Part # 1
Billy Rojas
Sunday Schools for the Future
The Sunday School movement in the United States dates to the 1790s
when the idea was to provide basic education for society's rejects,
basically people who had never had any chance at all to receive schooling.
With the rise of general education in the early 19th century the original
mission
of Sunday Schools became obsolete in a fairly short time and the stage was set
for the beginnings of a new kind of Bible-focused Sunday morning learning.
The potential for Sunday School in the 21st century is considerable. Some
churches
and other religious institutions have recognized this and have devoted time and
resources to making the Sunday School experience something special in the lives
of Christians. And, not incidentally, a modest number or Jewish congregations
have also seen the potential involved and, while they have their own objectives
and beliefs, are taking advantage of weekend classes to deepen the faith of
adults
or to inculcate faith in children.
What is assumed in most Christian Sunday Schools is that the only possible
topics
for discussion are lessons on the Bible, sometimes organized on the lines of a
theme-of-the-week or theme-of-the month basis. But there also is a book-by-book
approach, into the books of either the Old Testament or the New Testament.
However,
there are other alternatives and very different formats than what you may assume
are the only ones that should be considered.
The first idea to discuss here is a concept that can be called:
Sunday School as Television
This is about Sunday School for adults or sometimes teens in their final years
of high school. It may be that the great majority of Sunday School attendees
are kids under 10, and it may be that many adults -as things are- often
prefer
to opt out of these programs, yet there is no reason why the right kind of
Sunday School
offerings could not become a magnet for people where many members of a church
clamor to attend in order to avail themselves of high quality educational
opportunities.
With popularity of Sunday School for adults, their kids are sure to attend
themselves
and value their time in church sponsored educational programs.
The genesis of this idea derives from considerable viewing in recent years of
3ABN,
the 7th Day Adventist television network, which began broadcasting locally in
Eugene, Oregon, in late 2009 or some time in 2010.
To be sure, there are many particulars of 7th Day religion that I disagree with,
sometimes adamantly. and some of their television programs are, by my lights,
so bad theologically, or historically, that it is impossible for me to watch
them;
too much is outright objectively wrong to tolerate the shows. But this essay
is not about 7th Day theology, it is about 7th Day Adventist television and what
they are trying to do with the medium -which is very impressive,
By the way, my usage of "7th Day" is deliberate. Research for my Masters thesis
was largely done at what was then Aurora College in Illinois, now Aurora
University,
which is part of the Christian Advent denomination, which is separate from
the 7th Day Adventists. The Christian Adventists, for example, observe Sunday
as the Sabbath, and have no interest in the theology of Ellen White, the de
facto
prophetess of the Seventh Day Adventists. From what I have learned, the
Christian Adventists are also more scholarly in their approach to Biblical
or church history, "scholarly" in the sense of what you will find at major
research universities, vs. what passes for scholarship among so-called
"fundamentalists." And the 7th Day people certainly are in that camp.
Hence it should be no mystery why my sympathies, to the extent this
has importance, are with the Christian Advent denomination, and they
are every bit as much "Adventists" as the 7th Day people.
But the 7th Day Adventists have a very promising television network
and it has influenced my thinking about Sunday School. Affiliated with
Better Life Broadcasting, 3ABN offers a range of shows of many kinds
including, besides sermons by 7th Day preachers, programs that focus
on healthy food or cooking, exercise shows, programs for children of
different ages, history programs usually about the background of their
denomination, shows about 7th Day missionaries in foreign countries,
discussions of Bible topics, shows about science that are meant to promote
a 'creationist' view of the world, musical shows that can feature
soloists or group performances, films of nature (which sometimes
show stunningly beautiful scenes), programs meant to help people
with alcohol or drug dependency problems, dramatizations of episodes
from the Bible, interviews with religion newsmakers, and so forth.
That is, the 7th day Adventists are doing some things very right.
About dramatizations, there also is a Catholic TV network that is broadcast
locally,
It is strictly for Catholics and features a good deal of praying, telecasts of
mass,
and the like, but the channel has also shown dramatizations of the lives of
saints
which are quite good and also informative. But to stay with the work
of the 7th Day Adventists.........
What also is interesting are the insights that the network offers viewers
into the workings of 3ABN, about problems that crop up from time to time,
about the screening process for new employees, about television technology,
about how various people met each other before becoming part of the network,
and other such themes. This allows viewers to feel that they are -or can
become-
part of 3ABN themselves. Or did so until someone who should know better
decided that, to try and appeal to the new generation, it would be ever so smart
to bring onto the set, examples of the young who exemplify the shortcomings
of the young, like being non-judgemental about gross obesity or about facial
hair styles that suggest evil characters from bad movies.
But perhaps this can slide for now. More important is the track record of 3ABN
and the lessons that can be learned from the channel.
Also, as someone who has had his own show on CTV -Community Television
in Lane County- and a good friend who had a long running show of his own,
the factor of "feelings of familiarity" obviously has special importance. And
CTV
requires people to learn the basics of TV production, not only to create
content.
Which says that when a television system is open to people from various
backgrounds, to people who are not communications professionals, it can be
perceived as "caring" and relevant in ways that a 'high gloss' billion dollar
network
simply can't match.
What is also important is the opportunity TV can represent for church goers to
develop
new skills that can serve them well in the broader society. This has been
apparent long
before 3ABN came into existence in a small town in Illinois in the 1980s, or
before
its Oregon core station in Grants Pass was first organized in the 1990s.
Especially in the
performing arts, a parade of performers got their start in churches, usually
as singers,
sometimes as actors or actresses, a list that includes:
Kevin Costner
Faith Hill
Britney Spears
Whitney Houston
Brad Pitt
Kristin Chenoweth
Andy Griffith
Aretha Franklin
Katy Perry
Incidentally, while this is very incomplete, all of these artists are Baptists
except Katy Perry,
who is Pentecostal. Other artists who had strong religious faith in their
youth include
Amy Grant, Church of Christ, and Marie Osmond, a Mormon. Probably the sources
it was possible for me to consult simply did not, for unknown reasons, include
various
screen actors or musicians who started in Catholic Church, for example, or who
were
youthful Lutherans, etc, but the fact is that many Baptists have gone on to
success
in the secular entertainment industry.
A reasonable guess is that in the future at least a few 7th Day Adventists,
nurtured in church
but given their first opportunity to reach a mass audience on 3ABN, will be
added to
the list of performers; most are far from professional but a select number are
quite good
and it is no problem to imagine their stars rising a few years from now. And,
of course,
there already is one 7th Day Adventist actor who became a celebrity long before
there was a 3ABN, Hal Holbrook.
There are all kinds of valuable skills to think about, however, not just in
front of the
camera and footlights, also back stage or in an office or studio. Think of the
requirements
for TV success; you need: Computer programmers, set designers, script writers,
costume designers, lighting technicians, acoustic experts, business managers,
set decorators, film editors, scene painters, stage managers, animators,
archivists,
teleprompter operators, sign writers, storyboard artists, props experts,
colorists,
photographers, dolly operators, mask designers, video editors, make-up artists,
hair stylists, production co-ordinators, special effects experts, and still
more...
For sure, some TV jobs demand professional staff, this is certainly true for
digital imaging technicians or gaffers (specialized electricians), but other
positions
can be people who learn by doing, "amateurs with aptitude," so to speak.
And remember, this is primarily about adult age Sunday School. Some people
who get involved might well already have talents that could transfer
into TV production.
A full panoply of television specialists is not necessary for successful
production,
CTV tells us that shows can be produced with as few as two people, a performer
and someone in the control room, but, of course, full production values
require some minimal staff, maybe ten people or so, individuals who are good
at multi-tasking and who are dedicated to their craft. But it can be done and
that is the point, practical real-world actions to bring faith alive. As shows
become
better and attract sizable audiences, production values can rise and additional
staff
can be recruited. All of which can be expedited by recruiting from adult
Sunday School people.
Their reward would not be financial, except for such things as travel
allowances
and budgets for necessary supplies, but such people could have other incentives,
like, for the most youthful, preparation for paid professional work in the
future,
or being in on the ground floor as a religious broadcasting system takes form
and that would need administrative people in a few years -program directors,
business managers, station managers, and so forth.
There are possibilities for significant viewership via YouTube or other
webcasting formats,
including social media. And this approach costs very little -except whatever
expenses
may accrue to producing the actual shows themselves. Archives of past shows also
allow viewers to catch up on programs they missed, to take a second look at a
topic
they have special interest in, or to show friends why they are excited by this
new
kind of Christian broadcasting. Also, of course, this permits someone to take
pride in his or her own work and showcase it to other people.
Children might be particularly enthusiastic to see themselves on TV
and to make sure that their friends see them, too. Which means parents
who want others to see their kids on television. And aunts, uncles,
grandparents, and sisters, brothers, and cousins.
What this suggests is that there is considerable potential in church television
that
includes -or even is centered upon- Sunday School. There would be no demand
for perfection, even if you should very much want high production values,
because what counts more is involving people in the medium and in church itself
as it makes good use of TV. That is, rather than thinking of television as
passive
entertainment, think of it as an opportunity for believers to do things they
consider
important -both personally and for the sake of their religious faith.
As the Epistle of James says, "be ye doers of the word not just hearers. Faith
is about
actions that make faith alive. As the New English bible translation has it:
",,,be sure
that you act on the message and do not merely listen; for that would be
to mislead yourselves,"
What should be noted in this context is one of the reasons for the increasing
success
of Evangelicals in the 1970s and well into the 1980s as they grew by leaps and
bounds
while mainline Protestant denominations ebbed and faded away, is how
"conservative"
churches used television effectively. One show after another became popular in
that era
-PTL with Jim Baker and Tammy Faye, Pat Robertson's 700 Club, and so forth-
while "liberal Christians" had just about nothing to counter this development
or to build their own media empires. This was before a series of Pentecostal
scandals
undercut Evangelical successes, but until that time it looked like there were
no limits. Now, of course, Evangelical media seems to have run its course
and offers nothing much that is really new and innovative -although there are
some success stories that deserve comment.
Which is to say that it would be foolish to overlook how media can be made good
use of to advance the Christian cause. But what is intended here is more than
one more version of the Methodist Church, one more example of an Evangelical
organization, or yet another revivalist station in which everything revolves
around
emotional appeals to faith in Jesus. Not because Jesus doesn't matter, this is
all
about Christian television, after all, but because everything is predicated on
a very different model of religion itself than anything that can be thought of
as
traditional. And if is totally separate from Pentecostalism, which I personally
reject on grounds not far removed from any Baptist critique you can think of.
Not at all incidentally, both kinds of Adventists make the same kind of
critique.
In so many words, intense devotionalism turns Jesus into a "drug of choice"
for believers,
creating unhealthy psychological addiction, and resulting in a set of
deleterious behaviors
that frequently alienate everyone else. Not to mention the well known fact
that successful
Pentecostal churches often are led by someone with serious ego problems whom a
congregation puts on a golden pedestal, beyond all criticism, becoming rich as
Midas
in the process, wealth that is often squandered on luxuries rather than
invested
in furthering the work of faith. And this is hardly a rare process, it happens
again
and again, to the extent that, clearly, this illness is endemic to
Pentecostalism itself.
There also is Pentecostal behavior -which they interpret as the doing of the
Holy Spirit.
Thus we are told that the Holy Spirit causes people to fall down in the aisles,
maybe
convulsing in ecstasy, something called being "slain in the spirit," which
normal people
may interpret as absurd self-absorption, emotional self-indulgence, that
accomplishes
absolutely nothing worthwhile. Not all Pentecostals venture into this sort of
thing
but many do, therefore contributing to the widespread perception that
Pentecostals
are brain damaged. Or are emotional cripples who compensate for lives filled
with
inner pain and by releasing their agonies through psychological purging
justified
by attributing it all to God.
About which viewpoint others may add: "What it is, is infantilism that makes
Pentecostals immune from criticism, unable to look at themselves in any kind of
objective manner. It is religion as regression, defending injured egos at all
costs
even as their religion causes additional injuries because it is productive of
little or nothing needed to repair one's real-life problems. But how are you
going
to do that anyway when, according to Pentecostal theology, to call it that, the
only reality is spiritual and anything from the larger world doesn't count?
All of which is said with some irony in that part of what does inspire me is
derived
from people who have had years of Pentecostal experience. But the fact is
that in each case these people broke from Pentecostalism to set out on their
own. Which is to say that one important thing Pentecostalism does which is
for the good, is encourage believers to become "independent agents,"
willing to try new things, unchained from past orthodoxies.
How do some Pentecostals reach the stage where they become willing to change the
course of their life and start over again?
About this, at least some of the questions they my ask themselves can be asked
by others who belong to different religions. But here is one form of the
process,
starting with the most basic question of all: "What do I really want for my
life?"
A healthy check list would surely include most of the following:
Always placing high value on truthfulness, real, honest truthfulness
Honesty about likes and dislikes,
Basic objectivity about all of life, as much as possible
Objectivity about one's own motivations in life since many things are not as
they seem
Objectivity about one's fears
Getting along with others of various backgrounds, not only people like yourself
Respect from others
Feelings of self confidence generally
Willingness to endure hardship if the alternative is compromise of one's
principles
Unwillingness to be credulous, always demanding some kind of solid evidence
Strong sense of what is possible and what is not, no fairy tales please, no
wishful thinking
Finding and cherishing value in people who may not believe in what you believe
in
Willingness to admit one's imperfections and not demand perfection in anyone
else
Being willing to admit it when you are wrong, followed by a decision to make
things right
Desire to learn something new every day, something worth knowing.
To be sure, there are Pentecostals who would be able to tick most of these
factors.
And there sometimes are additional virtues that are found in many Pentecostals,
like
compassion, care for others, loyalty to friends, sense of family
responsibility,
and so forth. But my sense of things, and maybe your's too, is that Pentecostals
would usually flunk this "test" and fail it badly.
Still, some, for their own reasons, finally arrive at a point where they ask
of themselves, "wait a minute, how is my religious faith helping me become
the kind of person I most want to be? How is this preparing me to face
the challenges ahead? How is it helping me get along with other people?
How is this effecting my family, especially the kids? Do I really want to
continue with this approach to life when so much about it
really is debilitating?"
Others double down and say that "it isn't about me, its about Jesus and what
he demands of me." Which translates into a Jesus who most people would regard
as a sadistic monster who insists that everyone who believes in him must be
unhappy in their lives, and must play innumerable games of "let's pretend."
"Let's pretend that all is well," so that each and every sacrifice one makes
which is
supposed to make life better, which only makes things worse, is interpreted as
one's own failure to live up to Christ's ideals. As if Jesus ever had such
ideals
in the first place, which, if the Gospels are remotely true, he never did.
So, despite how miserable you feel, there must be more games of "let's pretend,"
whatever it takes in order to cover over each and every problem that blind
faith creates.
Whatever it takes to hide the truth from yourself.
Whatever it takes not to have to admit that you have made one helluva mistake
and that it is ridiculous to de facto blame your failings on Jesus for setting
impossibly
high standards of behavior that no-one can possibly live up to. That is, since
you
cannot now live up to the Sermon on the Mount, therefore the fault is all yours
and the only solution is more and more sacrifice, more and more prayer,
and never, ever, question what a hole you have dug yourself into.
And it also is the worst kind of reductionism, in which everything that matters
is found in the Sermon on the Mount. What that kind of outlook does, of course,
is to turn the rest of the Bible into apocrypha, secondary writings that you can
gloss over whenever you want. And gone is the human-all-too-human character
of Jesus, someone who, after all, was a man - not a pure spiritual chimera
as the Doecetists believed. But so it is for a good number of Pentecostals
even if this sketch is rather rough. Their Jesus is as psychotic as they are.
Its all very sad, in other words, and totally needless.
Not all Pentecostals are such human wrecks, and not all human wrecks are
Pentecostals.
There is the entire penitente movement in Catholicism, for example, consisting
of flagellants
who seek to replicate the pain Jesus suffered on his last day through
religiously sanctioned
masochism, and there are 'fundamentalists' who think it is some kind of virtue
to never
have any fun in life, and who also think it is a virtue to be ignorant of
science
and rely on faith healing instead of doctors.
Pentecostals can be what may be termed "soft Pentecostals," or moderate
Pentecostals,
or modern Pentecostals, whatever terminology that seems best, who do not indulge
in holy rolling ("slain in the spirit" behavior), who do not speak in tongues,
and who are anything but obsessed with feelings of guilt for not 100% living up
to
the Sermon on the Mount; they know they are imperfect and simply want to
do the best that they can, given human imperfections. Towards these
Pentecostals
me feelings are very different.
For the ideas being discussed here to make sense, however, it is necessary
to be clear about what kind of Christian faith this is all about. For this
concerns the New Christianity first outlined by Henri Saint-Simon in 1825,
but reinterpreted for Americans in the 21st century. It is about a new kind
of Christianity, not simply reform of existing churches or denominations.
The prime hero of the New Christianity is Albert Schweitzer, who gave most
of his life to helping people in equatorial Africa receive medical care they
otherwise
could not possibly have received any place else. Not that it is possible to
live up
to Schweitzer's example, either, but as someone to think about, and say to
yourself:
"Can't I at least be a little like him?" There must be something I can do, to
make the
world a better place, something that makes it clear to others and to myself
that self-gratification is not my only goal in life, but is only part of a
well-rounded
existence in which helping others has at least some importance.
Perfection is not demanded, but giving a damn is essential.
This also presupposes "original sin," basically the view that we cannot escape
our weaknesses, we will always make mistakes in life, and we need to be honest
about our limitations and screw-ups. To put it in terns of evolutionary
biology,
within all of us lurks a primate ancestor who bequeathed to humanity a variety
of
shortcomings including a tendency to sometimes be selfish, to sometimes make
rash decisions, to sometimes be callous, to sometimes take what isn't ours,
and at least some of the other classical vices as well. This is who we are
and pretending that we can fully overcome our primate background
is folly; we can do no such thing.
But we can do far better than being an ape in a rain forest.
There are no adequate models of what a New Christianity might look like but
there
is one inadequate model that is worth discussion here, that of Gene Scott and of
his wife, Melissa, now a widow who heads the religious institutions
Gene founded before his death in 2005.
Eugene"Gene" Scott's life was a spiritual quest for approximately 25 years
before
he derived his own form of faith from elements of his college agnosticism, and
his studies of education and philosophy at Standford where he received a Ph.D
in 1957, his dissertation on the ideas of theologian Reinhold Niebuhr.
He also became a water color artist at some point and hundreds of examples
of his art still survive. As well, he became a philatelist, a stamp collector,
a hobby he took very seriously as he obtained a number of rare stamps
that earned him a reputation among other postage buffs.
A process that led to a gradual return to Christian faith took place
in the years that Scott taught at Evangel College (now a university),
then on to Oklahoma to help Oral Roberts found his school. At some point
in the 1960s Scott finally became a Pentecostal and a member of the
Assemblies of God Church; he served as a foreign missionary for
several years
Then in 1970, Scott resigned from the Assemblies of God and went to work
for his father, the pastor of Community Bible Church, aka, Wescott Christian
Center,
in Oroville, California.
According to the Wikipedia article about him, from which most of this
information
is taken, in 1975, Scott was approached by Ray Schoch the pastor of Faith
Center,
a church in Glendale, California. Part of the "deal" included involvement with
4 broadcast stations, KHOF-TV (San Bernadino), KHOF-FM (Los Angeles), KVOF-TV
(San Franscisco), and WHCT (Hartford, Connecticut). Together these formed the
Faith Broadcasting Network and before the end of the year, Scott had his own
shows
and was on his way to becoming a media celebrity. Eventually, via satellite
hookups,
Scott could be seen or heard in a score of foreign countries.
As his own man by the end of the 1980s, Scott had a devoted following and
significant
resources. This enabled him, in 1990, to move his base of operations to a
building he
leased and renamed Los Angeles University Cathedral, so-called for his style of
talking
as a scholar to enthralled audiences rather than preaching or otherwise taking
the role
of a traditional pastor. In 2002 he was able to purchase the building.
Scott was very popular, reaching millions of viewers in any given month.
Pentecostal background or not, there wasn't a trace of 'regular' Pentecostalism
in what
he did, which almost always featured lectures that required chalkboards on
which he
wrote out Bible passages in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, sometimes providing
his own translations. Or sometimes he might illustrate relationships
between different Bible passages by means of diagrams he drew.
The building, with its famous "Jesus Saves" neon sign is a registered
national historic landmark, even though, after Gene Scott passed away,
Melissa was never able to raise the kind of financial support as her late
husband
and the building was sold.
The point being that popular success does not require anything at all like
"old fashioned" fire and brimstone preaching or much, at all, of what most
Pentecostal (and other) preachers seem to think are absolute necessities.
And a number of Evangelicals have, over the years, become fairly successful
themselves using some variant of Dr. Scott's style, for example, Andrew
Wommack,
with his informal lectures on Bible topics, which is still going strong and
which
also reaches millions of viewers around he world. But it is difficult to know,
for sure who most influenced whom, and it is possible that Scott borrowed
at least some elements of his style from Wommack.
In any case, Scott's approach has a great deal to commend it.
This is not an endorsement of everything about Scott. As a one time viewer
of a good number of his shows, my reaction was mixed. Mostly I was "picking up
pointers" about presentation methods, not breathlessly absorbing his theology,
something that I could never pigeon hole into any 'standard' category of
Christian faith. And something that I regularly disagreed with. But, clearly,
he knew what he was doing. And he was a scholar and far from "hiding his light
under a bushel," he placed it at the center of his message, something to take
justifiable pride in. Literally multitudes of people responded.
You do not need people rolling on the carpet to become successful as an
evangelist.
And you do not need to be anti-intellectual as many of today's Pentecostals are.
Indeed, their anti-intellectualism helps to discredit them as far as many people
are concerned.
Gene Scott demonstrated the truth that you can talk to people at a high
intellectual level,
seek to "bring them up" to a higher level, and find that they appreciate you
for it,
for showing them respect as thinking men and women.
Other things Scott did right, like collecting various versions of the Bible,
hence
he had a world class Bible library, which Melissa has made the most of, also.
Scott also showed us that a little controversy hurts nothing and, on he
contrary,
may add to one's appeal. Scott had a romance with Melissa, who was 40 years
younger than he was, and then married her in 2000. Not many people begrudged
Scott's good fortune; Melissa was, as they say, a "hot chick" who looks like
a movie starlet. And her luxurious long wavy brown hair is talked about
by one and all.
I was able to view a large number of Melissa's sermons during the years that she
purchased air time on TV stations across the country, including Eugene, Oregon.
Sometimes she simply rebroadcast one or another of the shows Gene did in the
time
she knew him personally, approximately his last 7 or 8 years, but more often
she aired her own efforts at preaching, viz, giving informative lecture
sermons,
also with a whiteboard, a magic marker, and occasionally other props.
It must be reported that her early efforts were utterly charming as she
tried to get the hang of things and sometimes wandered off in one strange
direction
or another. Who wouldn't have been charmed? Later, after a year or so, she
became
a polished speaker with her own scholarly style -which was even better in
some ways
but not nearly as charming. For that, I guess, you need sweet innocence.
In 2009 a mini-scandal broke, a story told by Lorette C. Luzajic in Patheos
online journal
under the title, "Pastor Melissa Scott, Porn Star."
Was she a film sexsation? To be certain it is no problem to imagine her once
upon a time
in that sort of role. That is, she is physically very attractive and apparently
has all of
the necessary curves. Her clerical vestments do not allow a definitive
statement.
But she has denied any such thing and at least one "Playmate" has vouched for
Melissa's 20-something righteousness and maybe the reports are false.
Or maybe they are true.
As a rule this sort of thing would be a turn-off for me; as far as women are
concerned
unsullied is better, best, or a requirement. However, in this particular case,
for reasons
I do not understand myself, whatever she was in the past, what she has made of
herself
outweighs everything else.
The story about her supposedly sordid past has its own 'scholarly' value,
though.
Here is how Lorette Luzajic tells it:
"Gene was an eccentric bibliophile, historian, con man and crackpot. He earned
a million plus per month soliciting during sermons, during which he would swear
freely,
talk about alien conspiracies, and show videos of his "pony girls" on horseback
- not to mention hiring scantily clad vixen "cheerleaders" to line the pews and
lure 'em in to the circus. He was also known as a brilliant linguist
who knew Aramaic and Hebrew."
But he also had a raunchy side. As the article points out, "photographers,
ex-husbands,
and friends confirm Barbie Bridges" -a porn star who had lurked in old photos
for several years until someone noticed the close resemblance- "is indeed,"
Pastor Melissa Scott. If this is correct, then, according to reports, Melissa
was
regularly on the scene at Gene's ranch, "always dancing for Doc topless,
showing her tits right away."
Hmmm. What's the problem? Why is this a problem? I don't get it.
Such, at any rate, was the "Scott scandal," which came and went like it never
happened.
And maybe it didn't.
Melissa has proven herself to be an excellent curator of Gene's oeuvre. She
has had
ten of his books published in recent years, with more in the pipeline. She also
works with Gene Scott's recorded telecasts and past radio broadcasts, supposedly
about 70,000 hours worth of material Melissa not only was wonderful for Gene
in the final years of his life, she has been wonderful for his legacy. You
really
can't ask for more in a woman.
This, then, is another model for how Christianity can be practiced in the real
world.
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
