August 2012 - Dialogue - lists.wedgeblade.net

The death of Rev. Zan White
by David M Dunn 13 Aug '12

13 Aug '12

Colleagues. I've attached a flyer that announces the death of Rev. Zan White, the husband of Jan Peterson, the Chairperson of the Huairou Commission's Secretariat. Zan died last week in a drowning accident. I understand from Dick Alton that Jan and her husband have been colleagues who lived in a religious house many years ago. I wonder if others know of the Zan White-Jan Peterson family and have any memories they could share. David ps. I'm currently working with two of Jan's staff members on a Grassroots Women's Community Justice Guide, a resource for facilitating women's land and property ownership in Africa, to be published by the Huairou Commission next month. David Dunn 740 S Alton Way 9B Denver, CO 80247 -- dmdunn1(a)gmail.com 720-314-5991

2 1

Re: [Dialogue] [Oe List ...] A Mini-Library for a 21st Century Spirit Movement
by David Walters 09 Aug '12

09 Aug '12

1 0

8/09/12, Spong: "Think Different–Accept Uncertainty" Part XV: Was Lazarus Raised from the Dead?
by Ellie Stock 09 Aug '12

09 Aug '12

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR "Think Different–Accept Uncertainty" Part XV: Was Lazarus Raised from the Dead? Before leaving my brief analysis of the miracle stories of the New Testament, I want to look at what is probably the best known miraculous act attributed to Jesus in the entire gospel tradition. That is the raising of Lazarus from the dead. It is a narrative told only in the Fourth Gospel (John 11), which means it does not appear in the Christian tradition until near the very end of the first century, between the years 95-100. Because it is in John’s gospel only, we need to be aware of the role it plays in that gospel. From chapters 2-12 there is in John what scholars now refer to as “The Book of Signs.” In this section John records seven signs around which he will tell his story of Jesus. The first one is the account of Jesus changing water into wine at Cana in Galilee and the last one is the story of the raising of Lazarus. By calling these otherwise apparently supernatural acts “signs” John was, I believe, indicating that they should not be viewed as miracle stories, but as narratives that point beyond themselves to something of great meaning and significance. That was John’s way of saying that these “signs” are not to be literalized. When we turn to the actual narrative of the Lazarus story itself, there are many other things that look as if they are meant to be warnings that this story is not to be read literally. First, there is the biographical detail that Lazarus is introduced as the brother of Mary and Martha, who live in the village of Bethany. That is a strange detail because Mary and Martha are well known figures in the gospel tradition, but nowhere has it ever been suggested up until this moment that they had a brother named Lazarus. The second detail in John’s story that causes questions to be raised is that Jesus is notified of Lazarus’ sickness and, we are told, he deliberately refuses to go to him until the report comes of his death. The death of Lazarus was, said Jesus, for the purpose of the “glory of God” that the son of man “might be glorified by means of it.” That is interpretive language, used in an attempt to make sense retrospectively of the meaning of the Jesus experience. It is not the language of a reporter describing a supernatural event that was supposed to have happened in history. The third thing that is noteworthy in this story is that although no actual person named Lazarus has ever before been mentioned anywhere in the Christian tradition, when he appears here we are told that he was especially close to Jesus. In this narrative an intense emphasis is placed on how much Jesus loved him. When Jesus is first informed of Lazarus’ sickness the words used are: “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” When the crowd observes Jesus weeping with grief, the text quotes the bystanders as saying: “See how he loved him.” Again and again in this narrative we are told that the relationship between Jesus and Lazarus is very, very close. Yet, none of the earlier gospels have ever heard of him. To add to this mystery two chapters later this gospel introduces an enigmatic, but crucial figure around whom John will weave the story of the crucifixion and the resurrection. John calls this figure “the disciple whom Jesus loved” and he is known in biblical circles as the “beloved disciple.” In John’s gospel the “beloved disciple” is beside Jesus at the Last Supper. Peter has to go through him to get his question to Jesus. He is the one at the cross with Jesus and the one to whom Jesus’ mother is commended. He is the first person to stare into the empty tomb and to believe that its inability to contain Jesus was a sign of triumph and resurrection. He was the first to recognize Jesus by the Sea of Galilee in John’s epilogue in chapter 21. So both the figure of the “beloved disciple” and the figure named Lazarus raised from the dead, appear in the mind of the author of this gospel to be deeply linked in Jesus’ affections. Both must, therefore, be seen as major, even pivotal figures in John’s attempt to proclaim a new understanding of God in the life of Jesus. This leads us to the conclusion that in all probability neither of these figures was a person of history. A close reading of the Fourth Gospel raises the prospect that this author creates a whole string of literary characters through whom he seeks to tell the Jesus story. Many of them are, like Lazarus and “the beloved disciple,” characters about whom no one has ever heard before John writes. I think of such figures as Nathanial, Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman by the well, the Gentile official whose child is healed, the man crippled for 38 years and the man born blind. It is the literal reading of John’s gospel that has led us over the centuries to think of these figures as people of history. They are, I am now convinced, no more of history than Jane Eyre, Sherlock Holmes or Harry Potter. To understand John’s gospel we must begin to see this ability to create memorable characters as a mark of his literary genius. With the non-historical nature of Lazarus now before us we turn to John’s story and read it for the “high drama” it is. These are the details: Jesus arrives in Bethany well after the funeral of Lazarus has been completed. Indeed he has been buried for four days. John informs us that the crowd of mourners is still there. This crowd includes some who are followers of Jesus, some who are his critics and some who are his sworn enemies. This “sign” is going to be performed in public with hostile witnesses present. When Jesus first arrives he is berated by both Martha and Mary for not coming quickly when he received the urgent message. “Lord, if you had been here our brother would not have died,” they say. Jesus is then made by John to engage in a long conversation with Martha about life after death. In that conversation, John injects the last of his “I AM” sayings. “I AM” is the name God revealed to Moses at the burning bush in the book of Exodus. John takes this holy name and places it onto the lips of Jesus over and over again. Only in John’s gospel does Jesus say such things as “I AM the bread of Life,” “I AM the living Water,” “I AM the Good Shepherd.” “I AM the door,” “I AM the vine,” “I AM the Way” and in this episode Jesus is made to say: “I AM the Resurrection.” Even more enigmatically in other places in this gospel Jesus is quoted as having said, “Before Abraham was, I AM” and “when you see the son of man lifted up, you will know I AM.” So whatever else we do with this story we need to read it inside its Johannine context. The final thing to notice is the heightened miraculous character of this story. Lazarus is not only dead, but he has been buried for four days. Martha warns Jesus that there will be an odor if the grave is opened. Jesus, nonetheless, accompanied by a great crowd goes to the tomb, rolls back the covering stone and calls to the dead man: “Lazarus, come forth.” To the amazement of the crowd, a mummy-like figure appears bound in burial cloths, struggling to get free. Jesus says: “Unbind him and let him go.” What is the response to this scene? Some believed, said John, but many more conspired to put Jesus to death. Indeed in John’s gospel this is the event that brings on the crucifixion. John in this episode even has Caiaphas the High Priest, speak these words: “it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people.” From the story of the raising of Lazarus onward the death of Jesus is inevitable in the Fourth Gospel. If this story is not literal, then what does it mean and from where did John draw the details. Earlier in this series, we noted the parallels between the story of Elisha raising a child from the dead and Jesus raising the child of the synagogue official named Jairus, from the dead. We also noted that the story of Elijah raising from the dead the only son of a widow is reflected in Luke’s account of Jesus raising from the dead the only son of a widow in the village of Nain. In the Hebrew Scriptures, however, there is no parallel to the raising of Lazarus. So no interpretive help flows from that source. There is, however, a parable in the synoptic tradition, told only by Luke, in which there is a character named Lazarus. He is a beggar who dies and goes to the “bosom of Abraham,” a Jewish synonym for heaven. His adversary in this parable is a rich man, sometimes called Dives, who also dies and he goes to a place of torment. Once there, Dives asks Abraham to send Lazarus to him with water. Abraham responds that one cannot get there from here. Dives then asks Abraham to send Lazarus back to earth to warn his brothers lest they too come to this place of torment. To this Abraham responds, “They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.” Dives counters this by saying if someone goes to them from the dead they will repent. To this Abraham speaks the key word that unlocks John’s story. “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets neither will they be convinced even if one should rise from the dead.” John has taken this Lucan parable and has made its meaning come true as an event in history. Lazarus is raised and they are not convinced. Instead this story is the catalyst that leads to the crucifixion. John never intended this to be viewed as history. This is an interpretive story told in the midst of the tension between the followers of Jesus and the synagogue authorities over how Jesus is to be understood. We must learn to read the Bible without imposing our frightened literalism on it. That is not only an important task, but a deeply rewarding one. The Lazarus story is not a miracle; it is a “sign.” ~John Shelby Spong Read the essay online here. Question & Answer Vicki from Australia asks: Question: Can you please explain to me the phenomena "speaking in tongues" and the "supposed healing" at Charismatic Masses? Answer: Dear Vicki, Most of the speaking in tongues phenomenon, technically called glossolalia, is hysterical nonsense brought on by heightened religious emotion and autosuggestion. I regard it as more of a manifestation of mental illness than as a spiritual virtue. The story of Pentecost in the book of Acts suggested that those filled with the Spirit were able to communicate with their hearers by speaking whatever language the hearer understood. It was a parable in the boundary-breaking Christ experience, not a miracle story of huge proportions. It was in the minds of the Jewish hearers a narrative that suggested a reversal of the story of the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel in the book of Genesis. The idea that in a heightened spiritual awareness one can access a secret language is nonsense to me. Just because a practice is supposedly religious does not mean it isn’t “kookie!” In terms of most spontaneous religious healing, I would rather be treated by a trained doctor than by the prayers or laying on of hands by Oral Roberts. There are some illnesses that are more psychological than physical and I suppose that religious intensity can change the symptoms dramatically. I do not think that means one is saved, it means one is dealing with one’s demons in a new way. I would expect to see those “cures” dissipate in a matter of time. To the degree that religion fosters wholeness it is a factor in healing but I see little evidence that popular religion is about wholeness so much as it is about guilt and power. Mental health, physical health, proper exercise, weight control, proper diet and regular sleep are all activities that lead to the fullness of life. Why anyone would want to compromise that fullness with some weird religious practice escapes me. ~John Shelby Spong Announcements Read what Bishop Spong has to say about A Joyful Path Progressive Christian Spiritual Curriculum for Young Hearts and Minds: "The great need in the Christian church is for a Sunday school curriculum for children that does not equate faith with having a pre-modern mind. The Center for Progressive Christianity has produced just that. Teachers can now teach children in Sunday school without crossing their fingers. I endorse it wholeheartedly. Subscribers, please remember that your subscription is automatically renewed. You can unsubscribe at any time. Simply login to access your profile page and cancel your account. Login to be able to comment directly on the website. Join in the discussion! Look for Bishop Spong on Facebook and LIKE the Facebook page for ProgressiveChristianity.org You can also follow Bishop Spong on Twitter. Thank you for taking this journey with us! Any questions or concerns, please contact us at support(a)johnshelbyspong.com or 503-236-3545. Copyright © 2012 ProgressiveChristianity.org, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you have a membership at our website. Our mailing address is: ProgressiveChristianity.org 4916 Pt Fosdick Dr, NW #148 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Add us to your address book

1 0

what is the right question these days?
by KarenBueno＠aol.com 09 Aug '12

09 Aug '12

Let's talk. Is it "How are we to live together and preserve this planet for the future?" ? In a message dated 6/29/2012 6:07:33 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com writes: Ah, what is the right question these days? Right questions?? Jim Wiegel _Jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com_ (mailto:Jfwiegel@yahoo.com) “One cannot live in the afternoon of life according to the program of life’ s morning; for what was great in the morning will be of little importance in the evening, and what in the morning was true will at evening have become a lie.” – Carl Jung Partners in Participation Upcoming public course opportunities: ToP Facilitation Methods, Sept 11-12, 2012 ToP Strategic Planning, Oct 9-10, 2012 The AZ Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Sept 7, 2012 Facilitation Mastery : Our Mastering the Technology of Participation program is available in Phoenix in 2012-3. Program begins on Nov 14-16, 2012 See short video _http://partnersinparticipation.com/?page_id=55_ (http://partnersinparticipation.com/?page_id=55) and website for further details. On Jun 29, 2012, at 0:11, "David Walters" <_walters(a)alaweb.com_ (mailto:walters@alaweb.com) > wrote: The problem with gathering Spong describes is just another event where people come together and talk and talk and always ask the wrong question. The one thing I learned during my time in the Order was the value of asking the right question, especially during those hot sweaty summers of the west side of Chicago. -David Walters --- _elliestock(a)aol.com_ (mailto:elliestock@aol.com) wrote: From: Ellie Stock <_elliestock(a)aol.com_ (mailto:elliestock@aol.com) > To: _dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net_ (mailto:dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net) , _oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net_ (mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net) Subject: [Dialogue] 6/28/12, Spong: My Way into an Interfaith Future Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:57:06 -0400 (EDT) Sent from Chautauqua where Spong is speaking every afternoon. (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=…) _Homepage_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=…) _My Profile_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id… daa597) _Essay Archive_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=…) _Message Boards_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=…) _Calendar_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=…) My Way into an Interfaith Future Last week I introduced you, my readers, to an interfaith “think tank” in which I shared recently at a conference center known as the Chautauqua Institution in Western New York. Some fifty leaders from among all the major religious systems of the world gathered there to explore the common ground that might lead to deeper interfaith cooperation and appreciation. The goal seemed desirable and all of the participants came with hope and excitement. The need for interfaith cooperation is apparent all over the world. Where divergent religious systems confront each other, violence almost always ensues. One has only to look for documentation at the Jewish-Moslem conflict in the Middle East, the Hindu-Moslem conflict between Pakistan and India, the Christian-Islamic violence that cuts across Africa, the Catholic-Protestant tensions in Ireland or the Sunni-Shia conflict that keeps Islam divided in the Middle East. One could also look at Christian history to see the anti-Semitism of the ages, the violence of the Crusades directed against Islam, or the Thirty Years’ War in Europe that followed the Reformation as both Protestant Europe and Catholic Europe sought to impose its faith on the other. This reality forces us to ask what there is about religion in most of its forms that makes violence all but inevitable as it appears to be in religious history. At the Chautauqua conference it did not take long for this flaw to be revealed. Indeed, it became present and visible in the first presentation. This presentation was given by Dr. John Cavadini, a Roman Catholic Professor of Theology from Notre Dame. The Roman Catholic Church articulates its claim to supremacy quite overtly. The current pope has reiterated a position taken by his predecessor that there is but one true religion and that is Christianity and that there is only one true version of Christianity and that is the Roman Catholic Church! He went on to warn those Catholics engaged in ecumenical relations that they should never refer to other Christian traditions as “sister churches,” since that implies some legitimacy. When that point of view is publicly articulated there is a genuine embarrassment in the listening audience. Such an attitude makes any significant conversation aimed at unity a rather worthless activity. Professor Cavalini tried at our gathering, unsuccessfully I believe, to navigate these troubled waters by making a distinction between revealed truth and our understanding of this truth. The central Christian doctrine of the Incarnation was not subject to debate, he said, but the way we understand that doctrine is always unfolding. Lest the blame for interfaith failure be placed too heavily on Roman Catholic shoulders, let me hasten to say that almost every religious tradition makes similar claims to be the exclusive possessor of revealed and “saving” truth. Protestant fundamentalists assert that the Bible is the literal “ word of God” and those denying that claim are either to be condemned or subjected to conversion pressure. Protestant evangelicals believe that the prerequisite for salvation is that one must be “born again” or “accept Jesus as their personal savior.” Muslims make the Islamic claim that in the Koran the Word of God was dictated directly to the prophet Muhammad. Within Islam itself both the Sunnis and the Shia claim that theirs is the only true expression of that faith tradition. Other sacred writings from the religions of the East are similarly invested with claims of being vessels through which the absolute truth of God has come into human possession. These claims that ultimate truth is the possession of a particular religious system are what make interfaith conversation all but impossible. The attempt to be open, to understand or to appreciate another faith perspective is thus deeply threatening to every religious system. One of the things that every religious system seeks to do is to offer religious certainty and for that to be possible that religion must escape the quicksand of relativity. Relativity, at the same time, is almost always impossible to escape without falling into religious triumphalism. At the Chautauqua “think tank” these problems were quickly identified and named. We could not start without finding a new way into the interfaith issue. As I thought about this over the next few days I tried to discover that illusive new path. Let me try to outline it briefly. The first step in any interfaith process is to be conscious of the fact that these exclusive claims exist and that we must begin where people are, not with where we wish they were. No one speaks in a vacuum and no one listens in a vacuum. We need to listen to each other closely, the same way we want others to listen to us. Let me then begin this process autobiographically. I am a Christian. Any interfaith activity in which I am engaged must start with that fact. I am not apologetic about this self-identification, nor am I willing to jettison this definition of myself for the sake of interfaith unity. The deepest commitment of my life is my commitment to walk the Christ path as my doorway into the mystery of God. Christianity is of absolute importance to me. I want to explore its wonders as deeply as I possibly can. Yet, I do not think that God is a Christian, certainly not in any creedal way, and that insight opens me up to all kinds of new possibilities. Christianity, like every other religious system in history is clearly a human creation that has evolved over the centuries. The virgin birth, for example, did not enter the Christian tradition until the ninth decade of the Christian era. It was certainly not a part of primitive Christianity. Neither Paul nor Mark appears ever to have heard about such an idea. The ascension was a tenth decade addition. Surely a quick reading of Paul would reveal that Paul was not a Trinitarian. The doctrines of the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity were not worked out until the third and fourth centuries. Doctrines are always attempts to put rational forms onto a transformative experience. Doctrines, therefore, can never be ultimate, but the experience that made the development of the doctrine seem proper might well be. Can we then separate the God experience that we Christians believe we have met in Jesus from the explanations of that experience which form the content of our faith tradition? That is a crucial distinction. The Jesus experience might well offer me a doorway into that which is ultimate, but Christianity itself cannot be ultimate and it thus cannot be the final revelation of God. God can never be contained inside any human form or bound by any human words. This means that neither my understanding of God nor my Church ’s understanding of God can ever be ultimate. This realization does not, however, invalidate the truth of my experience. As a Christian, I walk the Christ path. My deepest hope is that if I walk the Christ path long enough and faithfully enough, I will discover that I inevitably will transcend the boundaries of my own religion. That reality thus becomes a religious inevitability. When I articulate the fact that this is true for me I discover that it also seems to be true for people in all other religious systems. The Muslim must walk the Islamic path; the Jews must walk the Jewish path; the Hindus and Buddhists must walk the Hindu or Buddhist path. All walk with the realization, however, that God is not a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu or a Buddhist. All religious systems are designed by human beings to help its adherents walk into the mystery of an unbounded God. If any of us walks our own faith path long enough and faithfully enough, we will discover that our walk carries us beyond the boundaries of our own religious systems, since God can never be limited by or exhausted in any thing that is a human creation, whether it be scripture, creeds, doctrines or dogmas. To say it boldly the God experience may well be ultima te, but the religious system through which we walk into the God experience can never be. The next realization comes when we discover that while we are walking our separate paths, we are also taking into ourselves the values and the treasures found in our own tradition. We hold these treasures close to our hearts; we do not want to lose them. I grasp joyfully the pearl of great price that Christianity gives me. Then I realize that my brothers and sisters in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are doing exactly the same. They must embrace the treasures of their religion and cling to the pearl of great price that they have received from their religious system. So perhaps the deepest and the common religious call to each of us is not to affirm our unique creeds so much as it is to explore our faith so deeply that we each transcend its boundaries and escape fear-laden limits. Then beyond the boundaries and the limits of the faith system that has nurtured each of us, but without sacrificing the pearl of great price that our own tradition has given us, we can turn and face in a new way our brothers and sisters who have walked a path different from our own. In that setting I can speak to them and say: “This is the essence of my faith. This is the treasure that I have received as I walked the Christ path and now I want to share this treasure with you.” Each of my interfaith pilgrims will in turn do the same. They will say to me: “This is the essence of Judaism, of Islam, of Hinduism, of Buddhism. This is the treasure, the pearl of great price that I have received by walking faithfully and deeply the path of my religion and I want to share it with you.” We each receive the treasure of the other. No one has to sacrifice the treasure of the system which has nurtured him or her. We all become enriched. We no longer have to protect our truth or play the familiar religious games of supremacy that we have so often played in the past. No one loses, everyone gains. The alternative to genuine interfaith cooperation may well be genocide. While we can assert that there is no relativity in the God experience, there can also be no triumphalism in the various explanations of that experience. No religion is therefore ultimate, but God is and God is met on many paths and our call is to walk our path faithfully. In that realization, the beauty of an interfaith future is born. ~John Shelby Spong Read the essay online _here_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=…) . ____________________________________ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=…) ____________________________________ Bishop Spong's Summer Session at the Pacific School of Religion! (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=…) _Re-Claiming the Bible in a Post-Christian World_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=…) Instructor: _John Shelby Spong_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=…) Dates and Times: One week: July 16-20, 9am - 1pm Description: Can the Bible, written 2000-3000 years ago, speak in any meaningful way to the 21st century? If it cannot, then is Christianity at an end? If it can, will Christianity look anything like what we have known in the past? Since creeds and doctrines are all constructed on the basis of what was believed to be "Biblical Truth," can any of the current formularies stand? Since liturgy is based on biblical definitions of sin, salvation and God, none of which make much sense to 21st century people, can Christianity tolerate the revolution that it faces? This class will be taught by one who has been a priest and bishop for 56 years with one foot in the institutional church and the other in the academic world of new insights. It is specifically designed for clergy and questing lay people. Course Credits & Cost: 1.5 credits - $990; audit - $495; 2.0 CEUs - $350 Course Number: BS-2117 (credit); BS-0003 (CEUs) Required Text: John Shelby Spong, Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World, 2011 HarperCollins, San Francisco. Purchase _here_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id… b34daa597) . Syllabus: _Re-Claiming the Bible in a Post-Christian World_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=… 34daa597) _Register_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id…) Question & Answer The Rev. Stuart Maywood from Norwood, Mass., and Naples, Florida, writes: Question: What is the role or place of Christian Education in Church School? It seems to me that much of what is taught is watered-down material of questionable worth. As a former pastor this was always an issue and it is more so now. It seems to me that we need better educated adults to live fully and then let the children follow. Answer: Dear Stuart, Thank you for your letter and for sharing your experience. I concur with your observation. I remember only two things from the years I spent going to Sunday school and neither of them had anything to do with content. I remember being slapped by my fourth grade Sunday school teacher for misbehaving (I have no idea what my offence was) and I remember my fifth grade teacher who was instructing us on the Ten Commandments and he skipped from the 6th commandment against killing to the 8th commandment against stealing. Noticing that he had omitted commandment number 7, I raised my hand and asked, “Mr. Darrow, why did you skip the commandment about adultery? What does it mean to commit adultery?” Threatened, my teacher responded with irritation saying, “You will learn about that when you get older!” Otherwise Sunday school content did not appear to penetrate my mind. Yet by some process, I picked up the cultural fundamentalism. I assumed there was a real ark filled with animals, that the ascension really meant that Jesus went into the sky of a three-tiered universe and that miracles were simply part of Jesus’ life. Whether I would have been able to absorb a critical study of the Bible at that time in my life, I do not know. I only know that I never was given the opportunity to find out. I agree that most Sunday school material is of little value, contributing to a view of God, who like Santa Claus, will someday have to be abandoned because we have grown up. On the other hand, the most exciting thing I did as a parish priest was to teach an adult Bible class every Sunday morning for an hour prior to our service of worship. Adults came in large numbers, sometimes dragging their children with them for Sunday school. I know that in those classes, I taught them as if I were teaching in a graduate school attended by adults who were capable of learning anything I knew. I know they were excited about the Bible, capable of embracing the controversy and tension of modern scholarship. And, finally, I know that out of that class each year, I recruited Sunday school teachers who were eager to pass on to the children the things that they had learned. That experience convinced me that the key to Christian education was to teach the adults. Still good Sunday school material is a help. I have read many Sunday school curricula – some commercially produced, some denominationally produced and some inter-denominationally produced. My first rule is to “do no harm,” by which I mean do not teach anything that you the teacher do not yourself believe; and my second rule is to teach nothing that the child will someday have to renounce. The Center for Progressive Christianity has just begun to produce church school materials. They have now completed material for children 6-10 years. It is the best I have ever read. It is not religious pabulum, but offers a critical approach to scripture. I recommend it. If you would like to learn more about it, email _admin(a)progressivechristianity.org_ (mailto:admin@progressivechristianity.org) , and they will send you more information on it. They hope to expand this beginning initiative into a full church school curriculum in time. That is, however, a difficult and expensive process. I hope it succeeds. I trust that this addresses your concerns. ~John Shelby Spong ____________________________________ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=…) ____________________________________ Read what Bishop Spong has to say about _A Joyful Path Progressive Christian Spiritual Curriculum for Young Hearts and Minds_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=…) : "The great need in the Christian church is for a Sunday school curriculum for children that does not equate faith with having a pre-modern mind. The Center for Progressive Christianity has produced just that. Teachers can now teach children in Sunday school without crossing their fingers. I endorse it wholeheartedly." Announcements ____________________________________ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id…) ____________________________________ Subscribers, please remember that your subscription is automatically renewed. You can unsubscribe at any time. Simply _login to access your profile page and cancel your account_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id…) . _Login to be able to comment _ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=…) directly on the website. Join in the discussion! ____________________________________ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id…) ____________________________________ _Look for Bishop Spong on Facebook_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id…) and LIKE the _Facebook page for ProgressiveChristianity.org_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=…) ! _You can also follow Bishop Spong on Twitter._ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=…) Thank you for taking this journey with us! Any questions or concerns, please contact us at _support(a)johnshelbyspong.com_ (mailto:support@johnshelbyspong.com) or 503-236-3545. Copyright © 2012 _ProgressiveChristianity.org_ (http://progressivechristianity.org/) , All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you have a membership at our website. Our mailing address is: _ProgressiveChristianity.org_ (http://progressivechristianity.org/) 4916 Pt Fosdick Dr, NW #148 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 _Add us to your address book_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/vcard?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=e16aee…) If you are a paying subscriber, you may _login and cancel your account_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=2 e3f90c136&e=db34daa597) . Sent to _elliestock(a)aol.com_ (mailto:elliestock@aol.com) — _why did I get this?_ (http://tcpc.us2.list- manage1.com/about?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=e16aeed959&e=db34daa597&c=…) _unsubscribe from this list_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage2.com/unsubscribe?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id…) | _update subscription preferences_ (http://tcpc.us2.list-manage.com/profile?u=b51b9cf441b059bb232418480&id=e16a…) _ProgressiveChristianity.org_ (http://progressivechristianity.org/) · 4916 Pt Fosdick Dr, NW · #148 · Gig Harbor, WA 98335 _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list _Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net_ (http://webmail.alaweb.com/eonapps/ft/wm/page/compose?send_to=Dialogue@lists…) _http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net_ (http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net) \t�-$� �DC�c��L��M8�D<� _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list _Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net_ (mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net) _http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net_ (http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net) = _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

14 16

Re: [Dialogue] [Oe List ...] Four ? parts of worship
by Len Hockley 08 Aug '12

08 Aug '12

Folks, Look what I found: *OUR COMMON WORSHIP * * IN THE * *CHRISTIAN FAITH & LIFE COMMUNITY* T H E D R A M A O F O U R S A L V A T I O N *ACT II* SERVICE OF THE WORD *ACT I* hymn of praise *ACT III* service o. t. lesson n. t. lesson service of CONFESSION anthem witness of DEDICATION pardon obedience to GOD prayer prologue confession praise and witness Christian joy offering epilogue hymn knowledge of SELF __ __| |__ responsibility for SOCIETY hymn invocation penitence & pardon Christian sorrow |__ __| | | |__| dedication & offering Christian compassion benediction called out from the world the mercy of GOD the SON the glory of GOD the FATHER the life in GOD the SPIRIT sent out into the world A R A T I O N A L E O F T H E C H R I S T I A N S E R V I C E O F W O R S H I P ref: http://wedgeblade.net/gold_path/data/meth/101058.htm Len On 7/23/2012 10:40 AM, Susan Fertig wrote: > > And I just thought of another connection I hadn’t made before! A > connection with our intentional conversation method, ORID. > > O Objective God’s Attributes (Praise/Adoration) > > R Reflective I have sinned, I will sin (Confession) > > I Interpretive Here is what I need to give thanks > for, even it is not obvious that some of these things are good > (Thanksgiving) > > D Decisional Commitment (Supplication: “I will, > with God’s help…”) > > *Susan* > > *From:* oe-bounces(a)lists.wedgeblade.net > [mailto:oe-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] *On Behalf Of *Susan Fertig > *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2012 1:34 PM > *To:* 'Order Ecumenical Community' > *Subject:* Re: [Oe List ...] Four ? parts of worship > > Similar construct (different sequencing) for classic prayer: > > A Adoration > > C Confession > > T Thanksgiving > > S Supplication > > *Susan* > > *From:* oe-bounces(a)lists.wedgeblade.net > <mailto:oe-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net> > [mailto:oe-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] > <mailto:[mailto:oe-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net]> *On Behalf Of *Ellie > Stock > *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2012 12:25 PM > *To:* oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net <mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> > *Subject:* Re: [Oe List ...] Four ? parts of worship > > or Thanksgiving/praise, Confession, Proclamation/Witness, Dedication > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nancy Grow <nangrow(a)verizon.net <mailto:nangrow@verizon.net>> > To: Order Ecumenical Community <oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net > <mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net>> > Sent: Mon, Jul 23, 2012 11:17 am > Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Four ? parts of worship > > Herman, > > You are right: there are four parts of worship: Thanksgiving, > Confession,Praise and Dedication or commitment. We never began > worship without dirst acknowledgement of who we pray, then confession > of our unworthiness for alll we have received, which leads us to > remember not only the goodness of our own lives but the amazing > creative love of God, which in turn calls for our dedication or > commitment. Thanks for asking, from one of the early writers of > liturgy in the Order. > > Nan Grow > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Herman Greene <mailto:hfgreene@mindspring.com> > > *To:* 'Order Ecumenical Community' <mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> > > *Sent:* Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:14 AM > > *Subject:* [Oe List ...] Four ? parts of worship > > I cant believe I cant remember this, but what are the four parts > of worship? > > Confession, praise, commitment . . . ??? > > _______________________________________________ > > Herman Greene > > 2516 Winningham Drive > > Chapel Hill, NC 27516 > > 919-929-4116 (h) > > 919-624-0579 (c) > > 919-942-4358 (f) > > Skype: hgreene-nc > > hfgreene(a)mindspring.com <mailto:hfgreene@mindspring.com> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > OE mailing list > OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net <mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net> > http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net > > _______________________________________________ > OE mailing list > OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net <mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net> > http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net > > > _______________________________________________ > OE mailing list > OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net > http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net >

1 0

In case missed the "Rolling Stone" article by McKibben ...
by John Cock 07 Aug '12

07 Aug '12

Go to > http://rejourney.blogspot.com/2012/08/too-much-to-bear.html on our blog > and the very significant article link included, or go straight to the > article at > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-m > ath-20120719 by Bill McKibben, brought to our attention by Ellie Stock on > the list recently. > > Best general article on where we are as Earth community re global warming, > and who the biggest enemies are--knowing we all are the enemy. Never had > "economic tyrant," "allied political," and "impotent cultural" so well > brought home--grounded existentially (existence-ly)--and also the "7th > generation." > John > John P. Cock > >Daily "Journey Reflections" on ... > Google: www.reJourney.blogspot.com > Google Plus: https://plus.google.com/u/0/114307312715975337692/posts > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/transcribebooks > Twitter: https://twitter.com/transcribebooks > >Web Page: www.transcribebooks.com > >Amazon Author (+books): http://tinyurl.com/n467ka >

1 0

emerging collaboration
by Terry Bergdall 02 Aug '12

02 Aug '12

Last week, Carlton Stock posted a message on the listserv about attending a new training program with the Transition movement at 4750 in Chicago. For those who might be interested, below is a link to Transition US's current newsletter with their story and photos about the same. http://transitionus.org/stories/transitioners-all-over-country-convene-chic… During their week at 4750, Transition trainers also met for their annual planning. At Transition's invitation, this was facilitated by Marti Roach and Rachel Hefte of the ToP Network. As you see at the end of the story, a strong collaborative relationship is emerging between the Transition movement and ICA in the United States. This national connection, with international implications, is a key complement to the intensive work we are currently doing with the "Accelerate 77" program in Chicago -- which will culminate on September 25 with the city-wide "Sharing Approaches That Work" event.

2 1

8/02/12, Spong: "Think Different-Accept Uncertainty" Part XIV: Analyzing the Miracles Attributed to Jesus
by Ellie Stock 02 Aug '12

02 Aug '12

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR "Think Different—Accept Uncertainty" Part XIV: Analyzing the Miracles Attributed to Jesus When most people think of the miracles included in the gospels, they usually think of a broad series of apparently supernatural acts. They tend not to be familiar with the intimate details of the biblical narrative. When those details are revealed, questions are inevitably raised as to the purpose the gospel writer had in mind when he was writing, and the possibility that these stories were never meant to be taken literally rises substantially. Allow me to illustrate that with some easily discovered biblical data. I begin with the most miraculous of the biblical claims. Did Jesus literally raise people from the dead? A search of the gospel texts reveals these biblical facts. The gospels suggest that three different people are called by Jesus from death into life, but only one of those stories occurs in more than one of the gospels. That is the account of the raising of Jairus’ daughter. It makes its first appearance in Mark (5:21-24, 35-43), a book written in the early seventies. The details in this original narrative tell us that Jairus was a “ruler of the synagogue,” who comes to Jesus beseeching him to heal his daughter “who is at the point of death.” Jesus begins to move toward Jairus’ home. As he does so, there is another healing miracle, the story of the woman with an issue of blood, inserted by Mark to take up the time during which they were on the way to Jairus’ house. Having completed that episode the journey continues only to be interrupted by Jairus’ servants coming to inform the synagogue ruler that the child has died and he is not to trouble the “teacher” any longer. Jesus, apparently unmoved by this report, speaks to Jairus telling him not to be fearful, but to believe and so the journey continues. Arriving at the house, Jesus is greeted by a host of mourners, who are weeping and wailing. He asks them why they are mourning, informing them that the child “is not dead but sleeping.” The mourners laugh at him. Closing the door on the mourners, Jesus goes with the child’s parents and his disciples into the child’s room. He takes the child’s hand and commands her to rise. She does. Mark then tells us that she is twelve-years-old. Jesus orders them to give her food and departs leaving behind him a trail of wonder and amazement. That same story is told next with only slight variations by Matthew (9:18-26) writing in the mid-eighties and then once again by Luke (8:40-56) writing in the late 80’s to early 90’s. Both Matthew and Luke incorporated substantial portions of Mark into their gospels and so we are not surprised to find the story not only repeated in each, but in exactly the same context of events, that is the message of the child’s sickness, the journey, the healing of another on the way and then word of the child’s death. It is obvious that in these three accounts we have a single story in three slightly different versions. For help in understanding this story we turn to a remarkably similar episode that was said to have occurred in the life of the prophet Elisha recorded in the book of II Kings (4:8-36). In that story, Elisha raises a child of about twelve from the sleep of death. The only difference is that for Elisha the child is a boy not a girl. In each story, there is a message sent to the “healer” while he is a long distance away. In both stories, the healer continues to the child’s house, goes directly into the room where the child is lying on the bed. Elisha is said to have done mouth to mouth resuscitation, stretching himself on the body of the child. Jesus is portrayed as taking her hand and speaking the word of healing. In each story, the child is restored to health. Could it be that this Jesus story was originally nothing more than a re-telling of an Elisha story as if it had occurred in Jesus’ life as a way of relating Jesus to the tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures and claiming for him the status of being a new Elisha? I think that is highly likely. The only other raising from the dead story that occurs in the synoptic gospels is told in Luke (7:11-17). In this miracle account the only son of a widow is restored to life by Jesus in the village of Nain. There is little doubt that this man is dead, for his body is on the funeral bier in a procession toward his place of burial. Yet once again by looking at an older Elijah story (I Kings 17:24), we find remarkable similarities. There we discover that Elijah was also said to have raised the only son of a widow from the dead. We also know that Luke will draw on more than one occasion from the Elijah stories to relate his understanding of Jesus. Is that what this raising of the dead story, found only in Luke, is all about? I believe it is. There is only one other raising from the dead story in the gospels and it is the very dramatic account of the raising of Lazarus recorded only in the Fourth Gospel, a work that is generally dated at the end of the first century, ca. 95-100 or 65-70 years after the crucifixion. The details are these: It is a public not a private act. Jesus’ disciples, his friends and even his enemies are present. The person, who is to be raised, is not only dead, but he has been buried for four days. John’s text even warns Jesus that there will be an odor if the tomb is opened. Jesus, nevertheless, orders the stone covering the mouth of the cave to be removed and then he literally calls Lazarus out of the grave. Lazarus comes like a walking mummy, bound by the grave cloths in which he has been wrapped and from which he must be freed. If such a credibility-stretching episode had really occurred, ask yourself whether it is likely that no one in that public gathering would mention it for more than three generations before John writes it down. I will return to this story in this series next week, but suffice it now to say that no biblical scholar today regards the account of the raising of Lazarus as history. So this brief analysis reveals that the three gospel stories of Jesus raising someone from the dead might mean something quite different from that arrived at by reading them as literal history, an insight confirmed again and again as we look at the miracles of Jesus more closely. The next category of miracles, attributed to Jesus, is what we call “nature” miracles: Jesus walking on water, stilling the storm and feeding the multitude with loaves and fishes. A close look at these narratives also yields new possibilities for non-literal interpretation. Most people are not aware, for example, that there are six separate versions of the feeding of the multitude story in the four gospels. There are two in Mark, two in Matthew, one in Luke and one in John. Since Mark and Matthew are older than Luke and John, it looks like the multiple accounts of the feeding stories are the earlier tradition. So we look first at Mark and Matthew. The symbols present in these narratives then begin to pop out of the text. In Mark, Jesus, on the Jewish side of the lake, feeds 5000 men (plus women and children) with five loaves and two fish. Afterwards twelve baskets of fragments are gathered up so that “nothing is lost.” Then Jesus moves to the Gentile side of the lake and proceeds to replicate the experience, but this time he feeds 4000 people with seven loaves and a few fish and afterwards seven baskets of fragments are collected. The numbers employed: five loaves, 5000 people and twelve baskets of fragments on the Jewish side of the lake and seven loaves, 4000 people and seven baskets of fragments on the Gentile side of the lake scream at us not to read these narratives as literal history, but as symbolic feedings, perhaps as early Eucharists. By the time we get to John’s gospel those eucharistic connections are clear since John has Jesus liken his flesh to the manna that fell on the starving Israelites in the wilderness, making it clear that these stories are related to the Moses accounts in which God feeds the children of Israel with heavenly bread. Thus it becomes apparent that these feeding stories are not to be understood as literal happenings, but as interpretive narratives being retold about Jesus, the “New Moses.” I wonder how many people who sit in the pews have ever been invited to view miracles from this non-literal perspective. Moving on to the miracles of healing, let me illustrate this same non-literal approach by looking at just one narrative, the restoration of sight to a blind man from Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26). This miracle story is unique because the first application of the hands of Jesus on the eyes of this blind man was not successful, at least not completely. After Jesus anointed this man’s eyes with clay and spittle the blind man can see only “trees walking.” Only with the second laying on of hands was his sight fully restored. If this is really a miracle story then why was Jesus’ power inadequate the first time? The literal mindset is buffeted by these questions, but a look at the context in which this story appears in Mark offers a powerful clue. Mark places this story just before the account of Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. In Peter’s confession he says the right words “You are the Christ,” but he clearly does not know what they mean. When Jesus begins to tell him what the Christ role is to be – suffering, rejection and death — Peter objects eliciting from Jesus the stern rebuke: “Get thee behind me Satan, for you are not on the side of God, but of men.” Peter is surely portrayed as a blind man who begins to see, but not clearly, and a second experience must precede his full entry into both faith and sight. It should not come as a surprise when we discover Peter hails from Bethsaida. Is this then really a miracle story, the account of a supernatural healing of a blind man? I do not think so, nor do I think that this is what Mark intended us to understand as we read his gospel. Mark is rather writing a parable about the conversion of Peter, a blind man who has to be led to seeing and thus to faith in stages. There are many more things that I can say about the miracle stories of the gospels, but I will devote only one more column to this subject to allow me to deal more fully with the fascinating story of the raising of Lazarus. For now let me say bluntly that I no longer think that the miracles of the gospels have anything to do with what we once called the miraculous. ~John Shelby Spong Read the essay online here. Question & Answer Jude, via the Internet, writes: Question: In my grandmother’s church growing up, there were all sorts of people making lots of different choices, sometimes at odds with each other and sometimes with values that did not overlap much. It occurred to me recently that although they went to the same service and said the same prayers, they were all worshiping a slightly different face of God. Do you make a distinction between the religion of each individual, i.e. the sort of conversation we have with God and how we perceive God and interpret God’s will, and the collective religion we claim to follow en masse? I’m in Alcoholics Anonymous where we each choose our own higher power. Answer: Dear Jude, There may be one God, but the deity people worship is perceived as differently as there are people perceiving. That is certainly not something new. The religion of the ancient tribe was corporate but the religion of each of the individual tribal members was distinctive. This does not mean that there are not large cultural patterns. It does mean that individuals relate to those cultural patterns in unique ways. I had 130 congregations when I was the Bishop of Newark. All of them were Episcopal churches and yet within that single diocese we had traditional churches, catholic churches, evangelical churches, folksy churches, liberal churches, conservative churches, Anglo churches, Hispanic churches, Korean churches, Haitian churches, West Indian churches and American black churches. Our diocese was one of a hundred dioceses in the American branch of the Anglican Church. Those dioceses varied as widely and perhaps more widely that the individual congregations in our single diocese. This was never much of a concern for me. I do not believe that the mind of any human being or any human institution can embrace the totality of the meaning of God. I regard it as a manifestation of idolatry when that claim is made by any religious tradition. I think the Christian faith is a pathway that I walk into the mystery and wonder of God. I do not believe human beings can walk directly into the abstract mystery of God. We have to start where we are. For me that is the Christ path, but to walk it faithfully is to transcend all religions in general and Christianity in particular. God is ultimate, Christianity is not. ~John Shelby Spong Announcements Read what Bishop Spong has to say about A Joyful Path Progressive Christian Spiritual Curriculum for Young Hearts and Minds: "The great need in the Christian church is for a Sunday school curriculum for children that does not equate faith with having a pre-modern mind. The Center for Progressive Christianity has produced just that. Teachers can now teach children in Sunday school without crossing their fingers. I endorse it wholeheartedly. Subscribers, please remember that your subscription is automatically renewed. You can unsubscribe at any time. Simply login to access your profile page and cancel your account. Login to be able to comment directly on the website. Join in the discussion! Look for Bishop Spong on Facebook and LIKE the Facebook page for ProgressiveChristianity.org You can also follow Bishop Spong on Twitter. Thank you for taking this journey with us! Any questions or concerns, please contact us at support(a)johnshelbyspong.com or 503-236-3545. Copyright © 2012 ProgressiveChristianity.org, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you have a membership at our website. Our mailing address is: ProgressiveChristianity.org 4916 Pt Fosdick Dr, NW #148 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Add us to your address book

1 0

Email correction
by Sarah H. Buss 01 Aug '12

01 Aug '12

Email should be shb.poetry(a)gmail.com NOT a double o in poetry as first indicated. You can see why I am getting out of the "distribution" business. Sarah Sent from my iPad

1 0

August Deadline Poetry Book Purchase
by Sarah Buss 01 Aug '12

01 Aug '12

Colleagues, If you want one of my Poetry Books NOW is the time to order. AUGUST is the last month I will be able to handle the distribution, currently at $12 per copy plus shipping and handling, and tax if inTexas. I cannot promise but the book might eventually be put on consignment at Book People in Austin, Texas in which case the price will probably be $19.95 plus the usual. So if you want a personal copy or to order for Christmas gifts now is the time to order by e-mail to shb.pooetry@gmail. com with your name address telephone # I will then send the book with invoice inclosed. If your have already ordered, you should have received your book with INVOICE enclosed. If you have sent your payment, thank you. If not payment is due NOW. If you ordered, but have not received the book phone me ASAPa 512/899-2500. You can see the cover in this forwarded e-mail below. Let me know if you are interested. Peace, Sarah Begin forwarded message: > From: Sarah H Buss <shb.poetry(a)gmail.com> > Date: July 16, 2012 10:14:24 AM CDT > To: Sarah Buss <sbuss(a)austin.rr.com> > Subject: Fwd: bk cvr > > > > Sent from my iPad > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Rebecca Bretz <rbretz(a)ginnysprinting.com> >> Date: July 16, 2012 9:28:49 AM CDT >> To: shb.poetry(a)gmail.com >> Cc: Terry Sherrell <tsherrell(a)ginnysprinting.com> >> Subject: bk cvr >> >> > >> >> Rebecca Byrd Bretz >> Graphics | Book Cover Designer >> 512.454.6874 x309 >> 512.483.6112 direct >> rbretz(a)ginnysprinting.com >> >> Ginny's Printing >> 8410-B Tuscany Way | Austin, Texas 78754 >> www.ginnysprinting.com >> >> >> >> >> >>

3 2