guilty about feeling the need to occasionally be secluded from even my most loved ones.

So:

With My Family

• Lots of camping, preferably a cross country tour. I think I'd take a summer to do that, stopping to camp in some fo the most scenic areas this great country has to offer. I don't have space to go into all the places I'd wat to take the kids to that I know of, let alone the ones I don't know about yet.
  
• A trip to Kingdom Bound ( http://www.kingdombound.org/ ) The kids would love Six Flags!
  

Without My Family

• I'd go on a spiritual retreat, probably Billy Graham's The Cove.
• I'd take courses at some pictureseque campus. Maybe I'd go back to Acadia. Wolfville is definitely a beautiful spot.
• Find me a warm beach and a book, baby!

I imagine I should have a third list, namely witout my kids but with my wife. I would probably do a tour of Europe with particular attention to spots of biblical, and historical significance. Some out of the way things. I would also probably do a missions trip to South America.

I'll stop dreaming for now; I need to get back to house hunting!

I Need A Notebook

I just finished watching the movie "The Notebook" with my wife. I have to say I cried often and long. My wife cried longer.

It is a very touching film, and, despite some of the less than moral elments of the plot, the one sense that I take away from the whle film is that ther is little else more precious than to be able to say that you have loved one person in an absolutley unique way in your life, and that you stayed weith her. I could not agree more.

I think the reason that the marriage between the main characters worked is that they were both willing to put in the work day after day. That at least is the sense you are left with.

Its weird in a way that theme gets in there. The whole movie to that point seems somewhat idyllic and romanticised. Gettting that dose of reality seems almost out of place. But even then the words are spoken with a passion fuelled by romance, so perhaps it is not so out of place as that. It also may not be out of place given that Noah's character is one that effectively marries hard work and almost blind roamntic passion. The rebuilding of the plantation seesm to bear that out.

All in all a wonderful story. Very heartfelt, and a testimony to the selfless character of love.

Feeling Rushed

Sorry to be away so long; I have been frighteningly busy. I have still found time to think about blogging though. I have been wondering what topics I might tackle.

A few issues have been percolating in my mind, but they are not yet ripe. For now, let me simply do this:

From one of my favorite Rush tunes "Between The Wheels":

To live between a rock and a hard place
In between time
Cruising in prime time
Soaking up the cathode rays

To live between the wars in our time
Living in real time
Holding the good time
Holding on to yesterdays

You know how that rabbit feels
Going under your speeding wheels
Bright images flashing by
Like windshields towards a fly
Frozen in the fatal climb
But the wheels of time
Just pass you by
Wheels can take you around
Wheels can cut you down
We can go from boom to bust
From dreams to a bowl of dust
We can fall from rockets' red glare
Down to "Brother can you spare..."
Another war
Another wasteland
And another lost generation

It slips between your hands like water
This living in real time
A dizzying lifetime
Reeling by on celluloid

Struck between the eyes
By the big-time world
Walking uneasy streets
Hiding beneath the sheets
Got to try and fill the void

So why do I like it? Partly its the tune; there is a steady keyboard that gives a sense of foreboding to the music. But I admit I like the lyrics too. Using very modern imagery I find themes here reminiscentof the Techer of Ecclesiastes. Don't believe me?

I read "It slips between your hands like water this living in real time" and I think of how the Teacher speaksof many things, life itself, as meaningless.

I read "Holding the Good time. Holding on to yesterdays" and I think of Eccl. 7:10.

Compare the chorus to Eccl. 4:1-3.

Or consider "Got to try to fill the void" with the Teacher's own efforts to find meaning.

All those similarities between a work that is a few years old and one that is several centuries old... I guess there really is nothing new under the sun.

Interpreting Stories

I am a fan of Narrative Theology. That is, I am a fan of discerning theological truth by looking at the Bible stories. Interpreting a narrative is different than it is for interpreting a letter. Letters a re pretty straightforward really; you just need to expound and expand on the author's own argument, which the author has self-consciously made.

For narrative theology it is different. It is not often that there is only one argument being made in a story, though sometimes you can get a sense that the author has an axe to grind. Most often you can get several lessons form the same story.

To my mind this makes the gospels, Acts, and much of the Old Testament vital for sharing Christ in the world today. After all, the world today seems to learn best from story, which is narrative.

That isn't to say that there are no pitfalls. One that comes immediately to mind is that narrative theology is inherently more subjective than others. Because there is not often a particular point the author is trying to make, it is possible for an interpreter to decide individually what the point or points should be.

The corrective to this is to not disassociate narrative truth, the truth that God wants to communicate through stories, from propositional truth, that which God relates through direct statements.

Another pitfall is that we can be tempted to start applying the method of narrative theology to nay narrative. A story is a story is a story, so why not get narrative truth from any and every story?

The corrective is to maintain a strong understanding of inspiration and revelation. Only the Bible is God's story told clearly enough to lead a person to a saving relationship with Him. Other stories are not sufficient. They can be sufficient to the extent that the point a person back to the Bible.

There are other pitfalls, but for the time being I have taken enough space.

Hollywood and My Faith

I thought I'd share some of the movies which have gotten me thinking spiritually over the years:

Dead Poets Society
The Matrix (though not in a positive way)
Groundhog Day
Bruce Almighty
The Count of Monte Cristo
The Fisher King
The Lord of The Rings Trilogy
Luther
The Passion of the Christ
Pay It Forward
The Pianist
The English Patient
Simon Birch
X2: X-Men United

Of course I could list other spiritually significant movies, but these are the ones I have seen. Not all have been positive, but all have been thought provoking.

Just found this article

and it is worth reading.

http://www.christianity.ca/frame.html?http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Calgary/Ted_Byfield/2005/02/27/943781.html

Comics and Faith

No, I am not referring to comics of the stand-up variety. That was yesterday's blog.

No, today I am thinking of the superhero comics that I read in my teen years that kept me thinking about spiritual things. Mind you, at the time I would not have thought consciously along those lines. I recall thinking that these were cool ideas or characters or something. At any rate some comics that got me thinking:

X-Men Graphic Novel- God Loves, Man Kills
This is an amazing story. It really gets you thinking about how religion, specifically the Bible, can be twisted in order to accomplish ends that are astonishingly anti-biblical. I remember thinking, when I first bought it, that the problem was not the Bible though, but how it is used. Nowadays I see a parallel between that thought and the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. I don't buy the parallel completely since guns are not made for any purpose other than destruction (whether that destruction brings about a greater good being a related but different topic) while the Bible has a wholely good purpose in bringing people to God. Still it is worth considering how even a love letter can be used to bring, and justify, harm to many.

Wolverine, 1st Mini-series
This is the story that sees Wolverine transformed from a one-dimensional killing machine to a character who struggles with inner-demons to be more than just a one-dimensional killing machine. In the end Wolvie finds peace in the effort, rather than the success. A kind of "the journey is the destination" thing. Nowadays I see echoes of Paul's thinking in Romans 7, but there is a distinct difference in that Paul's conclusion does not simply concede that successfully becoming more than we are is impossible,we had best make the most of the effort. He concludes instead: "Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin? Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord." Ro. 7:24,25 (NLT)

Ghost Rider
The first series featured Johnny Blaze being possessed by the Spirit of Vengeance, Zarathos. The conclusion to the series is what got me. Dying, Zarathos is consumed with a single mission, to destroy his enemy Centurius. Zarathos frees Johnny Blaze from the curse of being possessed by leaving Johnny to inhabit a soul crystal in which centurius has been imprisoned. It is not enough for Zarathos to know that Centurius is imprisoned, he has to get vengeance beyond that, and destroy his enemy utterly. In the process he imprisons himself along with Centurius, but that does not seem to matter. I gathered from that the thought that vengeance, if it is allowed to really control our thinking, will ultimately lead to self-destruction. "Christian brothers, never pay back someone for the bad he has done to you. Let the anger of God take care of the other person. The Holy Writings say, 'I will pay back to them what they should get, says the Lord.'" (Romans 12:19 NLV)

And People Think I'm Weird...

Emo Philips quotes on morality and religion:

"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."

"Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil."

"I was walking down fifth avenue today and I found a wallet, and I was gonna keep it, rather than return it, but I thought: well, if I lost a hundred and fifty dollars, how would I feel? And I realized I would want to be taught a lesson."

"At my lemonade stand I used to give the first glass away free and charge five dollars for the second glass. The refill contained the antidote."

"Whatever happened to the good ole days, when children worked in factories?"

Why be prejudiced against anyone because of their race or nationality or creed... when there're so many real reasons to hate others?

And my personal favorite:

I was in San Fransisco once, walking along the Golden Gate Bridge, and I saw this guy on the bridge about to jump. So I thought I'd try to stall and detain him, long enough for me to put the film in.

I said, "Don't jump!" and he turns...
He said, "Nobody loves me."

I said, "God loves you, you silly ninny."...

He said, "I do believe in God."

I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"

He said, "A Christian."

I said, "Me too. Protestant or Catholic?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! What franchise?"

He says, "Baptist."

I said, "Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"

He says, "Northern Baptist."

I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" He says, "Northern Conservative Baptist."

I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist or Northern Conservative Reform Baptist?"

He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist."

I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?"

He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region."

I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"

He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

Some Interesting Books

Books which have influenced my thinking in some maner (besides the Bible of course) in no particular order:

The Cross of Christ- John Stott
Surprised by the Power of the Spirit- Jack Deere
Surprised by the Voice of God- Jack Deere
Devotional Callsic -edited by Richard Foster and James Bryan Smith
Systematic Theology- Wayne Grudem
The Presence of the Future- G.E. Ladd
The Blessed Hope- G.E. Ladd
The Gospel of the Kingdom- G.E. Ladd
Sacred Cows Make Gourmet Burgers- Bill Easum
Evangelicalsim and the Furture of Chrisitanity- Alistair McGrath
A Call To Spiritual Reformation- D.A. Carson
The Incendiary Fellowship- Elton Trueblood
The Company of the Committed- Elton Trueblood
Christ Our Righteousness- Mark Seifrid
The Epistle To the Romans- Doug Moo, NICNT
The Purpose Driven Church- Rick Warren

Feel free to let me know if you've read any of these or if you have any recommendations. Also if you are wondering what some of these are about, ask and I'll tell you in a future blog.

Christian Seeming

One of the great problems that Christians face in witnessing to their faith is other Christians. At least, the problem is other people who call themselves Christians. These others don't show any signs of being different than they were before their Christian commitment.

One might wonder how it is that people can make a commitment and yet not change. The answer is simple: The commit with the intention of baptizing the way they already live. By that I mean that they seek to dub their lives Christian without their actually conforming to Christ. Instead of having their lives be Christian because they conform to Christ, the seek to call their lives Christian because they have undergone an initiation into the church by making a verbal commitment that never reaches the heart. They just want the freedom to live as they always have without fearing Hell.

Author Harry Turtledove in his book "Between The Rivers" presents an encounter between a character, Sharur, and a goddess, Fasillar. Fasillar is angry with Sharur because, in her estimation, he does not really obey gods, but merely calls himself obedient all the while living to circumvent the gods' will. The encounter proceeds:

"[Sharur] said, 'Great goddess of this town, great goddess of this land, I will appease you and the other gods of this town, the other gods of this land, with any contrition-offering you ask of me, short of my life or the lives of my countrymen. I want no more from you than to trade my wares for the wares of this land and to return to my city, to return to my god, in peace.'"

"No, ' Fasillar said...' A contrition-offering depends upon true contrition. You, man of Gibil, you would make the offering and speak the words of contrition with your mouth, while your heart laughed within you. For the gods of this town, for the gods of this land, to accept such an offering would be for us to eat of poisoned fruit. Better it were never made.'"

"Sharur bit his lip. Fasillar had indeed seen what was in his mind: he would have made the offering as part of the price of doing business in the Alaskurru Mountains, not because he repented of being what he was."

God does not call people on their own hypocrisy like that. At least, He has not. Not yet. But He will. The day will come when He will say "Away from me, for I never knew you."

Secular but Spiritual

A brief list of some songs I know that are secular but nevertheless touch on spiritual matters:

Love's Divine - Seal
Heaven - Los Lonely Boys
Lord, Is it Mine? - Supertramp
The Heart of the Matter - Don Henley
The Big Wheel - Rush
Roll The Bones - Rush
One- U2
Mission - Rush

These are justa few that occur to me off the top of my head. Any one have any others they think should be on the list, leave a comment.

Harder Than Growing Up

Growing up seems to be a lot harder for me to watch than it was for me to do. At least that's what I am thinking now.

I am watching my kids grow up. They are only 6 and 7 years old, but they have already changed a lot, and experienced a lot. A lot of it has been good, and I have had the privilege of watching them exult in their first baseball hit, successful skate, caught ball, ride of the bike without training wheels, and much more.

Other things though have been less pleasant. I have had to watch my kids struggle with the death of a pet. I have watched them cope with a new school, leaving friends, and grapple with loneliness and even bullies.

The thing is that their life is a lot easier than mine was. I was an only child, and mine was a very violent life. By the time I was 7 I was used to seeing my mom beat up by my dad, and the police were well known to me on weekends as they came to investigate what I now know are called "domestic disturbances." I was picked on and ostracized in school and would never have been permitted to stay in the school system by today's standards. I was in a fight most days.

I did not have an easy time growing up. I battled depression, and was having suicidal thoughts before I was even 10. But I would rather go through that again than watch my kids struggle with their own issues. I would spare them all the pain and accept all of their pain and more to do so.

Yes growing up is hard to do. But I am finding it harder to watch.

What A Weekend

First, I spent most of it on the road. I was at a conference. That was good; I got to hear about what God is doing in the neighbourhood I grew up in. Surprisingly (don't we tend to have negative views of the places we grew up in?) God is doing quite a lot. I met the man who is planting a church there. He is filled with the Spirity's fire and passion and zeal. What's more, a more humble and gentle spirit would be hard to find. A tremendous man of God, and I am grateful that the KLord has sent someone like that to revive my home.

Then Sunday came. I tell you that I could sense the Spirit doing something that morning. Nothing went wrong, or at least nothign went wrong that was not instantly fixed. God seemed to be preparing something. By the time Sunday School had started, I could senseGod's movement even more. Our youth class was double what itnormally is, the adult class was also bigger, and people just kept on coming.

When worship started you could sense the joy. It seemed that nothing could detract from the Lord's presence. Nothing did. Not even my preaching. We had our best attendnce of the year, and, for a regular service, one of our best attendances ever. There were many visitors, and we had a number of regulars away too. We followed with a meal that was wonderful; the only thing warmer than the food was the fellowship.

I'd liek to take some credit, but I can't. I can just say it was exciting and a privilege to be a part of.

I can't wait to get to next Sunday!

Metaphors Gone Too Far

Have you ever been in a group that hear a really neat metaphor that everyone, and I mean everyone, suddenly appropriated and used to death?

I had that experience yesterday. The metaphor was "being on the bus" and it was made to walk on all fours, so to speak. The metaphor was applied and misapplied in a variety of ways, expanded beyond all recognition.

Don't misunderstand me here. I like metaphors. I use them frequently. I just don't like seeing them abised. Metaphors are great teaching tools, but they have their limits, and to ignore those limits is an exercise in absurdity. It becomes more about communicating our own cleverness in manipulating a metaphor than about communicating ideas.

Sometimes we will use metaphors or images witotu considering their impact. An image that was used yesterday was that of "having teeth." The idea was of course of enforcability of a new measure, but teeth in the image carries the idea of punitive measures, and enforcement has to do with law. Those ideas are inconsistent with church. I think the idea that was really being sought was effective and encouraging.

Maybe I'll fire off an e-mail to point that out. I will explain it in appropriately metaphorical terms of course.

A Really Bad Day

This has been a really bad day, for two man reasons. I will discuss them briefly, and in no particular order.

1) The NHL Season Is Cancelled

I have been waiting for this for weeks now, but still I am saddened and frustrated by the cancellation of 2004-2005 season. I am saddened because hockey is very much a part of my life; I grew up with it and some of the best of my childhood memories revolve around it. I remember clearly going to Habs games at the Forum. I recall sitting on my Grandfather's bed as we watched Hockey Night in Canada. Losing the season feels a lot like losing a family heirloom.
I am frustrated because the cancellation comes on the heels of getting so close to a deal. The two sides had abandoned their respective philosophical solitudes and were a mere 6.5 million dollars US per team apart on a salary cap. It should have only been a matter of hours of dealing to get to a compromise number. I cannot accept or understand how those hours were not given by Gary Bettman.

2) The House of Commons Begins Debate Of Same-Sex Marriage

I cannot understand why the Martin Government will not accept the so-called "third option" of legislating civil unions that are functionally and legally equivalent to marriage. I don't see why a government should seek to redefine a basic social institution when there is no need to do so. Martin insists that it is about equality: "This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians,"

I don't get it. If same sex civil unions are given the same functions and rights, what does it matter? Martin has not established that there would be any real difference other than the term "marriage" Does he think that marriage is a right? I can't see that. Having your relationship recognized by the state may be a right, but there is no way to justify insisting on claiming the title "married" is a right.

I hope and pray that the Government will come around to see sense, or else be defeated.

At the moment though it seems that this debate is going to end up as negatively as the NHL labour talks.

It has not been a good day.

Some Thoughts on Clarity

What does it mean to say that something is "stated clearly" in a text?

If I say: "I am hungry," is that clear? Or do I have to explain what all of those words refer to? Do I have to, at least, explain what I am hungry for? In what detail? Do I have to tell you that its food, or will you assume that? Do I have to tell you what specific food and in what amount?

See, some folks like to act as though there is no way to actually ascertain the meaning of my words. They act as though nothing is clear. For instance, if you said that I am hungry for food, then you are right. There was of course the chance that I might be hungering for a good movie or something, but the most likely answer was the right one. But folks who deny that something can be clear basically assume that nothing is a "most likely" meaning. Everything is equally possible (or impossible).

These folks really have nothing to stand on, and they are using a theory of knowledge that Is really self-refuting. See, in making the very attempt to tell us that nothing can be clear, they are assuming that their very words, their meaning, can be recognized in a clear fashion.

Its just one of those ideas which is fine for debating but doesn't actually work in the real world. One cannot simply assert and assume vagaries into language and communication without effectively denying the possibility of communication and the very purpose of language

On the other end of the spectrum are those people who hold that most things are clear, and in fact can only be understood one way. Their way, of course. It is ridiculous, but they set themselves up as being some kind of autocrat of understanding language.

Using my example above, it is like someone saying that I can ONLY be hungering of food. There is no other appropriate use of "hunger," therefore I am hungry for food. I can't be hungry for love, power, or anything else.

This of course is the opposite error of the person who denies clarity. Where the denier of clarity inserts vagaries that are not present in language and communication, the person who insists on only one meaning denies vagaries in language and communication that legitimately do exist.

Both of these are wrong. Both are used by people who seek to undermine faith in God by either denying that He can effectively communicate Himself in the Bible or limiting that communication.

Don't get fooled.

The Power of Fear

As part of my my reent promoton from 1/4 time to 1/2 time status in the church, I requested, and was granted, a book allowance.

Now, I haven't had one for a few years, and for me, who loves to read, and read technical things that most people developed glazed looks on teir faces merely contemplating looking at, this is a wonderful turn of events.

I feel a bit like a kid in a candy store with $250 to spend. Except that an individual candy for em will likely cost about $35 instead of a nickel. That to say that the money can be spent pretty quickly.

Now, I have been holding back a lot. I know what I want to get, but I don't want to just rush and start spending. Also I am taking a biblical financial management course, whcih really makes me want to avoid just rushing out and spending too.

But you know I want to.

I do.

Just thought I'd get that off my chest before I go and make a purchase...