July/August 2004 Newsletter

THE RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE NEWSLETTER
Volume 5, Issue 4 -- July/August 2004
==========================================================
The Religious Language Newsletter is written and published every other month by Suzette Haden Elgin, Ph.D. (linguistics), from the Ozark Center for Language Studies (OCLS), PO Box 1137, Huntsville, AR 72740-1137 USA; e-mail OCLS@madisoncounty.net. It's available by e-mail only, in plain text, and is free to members of the Lovingkindness Network; thanks to generous donations, all issues are posted at http://www.forlovingkindness.org. To join the network and receive its newsletter, send $5.00 (annual dues for each calendar year) to OCLS; please be sure to include your e-mail address with your check, money order, or credit card information. (Supporting Memberships are $15.00.) Donations to Lovingkindness are tax-deductible. For more information, or to request a free sample issue, e-mail OCLS.
==========================================================
IN THIS ISSUE: Editor's Note; Network Input; Comment: "If You Were a GOOD person, you'd be THIN!"; BookNotes; Quotes & Comments; Cyberspace; On My Way Out the Door

EDITOR'S NOTE

Thank you for all the materials that you've been sending for the newsletter; I'm most grateful. I must tell you that I'm not at my best as I write this; there's no point in pretending otherwise. We've had a death in our family -- a beloved daughter-in-law -- and everything is in turmoil here. I'm doing my best, and will appreciate your patience and your tolerance until I am more nearly myself again.

NETWORK INPUT

1. From Douglas Dee...

"After you mentioned wanting to see "Joan of Arcadia" several times, it was disappointing that your long-awaited reaction was that you 'didn't like the show, and wouldn't watch it voluntarily' -- without any indication of why you found it unsatisfactory. (I've never even seen the show myself, and even I'm disapointed. Those who recommended it to you must be downright frustrated by your terse response.)"

**I'm sorry, Douglas, and I apologize to others who felt the same way. The reason for my silence was Southern Lady Reflex ... being brought up with "If you can't say something pleasant, hold your peace." If I have to speak the unpleasant truth as I perceive it, here goes: In my opinion, "Joan of Arcadia" is badly written, badly acted, and boring. It's hard to achieve the necessary suspension of disbelief for a show with a concept so improbable when you find it badly written, badly acted, and boring. As I said last time, this may be a generation gap effect. I'm just short of seventy, and there are many things young people enjoy that I find underwhelming (and vice versa, needless to say).

2. From Nancy Burnett...

"I watched 'Joan of Arcadia' a couple of times and did not like it. The characters all seemed angry, annoyed, irritated, and unhappy with themselves, their lives, and God. I didn't care for God constantly shifting appearance from a sidewalk-sweeper to a passer-by to someone else, even in one conversation. I thought there was too much smart-mouth dialogue and attitude. Perhaps that is why 'the critics' do like it. I suppose I was spoiled by 'Touched by an Angel' and I do not recognize in 'Joan; much of the theme in TBAA: love, forgiveness, responsibility for one's actions are good choices. ... I am not interested in a show about people being angry - with God or anyone else - if there is no resolution of that anger."

**Thank you, Nancy. It may be that the "smart-mouth dialogue and attitude" you noticed is a large part of what triggered my negative response; I don't have a high tolerance for that sort of thing.

COMMENT: "If you were a GOOD person, you'd be THIN!"

As you know, the focus of Lovingkindness as an organization is on the effects of religious language. And I am deeply concerned right now about the effects of religious language that openly classifies overweight as a sin, usually by referring to it as gluttony, sometimes as gluttony and sloth. Never mind that the Ten Commandments say neither "thou shalt not be fat" nor "thou shalt be thin"; the fat-is-sin crowd will tell you that gluttony is in there because the glutton worships food rather than God and is guilty of idolatry. Never mind that it was Pope Gregory the Great who defined gluttony (and sloth) as sins in the sixth century, while the Bible -- both Testaments -- is filled with glowing accounts of feasts and hospitality and good company around the table. That was then; this is now; and "we now know" that feasting and hospitality and good company around the table are good things only if those who participate stay thin. "Most of us are fat because we are slothful and gluttonous," says Greg Critser (author of _Fat Land_), serving me admirably as an exemplar. "Morally, overeating is wrong," he says. [See "The big issue," at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4618574-108294,00. html.]

To make it worse, all the statistics tell us that (in the U.S) the more religious you are, the more likely you are to be overweight, with Southern Baptists leading the statistics as the fattest of the devout; the thinnest are Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists. [See "Faith and the fork," online at http://www.rickross.com/reference/ weighdown/weighdown9.html.] On the basis of which, if the designated risk factor weren't religious faith, we would certainly see research articles saying that faith causes fat and telling us to stay away from it, for the sake of our health, and for the sake of the economy. Since it _is_ faith, what we see is the horrendous effects of profound shame and guilt. This is a sorry mess.

The problem is that dieting -- eating less, demonstrating your moral goodness by taking in fewer calories than you work off -- does not make you thin. On the contrary. For example, here is Sandy Szwarc, writing for _Tech Central Station_, in "The Diet Problem" [online at http://www.techcentralstation.com/ 071803B.html]:

"An overwhelming body of research has demonstrated the link between dieting and obesity. The problem is, that evidence flies in the face of the reigning orthodoxy in the current battle of the bulge, which cannot afford to acknowledge that the decisive consequence of dieting is ... obesity."

Study after study shows the same inescapable facts based on the same irrefutable evidence: The more weight you lose by dieting, the more weight you will gain back when you stop, the harder it will be for you to lose weight thereafter, and the more your weight loss will be in the form of loss from muscle mass. Again, from "The Diet Problem": "Numerous studies have consistently demonstrated that ... weight loss results in a 15 to 30 percent reduction in energy requirements. ... A 1996 review of the National Weight Control Registry of sucessful long-term weight losers found that in order to maintain weight loss these people had to eat near semi-starvation levels, even though most were exercising religiously." That semi-starvation level is roughly half the carlories considered normal for good health. And because of the way human physiology is structured, the amount of food necessary to maintain the same level of thinness has to constantly decrease over time, for the rest of your life.

The reason the media doesn't barrage us with the research proving that overweight is _not_ a sin and that dieting is not next to godliness is -- quite frankly -- that to do so would put in peril the $40 billion a year diet industry, as well as the fast food industry, the packaged food industry (which puts sugar in every product because their own research proves that people buy and eat more food if it's laced with sugar), and the sugar and corn industries themselves.

Overweight is not a sin. _Greed_, however, is another matter. Accumulating wealth by a reckless and heartless disregard for the wellbeing of others -- that is a sin. (See "Love thy neighbor as thyself.") Accumulating wealth by suppressing the truth -- that is a sin. (See "Thou shalt not bear false witness.")

And suggesting that the Holy One loves people of a certain shape less or more than others -- that, in my opinion, is a sin.

[Additional sources: "The deadliest sin," by Jim Holt, online at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2003/11/23/the_deadliest_sin?mode=PF; "Tightening the Bible Belt," by Richard Johnson, at http://www.richardjohnsononline.co.uk/independent/articles/independent-008-articles.htm; and "Slim for Him: God is watching what you're eating," by Rebecca Mead, at http://www. rebeccamead.com/2001/2001_01_15_art_slim.htm]

BOOKNOTES

1. _The Healing Light_, by Agnes Sanford; Macalester Park Publishing Company 1947 and 1972; ISBN 0-345-30660-0.

My thanks to Rebecca Haden for sending this book. It presents an extraordinary theory of prayer, both in method proposed and in effects claimed -- so extraordinary that I am at a loss for words to comment about it. It's one of those "you have to be there" books that is impossible to describe. I'm not going to try. I will, however, quote one brief section, from page 154:

"To limit one's prayers for those in danger by the pious ejaculation, 'Thy will be done,' is merely to evade the responsibility. We can cause His will to be done concerning our own loved ones, if we are willing to make the tremendous effort of being the conductors of love into the midst of hate. Therefore, for the sake of the world let us not say, 'Thy will be done,' and wash our hands of the matter, Pilate-like. Let us ascertain His will _and do it_."
[If any of you are familiar with this book and would like to comment, I'd be very interested in what you have to say.]

2. _The Fingerprints of God: Tracking the Divine Suspect through a History of Images_, by Robert Farrar Capon; William B. Eerdmans 2000; ISBN 0-8028-4768-4.

I have often said, both aloud and in print, that metaphor is the most powerful mechanism we have for changing attitudes and behaviors speedily and permanently; I am a staunch advocate of metaphor work. However, it's possible to go racing off into the never-nevers in this regard, and this book is an example of that phenomenon.

That doesn't make it a useless book. For example, on page 14: "The Bible is held together by _icons_, by word-pictures like Light, Word, Water, Marriage, the Garden, the Tree, the Blood of Abel, the Paschal Lamb.... and finally the City... It's these icons, these sacraments of the real presence of the Word himself, that make it a whole." Capon's intention is to take the reader through the history of these various metaphors over time and discuss them, and that's a worthy and interesting effort. The theology he presents is well worth reading, and I do recommend the book. I just wish he hadn't made it a _flawed_ book by salting it with sentences like this typical one on page 112, where he is talking about the early Church fathers: "They had kept all such hitchhiking job descriptions firmly belted in the back seat of an incarnational automobile whose only Driver was the Word of God himself." He goes on like that endlessly, leaping from metaphor to metaphor every few sentences, and you just have to grit your teeth, ignore the metafroufrou, and read for the content.

3. _No Other God: A Response to Open Theism_, by John M. Frame; R&R Publishing 2001; ISBN 0-87552-185-1.

Open theism has been discussed in this newsletter often enough that I'm sure I don't need to define it again. I am biased in its favor, and that may have distorted my understanding of this author's attempt to refute it. I'm _certain_ that my reaction to the book is distorted by my annoyance at John Frame's constant references to his other work (essentially, "I have discussed this in my book [X]" or "I will be taking up this matter in my forthcoming book [Y]"), as if it could be presupposed that the reader will be familiar with all that other material, even that which hasn't yet appeared in print. I also find Frame's theology repellent, which is unusual for me -- that is, ordinarily I find it possible to disagree with an argument and remain detached about it; not in this case, however.

With that disclaimer laid out in the interest of fairness, I can only say that the case Frame tries to make in the book does not convince me at all. As I perceive it, his most usual technique is to cite a Bible verse that the open theists use as an argument _for_ open theism, ignore that verse and its implications, cite some _different_ verse, and say "There. I've proved them wrong." Here is a brief quote from page 68, to give you an idea of the style:

"...[I]t is important to see that God does in fact bring about the sinful behavior of human beings, whatever problems that may create in our understanding. However we address the problem of evil, our response must be in accord with the great number of Scripture passages that affirm God's foreordination of everything, even including sin. Many attempts to solve the problem of evil deny this premise, but it is clearly taught in Scripture."

QUOTES & COMMENTS

1. On May 25th, on the NPR morning news, I heard a woman [a member of an evangelical congregation] say of the Iraq war and all its appurtenances, "All this is happening because we haven't prayed enough."

All those deaths, all those injuries, all that devastation, all that misery -- she believes that they've happened because she, and other believers, haven't prayed enough. The guilt which that woman feels for her own share of what we might refer to as the Prayer Deficit is a spectacularly clear example of the sometimes negative effects of religious language. (And I am much afraid that a burden of guilt exactly like that would be an inevitable consequence of accepting the theory of prayer put forward in Agnes Sanford's _The Healing Light_, discussed in the Booknotes above.)

2. _Esquire_ Magazine is a trial and a quandary for me. It not only publishes what I consider filth, in every issue, it publishes what I consider to be _tasteless_ filth. Seventh-grade-locker-room-smartaleck filth. I'm not talking about erotica, I'm talking about plain oldfashioned snickery filth. On the other hand, over and over again it publishes a short story or an article that I would deeply regret not having read. It's like Congress, writing legislation that we absolutely must have, and tucking trash and pork into it; in order to get the parts of _Esquire_ that teach me valuable lessons, I have to let the whole thing into my house. The 5/04 issue had an article by Tom Junod titled simply "Jesus," subtitled"Jesus FAQ," on pp. 138-145; I'm glad I read it, and I recommend it. It's not easy to quote from, but here's one brief chunk, from page 145:

Q: "Jesus of Nazareth has had a long run, but his record is checkered. What is the best that can be said about him?"
A: "For two thousand years, people have loved him so much, they've been willing to die for him."
Q: "And the worst?"
A: "For two thousand years, people have loved him so much, they've been willing to kill for him."

(Should you decide to read that issue, be sure to look at "A Simple Plan to Save the World," by Jeffrey Sachs, on pp. 125-129 and pp. 146-147.)

3. "Everything in my New Age culture comes complete with an answer, a reason, and a source. Every action, emotion, health symptom, dream, accident, birth, death or idea here has a direct link to the influence of the stars, chi, past lives, ancestors, energy fields, interdimensional beings, enneagrams, devas, fairies, spirit guides, angels, aliens, karma, God, or the Goddess. We love to say that we embrace mystery in the New Age culture, but that's a cultural conceit and it's utterly wrong. In actual fact, we have no tolerance whatsoever for mystery."

This is Karla McLaren (identified as "a former leader in the New Age culture") writing in "Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures," pp. 47-52, _Skeptical Inquirer_ for 5-6/04; writing in great pain. She says, on page 48, "I'm not really sure how to introduce myself, except perhaps with this paraphrase: 'I have seen the enemy, and she is me.' " My thanks to Douglas Dee and Margaret Carter for sending the copy.

4. "Florida's _Palm Beach Post_ ran a story in October 2002 headlined 'We're Christians and We're Not Stupid.' The story profiled an evangelical woman who resented media caricatures of Christianity, saying, 'I live a radical Christian life, I take my Bible seriously, and I believe in turning the other cheek.' "

This is from an article on pp. 41-44 of the 4/04 _American Prospect_ by Ayelish McGarvey, titled "Reaching to the Choir," about those now referred to as "freestyle evangelicals"; the quote is from page 44. It discusses the problems faced by the 8 to 10 million evangelical Christians who find it difficult or impossible to reconcile preemptive war, and tax cuts for the rich, with the commandments to return good for evil and to love your neighbor as yourself.

5. I want to mention an article by Leigh Gallagher on pp. 91-92 of the 12/8/03 issue of _Forbes_, titled "Holy Influence"; it's about an organization called "the Timothy Plan." The Timothy Plan, headed by Arthur Ally, is eight investment funds -- three of them up more than 25% for the year -- whose stock picks exclude 400 blacklisted companies that the Timothy Plan considers morally unfit. On page 92: "In March 2002 Ally and his wife were waiting in the checkout line at Wal-Mart when his eyes fell on [an issue of _Cosmopolitan_] which touted a story about oral sex. Offended, he brought the copy to a supervisor and asked her to read it to him. According to Ally the supervisor stammered, said she couldn't and suggested he write a letter... to complain." He did, and when -- after five exchanges of letters -- Wal-Mart still refused to make any changes, Ally ordered the sale of the stock and sent out a press release explaining his reasons. And in July 2003 Wal-Mart began putting plastic "blinders" over checkout-lane magazine covers that might be offensive, claiming that it had made the decision to do so entirely on its own. On page 92, Ally is quoted saying: "We are in a war for the soul of America."

6. I haven't yet read the Reverend Graham Taylor's _Shadowmancer_ , but have been to the website [http://www.shadowmancer.com] and have done a Google search that let me read a number of articles and reviews. Because all refer to the book as "the Christian Harry Potter book" and say roughly the same things, I'll just quote from the _Guardian_ for 4/20/04 ("Vicar's black magic works 3.5 million [pounds] deal," by Alexis Akwagyiram:

"When he completed the manuscript for Shadowmancer, he was advised that no publisher would be interested in a parable about Christianity and black magic set in the 18th century. He decided to ignore the doubters and published it himself for 3,500 [pounds]."

This is a bit confusing, since the reason for publishing it himself would be that he _believed_ the doubters who told him no publisher would be interested, but I understand what Akwagyiram is getting at, and I admire Taylor -- with "health problems," and a wife and three kids to look after -- for having the courage to sell his motorcycle and use the money to self-publish. Given the furor in much of the Christian community over the mild (and mostly "white") magic in the Harry Potter books, I'm bemused to see the overwhelming support for "a parable about Christianity and black magic"; I suppose it must be about the _defeat_ of black magic. I'd welcome your input about _Shadowmancer_, and will try to read the book before the September/October issue of the newsletter.

7. My thanks to Ken Rolph for a copy of "All you need is faith," by Mark Ragg (from the _Sydney Morning Herald_ for 3/20/03) which says that...

"Australia is not an overly religious nation. We have our Bible belts and our growing evangelical movements and our huge diversity of religions, but public proclamations of faith, common in so much of the world, are lacking."

The thesis of the story is that the more private nature of religious faith in Australia is keeping Australians from being fully aware of the current development of medical applications of religion, and from taking advantage of that development. According to Ragg, there are signs of change, with the subject now being raised in Australian medical journals.

CYBERSPACE

1. The _jurists bloglet_ for 6/14/04 reports that Ireland is "floating compromise versions of a new EU constitution among member states," with the final document likely to include no explicit mention of God or Christianity. The Vatican and seven primarily Roman Catholic nations had advocated the explicit language, but the compromise versions will "refer vaguely to Europe's 'cultural, religious and humanist inheritance'..." This is a victory for Belgium and France, who were opposed to any spiritual language other than that specifying separation of church and state. For more details, see http://www.religioustolerance.org/const_eu.htm and http://euobserver.com/?aid=16609&rk=1.

2. Kurt Vonnegut, quoted in _SoJo Mail_ for 6/16/04:

"For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. ... I haven't heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the beatitudes, be posted anywhere." [Source: AlterNet: http://go.sojo.net/ct/1d1Te0Y1BjYg/]

I can't recall ever seeing "Love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Return good for evil" posted anywhere, either. If you can provide examples of such postings, I'd be interested.

3. From the Internet Scout Report for 6/4/04, the following description of the BBC's "Religion and Ethics" website at http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion:

"The site contains a number of general interest sections that provide rich discussion of various world religions and a number of subjects in the field of ethics, such as the ethics of war, euthanasia, human cloning, and genetic engineering. Visitors can also listen to broadcasts of the BBC's many programs devoted to exploring various religions, such as Missionaries, which looks at the legacy of missionary work around the world. ... The site is rounded out by an interactive multi faith calendar, which shows the religious festivals and celebrations of eight world faiths."

4. Thanks to all of you who sent me items about the online virtual church at ShipofFools.com. _SoJoMail_ for 5/12/04 identified ShipofFools.com as an online "magazine of Christian unrest," and reported that it's launching Church of Fools as a three-month experiment, intended as "an interactive church experience for people who normally might never enter an actual church building." The site is structured much like an online role-playing game, with "pixelated pews, collections sent by mobile phone, and animated guest clergy that will move around the church, welcome the congregation, lead the service from a lectern, introduce hymns, and preach from a pulpit to people sitting in rows of pews." More information at http://go.sojo.net/ct/411Te0Y1DaRM and at http://www.Ship ofFools.com. [Source: Sojourners 2004 (c)].

A NY Times article [at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/15/national/ 15RELI.html] says that "People separated by vast distances routinely play in imaginary 3-D worlds and sometimes work in them. Church of Fools aims over the next three months to explore whether they can also regularly worship in them." (Thanks to Douglas Dee for the copy.)

This strikes me as a rational and practical extension of the videogame culture, and I'll be very interested in what happens.

5. From _Image Update_ for 5/1/04...

"Is the Old Testament really a book of plays? And must they be performed to be fully appreciated? Dr. Tom Boogaart, Old Testament professor at Western Theological Seminary, Holland, Mich., thinks so. Jeff Barker, theatre professor and playwright in residence at Northwestern College, Orange City, Iowa, is trying to prove him right. Barker and [his students] will present 'And God Said,' a new full-length musical of ancient Israelite dramas, drawn verbatim from the King James Version of the Bible. The script and lyrics of 'And God Said' present the stories of the Garden of Eden, Abraham and Sarah, Moses, Samson, Deborah, David and Bathsheba, Solomon, the fiery furnace and others." You'll find the script for "And God Said" at http://www.nwciowa.edu/dept/theatre/ barkerplays.html; a blog about the development of the musical is online at http://www.nwciowa.edu/view/overview/theatre/weblog.aspx.

6. An interesting development, from _PCA News_ for 4/29/04...

"Privacy rights are a growing concern for churches, especially when trying to balance them with prayer requests. A Texas church has come up with an unusual solution. Now parishioners at the First United Methodist Church in Rockwall must fill out a prayer request form that was designed by an attorney. If the request is for anyone other than themselves, the person mentioned must give written approval. ... Many churches says they have scaled back or stopped sharing prayer requests altogether after implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act last year. (From Agape Press)"

7. Some time ago I discussed a number of research studies on the possible link between prayer and healing, including one in which the results were said to demonstrate a doubling of in vitro fertilization success rates. Now Jim White has sent me an article reporting that that study is almost certainly fraudulent. The article is written by Paul Harris for the _Guardian_ (5/30/04) and is titled "Exposed: conman's role in prayer-power IVF 'miracle' "; you can find it online at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1227841,00.html. This is a particularly puzzling case, because the research was done at Columbia University and the research article appeared in the _Journal of Reproductive Medicine_; it's difficult to understand how a fraud of this kind, headed by a man with a lifelong history of frauds, got past the gatekeepers at those institutions.

8. In response to questions about why references to "pagan gods" on government symbols aren't unconstitutional:

"Pagan religions have very few current adherents (there has been something of a revival, but I suspect that very, very few people actually believe in them), and a long history as basically cultural referents. ... (Some people might still be offended by the use of the pagan symbolism, but the test isn't whether they're offended; it's whether a reasonable, well-informed observer would see the symbol as an endorsement of religion.) A cross or a creche, on the other hand, might plausibly be seen as an endorsement of religion. ... So Athena on a seal doesn't violate the endorsement test because these days she's almost never used as an endorsement of paganism, and a reasonable observer would thus almost never see her as such an endorsement."

This is by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, on 6/15/04, online at http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_06_14.shtml#1087324079; my thanks to Stephen Marsh for sending the material. I continue to be of the opinion that if it's unconstitutional to post symbols of some one religion -- Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism, et cetera -- it is by definition unconstitutional to post symbols of _any_ religion, however few adherents it may have. But I'm a scientist, not a lawyer; my understanding of "definition of terms" may not fit the context.

9. Pat Mathews sent me a copy of an article titled "Clubbing for Christ: Christians get down at the Minneapolis nightspot 3 Degrees," from the 4/19/04 issues of _Newsweek_ (online as well as in print), in which we read that the gospel singer onstage tells the audience, "I don't know what you come to do, but I come to get my praise on!" I went off to Google immediately to look for the linguistic history of "get your praise on," and was bounced all over the Net without learning much. I did discover that "Get Your Praise On" is a music title, and I found a link to an article that was supposed to tell me how a Christian bookseller's convention was offering people an opportunity "to get their praise on," but the site wouldn't let me see the article, and everything else led me straight to one virtual music store after another. If any of you in the Network can provide more information, please send it; it's an interesting construction of religious language.

10. _The Week_ for 5/7/04 had an article on page 13 (formatted as an FAQ) titled "Scientology: Forging a new religion." (No byline.) Here's a sample...

"How do you start a religion?
In more than 500,000 pages of writings, including books and lectures, [Ron] Hubbard laid out a complex belief system that became the foundation for the church of Scientology. Hubbard taught that humans are actually spiritual beings called 'thetans,' which live for trillions of years through reincarnation. ..."

This goes on at length, and then, "Critics deride all this as bad science fiction. But religion scholar J. Gordon Melton, who has studied dozens of new religions, says Scientology's theology is no more 'irrational and ridiculous' than the creation myths of many mainstream religions."

11. Three cyberlocations to check out: an interesting paper titled "Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?", at http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html; the description of the First Annual Symposium on Religious Violence and Peacemaking, at http://timesandseasons.org/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=830; and the "Articles" archive at McKenzie Study Center, at http://www.mckenziestudycenter.org/theology/articles -- see for instance the article on "The Prayer of Jabez," by Ron Julian

ON MY WAY OUT THE DOOR....

I want to let you know, so that it won't come as a surprise, that this may be the last year that we're able to maintain the Lovingkindness website. Expenses for the site are fairly modest, since all labor is volunteer, and we'll do our best to avoid having to close the site -- I will try to think of a way to raise some additional funds, for example, or to work around the problems associated with moving to a free website -- but it's possible that we may not be able to continue after December 2004. I'll keep you posted, and I would of course welcome any suggestions you might have.

TO JOIN A NETWORK AND RECEIVE ITS NEWSLETTER: Send newsletter title, your e-mail address, and your check, money order, or credit card information (for Visa or Mastercard) to OCLS, PO Box 1137, Huntsville, AR 72740-1137 USA. The newsletters are: _The Linguistics & Science Fiction Newsletter_; _The Religious Language Newsletter_; and _The Verbal Self-Defense Newsletter_. Each $5.00 a year ($15.00 Supporting) for the six issues of the calendar year, by e-mail only, advertising-free. For more information or a free sample issue, e-mail OCLS@madisoncounty.net.

Return to Content Page