EDITOR'S NOTE RANDALL FREDERICK
In October 1774, John Wesley wrote, “I met those of our society who had votes in the ensuing election and advised them to vote, without fee or reward, for the person they judged most worthy; to speak no evil of the person they voted against, and to take care their spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side.” Wise words, but how many of us have failed to live up to this challenge? In a time when incendiary soundbytes and outright hatred on Facebook make us more popular, perhaps we would be well advised to look forward to Nov. 7, when the election has been decided and we can rebuild friendships. At least I do, as I
reluctantly confess my share of shameful comments, even expletives, made at the expense of those I call my friends, family, and neighbors. We at The SEMI tried to make this collection of articles about the issues of this election rather than the candidates or their respective political parties. We wanted to honestly address what we think is at stake while creating a better dialogue here at Fuller which we encourage you to participate in with classmates as well as access our online content at thesemi.org - Randall Frederick, Semi Editor
CREDITS Managing Editor Carmen Valdés Editor Randall Frederick Production Editor Matthew Schuler
LEGAL The SEMI is published bi-weekly as a service to the Fuller community by the Office of Student Affairs. Articles and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the views of the Fuller administration or The SEMI.
002
Free Fuller Announcements: Submitted to semi@ fuller.edu or dropped off at The SEMI Office on the 3rd floor of Kreyssler Hall above the Catalyst. 35 words or less.
Advertisements: Notices for events not directly sponsored by a Fuller department, office, or organization can be submitted to semi@fuller. edu. Check our website, thesemi.org, for ad rates and deadlines.
Letters to the Editor: The SEMI welcomes brief responses to articles and commentaries on issues relevant to the Fuller community. All submissions must include the author’s name and contact information and are subject to editing.
003
THIS ELECTION ABOUT ECONO HOW MANY TIMES
have you heard someone moan about wasted money? It’s easy to decry the obscene amount of money spent on political advertising, war, or a government program. It’s easy to think that money is just lost; if it isn’t spent in the right ways, something precious has left us. This makes a tremendous amount of sense on a personal level. If I blow my money in Vegas at the roulette tables and slots, I may not get to eat next month. In politics, however, what makes sense on a personal level is often wrong or counterintuitive on a global or national level -- money being a prime example. On a large scale, money can’t be “used up”. The money supply is different than say, the supply of apples. If everybody goes on an orgy of apple eating... No cider for Thanksgiving and we all cry out in agony. The apples are gone. We experience this
002
with everything we consume, which, lets face it, is almost everything. But money is different. The simple rule for money is that as long as it is being spent, it’s never wasted in society. Money is liquid, as economists say. It moves from one place to another and causes transactions to take place. It’s really more useful to think about money as work. If money is moving, people are working. If people are working, they are generating something, (resources, ideas, etc,); on its most basic level this means food and raw materials, but extends into all sorts of services that allow people to utilize their talents and minds. There is a way for money to be wasted; money that is not moving is not generating work. This is the problem we’re currently facing. During the financial crash of 2008
N IS OMICS money was destroyed; you can destroy it, by burning it like the Joker in The Dark Knight, or by pretending to have more money than you actually have, which is what society collectively did in the early and mid-2000s. All that vaporized money caused people to stop spending and banks to stop lending. All of sudden, money vanished from the world and, in turn, so did work. No one works for free, and we “lost” our jobs.
ONE OF THE IRONIC outcomes of recessions is that they force people to innovate, to be more frugal, and to work hard. It’s like a big Christmas feast: it tastes great, but sooner or later you have to get off the couch and go to the gym. From the twilight of the Clinton era to the end of Bush’s presidency, the American economy got fat on the housing bubble. During the recession, businesses got a lot
BY JAMES FARLOW more efficient, got better at getting more money for their products and services while at the same time having fewer people. Very shortly, they became more profitable. For nearly three years, American businesses have been generating a lot of money. So why aren’t people getting back to working? The trouble is that the money isn’t moving. It’s sitting in accounts or in stocks. It’s not even generating a lot of interest because rates are so low. Why? It’s all about demand. Businesses don’t do anything because they want to, or because it makes them feel good, they make a product or sell a service because people want it and will pay for it. Right now, I am involved in a nonprofit startup. We want to expand our hours, but right now we can’t. It’s not because we don’t have a great business or a good idea; we have both. We have not yet experienced the demand to expand our hours. Demand
003
is the reason coffee shops close at 10 or 11, even though many of us want them open later. However, we don’t use coffee shops all that often at 1a.m, college campuses excluded. Most people are in bed, including the baristas at Starbucks. We are now four years past the financial crisis, and this is where we find ourselves: we’re generating money from the places that are open and running, but there’s not enough demand for new places to open or for the ones already running to hire more people. Our money is paying down debts, or sitting in investments that are still negative. Money is sitting on the sidelines, doing nothing. This type of situation is called a liquidity trap; plenty of money exists, but not enough people are working to need all the money that exists.
WHAT’S SO FRUSTRATING about our politics right now is that none of the arguments address this basic economic situation. The only way for demand to get back up is for people to spend money. The only way they will spend more money is for them to get secure jobs, or for those who do have jobs to have less debt (from houses they paid too much for) hanging over their heads. As soon as those two things happen, the economy will recover. Money will “go to work,” and so will we. There are only two entities that can act on a scale large enough to generate the jobs needed: the Federal Government and the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has done a lot, but most of their power revolves around money itself; it’s not as effective in a liquidity trap. We’re stuck with Congress, an organization so inept that small children are 4x more likely to approve of broccoli and spinach for breakfast than to approve of the House of Representatives (ok, I made that
002
last one up). Both parties are at fault on this, for different reasons. Republicans haven’t even attempted an answer. Their current plan, to cut taxes and cut spending, would only make the situation much worse in the short and medium term (another election cycle or two). Cutting taxes would give some people more money, but most would go to people who already have jobs. Consistent analysis of previous tax cut based stimulus programs have shown that a portion of cut would go into savings, where it wouldn’t be used for a while, or go to pay down debt. Both of these actions are healthy for individuals in normal situations, but they don’t help the overall economy in the short run. In exchange for tax reductions, cuts in spending would cut jobs right at the time the nation could least afford it. They’ve tried this in some places in Europe, and it’s been disastrous. Just look at Greece, where unemployment is 25%.1 The Democrats have only been slightly better. Democrats generally acknowledge the money situation, but the trouble is that they’re cowards. The 2009 stimulus was good, but it was actually inadequate compared to the scope of the problem. The crisis of 2008 was equivalent to what caused the Great Depression. The stimulus, TARP, and the Federal Reserve kept the nation from another depression, but the stimulus wasn’t big enough to address the full force of the crash, so it didn’t actually generate as many jobs as we needed. Over and over again Obama’s team underestimated the scale of the crisis, even though some of the best economists in the world (Ben Bernanke, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stieglitz) 1 Greek debt was so outrageous in the mid-2000s that during the bubble it was the same size as its entire economy. This caused an epic collapse, but that’s not the reason Greece could cease to function as a modern state. Greece didn’t have the power to bail itself out, and had to submit to the terms issued by the European Central Bank. In return for money, they had to cut government spending. Greece needed to cut government spending catastrophically, but not at the same time as it was experiencing a financial collapse. This caused a tumultuous period of unemployment (10 to 15%) and a depression that could ruin Greek society for a couple of decades. Is that what we want?
said over and over again that the crash was going to cause unemployment of at least 10%. The administration did this because they were afraid: they didn’t want to anger the business community on Wall Street (the Jokers who burned the money in the first place) and they didn’t want to hear cries from the right of “tax and spend, tax and spend!” Guess what: that’s still what conservatives are saying. By not going big enough, we’re still stuck at an employment of 8%. Obama’s team asked for less money and fewer jobs than were actually needed.2
JAMES FARLOW James Farlow is an M.Div student and when he’s not studying (often) you can find him arguing, playing disc golf, ball golf, or brewing beer. One day he hopes to become a space tourist.
THAT’S THE ANSWER right now: JOBS.
Whichever party has a plan that would actually create JOBS should win. There are a number of ways to get jobs, but nobody is willing to tell America the truth. Republicans are hiding their heads in the sand, and Democrats aren’t being honest about what the nation actually needs. We need jobs, and there’s only one company in the world that can generate enough of them: the Federal Government. I give kudos to Pres. Obama for actually proposing a jobs bill in the weeks before the convention that would do some good, however it is unlikely to get passed unless the Democrats take back the House. Unfortunately, it just gets worse: both Democrats and Republicans are being incredibly irresponsible in the face of the looming fiscal cliff. Fiscal conservatives are correct: we do need to manage long-term entitlement spending, but not right now. The government needs to get people working, either by hiring workers (FDR, anyone) or enticing private companies to do so (Reagan/Republican ideal). The government can borrow money at essentially zero interest right now. It needs to get money off the sidelines and put people to work.
Enrollment is now open for the Strong Marriages/ Successful Ministries (SMSM) groups for the Fall Quarter. SMSM is a small group psycho-educational opportunity to enhance your marriage. Groups meet one evening per week for 9 weeks starting week two of the Fall Quarter (Oct. 2–3). The groups fill up quickly as there are only four couples in each group. Groups are filled on a first come, first serve basis. Receipt of payment will reserve your spot in the group. Total cost is $40 per couple. Contact Melinda Talley at melindatalley@fuller.edu to sign up. Fall quarter groups:
Tuesday Night (7–8:30p) Asian or Asian American Group Led by Sharon Hargrave Tuesday Night (7:30–9p) Led by Matthew and Melinda Talley Wednesday Night (7:30–9p) Led by Melinda Talley
2 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/ wp/2012/07/16/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-fiscalcliff-in-one-post/
003
THIS ELECTION ABOUT VOTING HERE IS MY CONFESSION: This
will be my first November ever voting in a presidential election. I was old enough to vote in 2008, but was born in Canada and had yet to become a U.S. citizen. As of July 2011, I am an American (while technically also still a Canadian). It is perhaps because I have been through the lengthy and difficult process of naturalization that I feel so strongly about voting and believe that as Christians, it is a moral imperative for us to vote, and to vote responsibly. A (Brief) Personal Political History While I was not an American citizen for most of my life, I did grow up in the U.S., and thus am familiar with the political process. The first presidential election I remember
002
was in 1992. I was four and attended an Episcopalian preschool in east Texas. We held a mock election - voting with cutouts of red elephants (for George H.W. Bush), blue donkeys (for Bill Clinton), and purple kangaroos (for H. Ross Perot). All of the boys in my class voted for Bush, because they knew that was who their daddies supported. The girls voted for Perot, because he was represented by a purple kangaroo. And me? Well, I voted for Bill Clinton, because I felt bad that no one else voted for him.
MY MEMORIES
of the two subsequent elections are a little blurrier. In 1996, I was sad when Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton, but that is all I remember. In 2000, I was at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, recovering from a traumatic brain injury. At the time, doing whatever it took
N IS G to get out of the hospital occupied my mind, and I did not pay attention to the election. In 2004, I was a junior in high school and voted for George W. Bush in our school’s mock election because I was a Christian and almost all of the Christians I knew were voting for him as well. In 2008, I was in Spain, where I was in awe of how much the Spaniards supported Barack Obama. When he won, there was a great deal of celebration in Spain - almost as if he had been elected president there.
AND NOW IT IS 2012, and it is my first time to be able to cast a ballot in a real election. As a citizen and as a Christian with a conscience and an opinion, I have not only the right to vote in the upcoming election, but also the responsibility.
BY NAOMI WILSON What Does It Mean to Vote Responsibly? As I prepare to vote in the upcoming election, what will play the greatest role in how I cast my ballot is my theology. I must walk a thin line between voting for what I believe to be right, and refraining from trying to impose my specific moral code on the U.S. population as a whole. And as a first-time voter, I believe that it is my civic and my Christian duty to carefully study the issues and review the candidates’ platforms prior to arriving at the polling place. What are the implications of Christians participating in government? Through participation in the political process, Christians have the opportunity to change the world. Throughout history, Christians have used their voices to lobby for others. An example of this comes from late 18th century England, when man named
003
Granville Sharp encountered a slave named Jonathan Strong, who had been harshly beaten and left for dead by his master. Sharp provided care for Strong, but when Strong became healthy again, Strong’s master came back to reclaim him. Sharp prepared a legal case for Strong, and in court Strong was set free. Unfortunately, the Strong case did not set a legal precedent for the abolition of slavery, so Sharp continued to advocate for an end to slavery by taking on court cases for slaves. When he took on the case a slave named James Somersett, Sharp and his lawyers won in court, establishing a milestone in the anti-slavery campaign in England. For the remainder of his life, Sharp worked to abolish slavery in England. Granville Sharp was passionate about this issue because his Christian faith and study of the Bible in its original languages led him to believe that slavery was anathema to God, and consequently he exerted himself to bring it to an end. Another, more current, example of Christians participating responsibly in the political process is that of Martin Luther King Jr., who dedicated his life to equality. In addition to fighting for civil rights for African Americans, King also spoke out against the Vietnam War and the economic injustice experienced by all poor people in America. King’s leadership played a key role in the passage of Civil Rights Acts in 1964 and 1968. Like Granville Sharp, King was motivated by his theology and Christian faith.
MY POINT IS THIS: when Christians participate responsibly in the political process, we have the opportunity to put our faith into action in ways which can change the world for the better. In this upcoming election, our votes have the power to affect the United States not only for the next four years, but also for the next century. The election in November goes beyond simply selecting a presidential
002
candidate. Those of us registered to vote in California have the opportunity to vote on propositions which eliminate the death penalty, which target the issues of funding in schools, and which take steps to end human trafficking in this state. Voting in this election is about more than simply dropping a cut-out of an elephant or a donkey into the ballot box. It is about more than voting for Romney because he is pro-life. It is about more than voting for Obama because your parents are Republicans and you are just now realizing that they do not have it all figured out. Participation in political, legal, and judicial processes can be an opportunity to participate in the kingdom of God. And this is what we as Christians are called to do. So I urge you to join me, this November, in researching the candidates and issues on the ballot, and acknowledging that voting in America is not only a right, but also a responsibility.
NAOMI WILSON Naomi Wilson (MDiv, ‘13) is the AllSeminary Council Sports Coordinator and works in the admissions office. Her personal library has quintupled since beginning seminary. Besides reading and working, she enjoys singing, baking, and exercising.
Ministry
Enrichment
Legal Issues in Church Counseling Mr. Dennis Kasper Monday, October 29, 2012, 3:00PM - 5:00PM Geneva Room
Your counseling work can expose you and your churches to very significant liability. This seminar will explore how liability arises, and in particular, the exposure to liability arising from sexual misconduct during counseling. The seminar will also address the rules for handling confidential information, when to report child abuse and other reporting obligations. We will talk about the use of liability and medical release forms, and perhaps insurance. Finally, we will discuss some practical steps to address a crisis in the church, such as a child abuse allegation.
CPE Day at Fuller Panel of Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) Students and Supervisors Thursday, November 8, 2012, 10:00AM - 12:00PM Payton Hall 101 Join us for a panel discussion with students who have recently completed a CPE experience in hospital chaplaincy. Talk one-on-one with local CPE supervisors and learn about the CPE hospital sites and programs. Lunch will be provided.
Issues of Sexuality: Confronting Ministry Challenges Judith K. Balswick, Ed. D., Senior Professor, SOP Tuesday, November 13, 2012, 1:00PM – 3:00PM Payton Hall 101 The issue of sexuality is complex and deeply personal. It is a core expression of the wonder of who we are - our distinctiveness, our beautiful dimensionality, our creatureliness - but also seems to be the locus of so much confusion, hurt, shame, and ignorance. Even in the church there are conflicting and confusing messages. In this session, a theology of authentic sexuality will set the foundation for affirming sexuality as God intended. Issues encountered in ministry, such as unwanted attractions, as well as, safeguards and boundaries when counseling in ministry settings will be addressed. The hope is that this will enhance, equip, and empower as you minister to God’s people.
003
THIS ELECTION ABOUT FOREIG THE OUTCOME
of the November presidential election will impact the future of our country, most notably with regard to foreign policy. In this article, particular focus will be given to Mitt Romney’s pro militaristic stance toward Iran and Barack Obama’s ongoing ambiguous stance with Israel. We are at a unique point in history where U.S. troops are occupying foreign soil in more countries than ever before. Under the guise of peaceful missions, the U.S. has inadvertently or intentionally stirred up feelings of unease among many of these nations. Both candidates in the 2012 election are focusing heavily on the Arab Spring movements across the Middle East – Israeli tension with what seems to be the entire Middle East, and Iran’s controversial nuclear program. It is worth noting that Iran’s nuclear program has yet to produce a nuclear weapon or any proof of militaristic intentions beyond existing speculation.
002
Romney’s advertised foreign policy stance with regard to Iran, as noted on his website (www.mittromney.com), calls for not only the amped up presence of U.S. Military ships in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz but his intention to “increase military coordination with our Arab allies in the region and conduct more naval exercises as a demonstration of strength and resolve.” To me this sounds like warmongering at its worst. Is this really the type of foreign policy we want? A “look-at-whatI-can-do” intimidation tactic is sure to do nothing but further irritate – if not openly provoke – a nation (Iran) that the U.S. has used, abused, and scorned throughout the 20th century. Imagine if Iranian war ships were to anchor off the coast of Hawaii for open ocean military drills. How long would the trigger-happy U.S. sit and watch those “demonstrations of strength”? I guarantee not long. While U.S. and Iranian relations have not run smooth over the past 100 years the U.S. is
N IS BY ADARA GN POLICY AZADEH far from the victim that media outlets often portray. Ever since the discovery of Iranian oil in the early part of 20th Century, the U.S. has made efforts to claim and control the exports. Certain actions taken on the part of the U.S., most notably the implementation and backing of the Shah, were viewed by many Iranians to be an American attempt at control. Romney, after clearly outlining “that a military option to deal with their (Iranian) nuclear program remains on the table” calls for the implementation of a fifth round of tougher sanctions. There is no debate that U.S. sanctions are having a crippling effect on the Iranian economy. But the problem is that while the U.S. and other nations are touting the effects of these sanctions, they are neglecting to realize whom exactly these sanctions are crippling. When an oppressive regime, such as what we are currently seeing in Iran, is sanctioned, members of said regime ensure that they themselves are the last ones to feel the pinch. In the meantime, in order to preserve a certain quality of life for the political and the elite, the burden of these economic sanctions is passed off to the
population at large. In essence, America then becomes an accomplice to the Iranian regime in the oppression of the very people they are claiming to help.
RECENT REPORTS
from Iran document extreme financial hardships on everyday citizens. While the general population of Iran struggles with rampant inflation and hikes on food prices that are unbearable, those in power still live the life of luxury. It is blatantly obvious that the economic sanctions that are being driven into Iran, spearheaded by U.S. action, are doing little to the regime and great damage to the citizens that U.S. is “wanting to empower”. Romney also goes on to talk about support for Iran’s green movement, but I cannot help but wonder what kind of support he is looking to create when stricter sanctions will further chill relations between the U.S. and Iran. If you are looking to empower a people, you probably should not help oppress them.
003
WHILE ROMNEY
focuses much of his foreign policy on Iran, there is also a great undertone of support for an Israeli state. Romney’s recent trip overseas included a very controversial and highly publicized stop in Israel where he spoke on the economic disparity between the West Bank Palestinian and greater Israeli populations. Drawing on the book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David S. Landers, believed “culture” to be the defining factor between the economic differences among Palestinian managed areas and Israeli managed areas. This comment immediately created a backlash from within the Palestinian community. Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, responded to Romney’s claims saying that, “It is a racist statement and this man doesn’t realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation”. He was quoted by the Associated Press as going on to say, “...It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people.” While Zionism resonates strongly within many Christian communities, many fail to grasp the full dynamic of the region and its people. For example, while on his trip, Romney failed to visit the oppressed state of Palestine. Often, support toward pro-Israel organizations fund politics and projects that further oppress the Palestinian people in their native land. Romney’s unwavering commitment to an Israeli-Jewish state raises red flags within the progressive Christian community among those who argue for just and ethical practices between Israeli and Palestinian peoples. Rhetorically, Romney also espouses a militaristic, nationalistic leadership. While pride in one’s country is an admirable trait, proclaiming that “this (next) century must be an American century” further alienates the global community. We must not forget
002
that as far as nations go, the U.S. is very new and was founded on a bloody history that many have yet to acknowledge, come to terms with, or reconcile. In this vein, such militaristic and nationalistic agendas run the risk of sounding insensitive and bullying at once.
While Romney sits as the Republican nominee, President Barack Obama sits in the opposite corner weighing his options and waiting. This article is not intended to be pro-Obama. On the contrary, in critiquing his foreign policy thus far, I point to the undeniable fact that often inaction and a lack of initiative lead to implicit support of the very oppression that one is outspoken against.
THROUGHOUT HIS PRESIDENCY,
Obama has been criticized for his lack of follow-though. Election year has only highlighted this tension. With the 2010 midterm elections giving Republicans control of the House of Representatives and leaving the Democrats barely hanging on to majority control in the Senate, we find ourselves at a legalistic standstill. For those of us not politically inclined, it works likes this: for a Democratic President to get most anything done, his or her proposals must be agreed upon in exact form by both the House of Representatives and the Senate before they can be made official national policy. With a Republican majority in the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate, this is very difficult to achieve. An example of this was seen in April of 2011 with the near government shutdown and consequential furlough of some 800,000 government employees. For those who think this would not have affected us, it is good to remember that the Dept. of Education processes student loans -- the very things that keep higher education flowing. These people would have been among those furloughed, meaning no financial aid.
Obama himself voiced a comment that spoke to this stalemate and was intended to be kept personal but instead his microphone broadcasted it to the world when he articulated to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at a Nuclear Summit in Seoul, South Korea that, “After my election, I have more flexibility”. After this comment was caught by open microphones and published, the public immediately began to speculate as to the meaning of Obama’s remarks. Fox News was quick to jump to the conclusion that Obama was lying to the American people and had true intentions of supporting a Russian-backed plan that opposes a European missile defense program. While this is a possible scenario, what would be the harm in decreasing militaristic envoys in foreign countries? They sure cost quite a pretty penny and most European nations, like ourselves, are stocked to the brim with missiles as it is. Furthermore, I doubt building a greater weapon supply screams, “We want peaceful relations”.
BUT IT IS NOT all peace, love, happiness, and hippies with Obama. His repeated failure to commit to a certain stance on Middle East relations and his repeated flip-flopping when it comes to support for Israel land him in hot water. For example, on his political campaign website (www.barackobama.com) two-thirds of his “Get the Facts” section consists of antiRomney rhetoric. While an effort to “get the truth out there” is important, you would think that on a candidate’s political webpage you would find more of what the candidate is saying as opposed to critiques of what his opponent is not saying. Further, this prevents the candidate himself from taking certain stances as it follows that assumptions are made based on oppositional critiques; a “hemust-be-for-us” mentality. Obama places his pro-Israel rhetoric directly at odds with his pro-peaceful Middle East stance. With Israel seeming more and more the loose cannon, saying things such as, “A pro-military strike on Iran is an option” the U.S. is left divided in
its commitments. Deeper than this, how can a candidate be devoted to peaceful Middle East relations while backing a country that greatly oppresses a group of its own people? I do not find it very peaceful that Israeli forces have control over the Palestinian territory waterflow which is heavily restricted, especially in scorching summer months, while Jewish settlements within Palestinian territories have a constant flow to fill their custom-built swimming pools. Obama has for too long attempted to balance a pro-Jewish Israeli state and a peaceful Middle East stance. Clearer articulation is needed on both sides of the coin. If you are going to be dedicated to building peace in the Middle East, you must be willing to have a DTR (Define the Relationship) talk with Israel to outline what they could stand to change and to what extent we will (or will not) support them. This election hinges greatly on foreign policy in general, and Middle East foreign policy in particular. And within that debate, in my opinion, neither candidate gets the win. As long as the U.S. does not take a firm stance toward peaceful Middle East relations, we all lose. So this year, regardless as to how you vote or if you even vote at all, please encourage the President-elect, whoever it may be, to actively work for peaceful Middle East relations.
ADARA AZADEH Adara Azadeh has been a member of the Fuller community for the last five years. She is passionate about promoting peaceful relations between the US and the Middle East, focusing specifically on U.S. – Iran relations, as she has family and loved ones living in Iran and throughout the Middle East. Adara writes for PeaceofIran.com, an anonymous blog that aims at building bridges between cultures by debunking stereotypes, offering anecdotes, and sharing recipes. Adara can be contacted at peaceofiran@gmail.com .
003
THIS ELECTION ABOUT BREAK RULES I’VE
ordered the first couple of episodes of Political Animals from iTunes, but I haven’t yet watched any of it. Based on the reviews, I am guessing that I will like it enough to keep at it. But I haven’t set my expectations very high. Not after watching all seven seasons of The West Wing. I doubt that any other TV fictional portrayal of intrigue in the White House will match the quality of that series. Needless to say, The West Wing beats what we are seeing these days in real life politics. The current presidential campaign is a huge disappointment. This is a tragedy, since the issues we face these days in the U.S. are significant ones, and many of us have a lot of questions about how we are going to face them as a nation. What would a fair and humane immigration policy look like? How can we work our way through the complexities posed by the future of Medicare and other entitlement programs? What will it take to guarantee our religious freedoms in a climate that seems increasingly hostile to what many of us cherish? And then, of course, there are also the big questions about
002
national security, military budgets, the global market….whew! I would love to be educated about such matters by a healthy national dialogue. I am genuinely eager to hear proposals from all places on the spectrum. But it doesn’t look like we are going to be blessed by such a discussion in this campaign. Instead, there is on both sides much name-calling, accusations of dishonesty, digging into each other’s pasts for gossipy tidbits–but little helpful and calm setting forth of realistic ideas that address the important issues. I have a West Wing proposal that could give us the kind of discussion we desperately need. I suggest that both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney take a few hours off from campaigning to watch the seventh episode of the seventh (and final) season of that series—the episode entitled “The Debate.” It was a creative breakthrough for this kind of programming. A presidential election campaign was happening, with two presidential candidates running, played by Alan Alda and Jimmy Smits. And they
N IS BY PRESIDENT MOUW KING THE debated “live.” Not just a portrayal of a “live” debate; the actual drama on that occasion took place in real time. Indeed, even the West Coast version was “live”—they did it again in real time after doing the first run-through earlier for the rest of the country. Here is the real breakthrough. At the beginning of this episode, the candidates were getting ready to engage in what has typically been passing in recent years for a presidential campaign “debate.” Rules had been carefully negotiated between the two staffs, guaranteeing that each candidate could stay “on message” with carefully rehearsed presentations. Then, just before it all got started, the Republican candidate, played by Alda, challenged his Democratic opponent: “When the greatest hero in the history of my party, Abraham Lincoln, debated, he didn’t need any rules.” And that could happen here, said Alda: “We could just junk the rules.” The Jimmy Smits character was only momentarily thrown off his pace. To the chagrin of both campaign staffs he quickly responded: “OK, let’s have a real debate.” And they did. They simply talked to each other, stating their views, listening to each other’s responses, arguing back. It was a magnificent performance, enhanced by the
spontaneity of the “live” programming. Again, my proposal. Romney and Obama should agree to watch that episode. Maybe they could even watch it together, unaccompanied by their respective “spin” people. And then afterward they could talk about how to engage each other in a genuine televised dialogue, throwing out the rules that in recent years have made a real exchange between candidates a virtual impossibility. Too much to hope for? Probably. But each of them claims to have the capacity to assume leadership in times that require much creative savvy. Surely they should want to demonstrate to us what real leadership looks like by being at least as creative as the scriptwriters for The West Wing.
RICHARD MOUW Richard J. Mouw has served as president of Fuller Theological Seminary since 1993. A philosopher, scholar, and author, Mouw joined the faculty of Fuller Theological Seminary as professor of Christian philosophy and ethics in 1985. Before coming to Fuller he served for 17 years as professor of philosophy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He has also served as a visiting professor at the Free University in Amsterdam.
003
BY SAMANTHA CURLEY
THIS ELECTION ABOUT STORY
FOR SOMEONE
who doesn’t follow politics closely, if at all, the following statement may not come as much of a shock: I know almost nothing about Mitt Romney. Okay, let me clarify, I know he’s the Republican Presidential Candidate and that he’s Mormon. Personally and politically that pretty much sums it up. My stats with President Obama are not much better...and he’s been in office almost four years. Now before you spiral off into the importance of being a good citizen and an informed voter (both things I agree with and so must confess a contradiction in my political orthodoxy and orthopraxy), hear me out. The 2012 Presidential Election is about story. Not just political stories and platitudes - the world is bored, if not skeptical and burned out on those. This is an election about the story each candidate evokes in the collective imagination of the country. Whoever delivers the most believably holistic and congruent story will win. The economy, foreign policy, past voting records on immigration and women’s
002
rights, are all important issues that require a newspaper and at least a degree of specified knowledge. Story, though, is not only safe and apolitical common ground, it’s innately built into our humanity. “In the beginning...” As Christians, we know the power of stories. As ministers and church leaders we know the importance of inviting people into those stories. And we know we must tell stories that are captivating, contextualized, and honest. Why would politicians rely on different tactics? Why would our political imaginations be fueled or convinced by something contrary to our spiritual ones? They aren’t. We are intrinsically drawn to story, inspired by story, and made to exist inside a Story. We especially like stories of brokenness and reconciliation, loss and hope, fear and love. I believe the question of this election is not what will happen with tax loopholes, abortion laws, or the Arab Spring. These are important issues that impact our lives and need to be addressed by our government, but things move slowly in Washington.
N IS Y
THE BEAUTIFUL DIFFICULTY OF OUR GOVERNMENT MEANS THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T HAVE SOLE AUTHORITY TO DO MUCH OF ANYTHING. Moreover, many of the big issues of any election get played out at the local level. Back to the point, I believe the real question of this election is what kind of story Mitt Romney and Barack Obama will inspire in the public conscious.
This question is more difficult than drawing party lines of small government or social welfare. First, we have the internal convictions and core identities of each man in their private lives. Then we have their histories, where they’ve come from, who they are as husbands, fathers, and finally, politicians. Combine this with the political branding that goes into running a Presidential campaign, the media’s portrayal of that campaign, and the knowledge, experiences, assumptions, and expectations the public brings to the table, and, well, the story gets complicated. Is it possible to dissect the candidate’s history from their political agenda, to detangle the media’s slant from what each man actually believes, and arrive at some peeled back, consistent, and reliable truth
that will tell us who Mitt and Barack really are? That would tell us the kind of country they would run and the story they imagine? Not to draw too many biblical analogies here, but could we do that with any character in scripture? For example, how did the disciples know who Jesus was? The kind of life he was inviting them into? The nature and credibility of the story he was telling? How did they wrestle through their own experiences and expectations, the public opinion about Jesus, and the political climate of their day? How did their story emerge? How do any stories emerge? My hunch is that, politically speaking, we get sucked into losing the forest for the trees. We become so hyper-focused on dissecting and exposing candidates and issues and polls, that we forget the implicit role of the President: to form the imagination of a country.
SAMANTHA CURLEY Samantha Curley is an MAT Theology and the Arts Student. She just moved from Chicago and started her program this quarter. She loves writing, film, and cooking.
003
THIS ELECTION ABOUT DIALOG LOGGING ONTO
Facebook the day after the initial Presidential debate felt like walking through verbal version of the Ali/Frazier fight, but somehow less articulate. Attack after attack was being launched from the safety of cubicles and couches, and I was inwardly wincing at not only the lack of awareness on both sides, but the atrocious grammar. Being a returning member after a year and a half respite from the Facebook phenomenon, I hear this sort of tragedy has literally taken on a name: “Facebook Flame Wars” Besides my inherent belief that Facebook may in fact be the Antichrist, I was disturbed by the fact that not only did it had a name, but that those participating could in no way be generally categorized. Maybe it’s my education in political science as an undergrad or the desire for compassion towards are fellow man, or maybe it was
002
slightly less noble in its roots, having to do with my own beating I took in the halls of Capitol Hill, but in any case, my mind began to ponder the issue of dialogue. My background consists of honing my political skills as Republican in a decidedly Democratic demographic (San Francisco Bay area). I learned early to survive, use articulation and a scathing wit. At home was a different story; you were either a Republican, or someone else’s child. Morning rides to school with my father consisted of radio broadcast diatribes that I learned to either tune out or be in agreement with. Debating and conversing were part of life, but never with much decorum. When I moved to DC to finish my degree, it was no wonder I was drawn into the politics. Every young adult shows up to DC with an idealistic notion that somehow they can be a part of something great. To be frank, that wasn’t the case with me at all. I had no sense of ideals; I just preferred the
N IS GUE
BY SARA ANGELLA
high-octane lifestyle and the opportunity to feel like I could have some say and control over what felt chaotic and overwhelming. Something was always happening somewhere and there was a kinetic energy about the city. You could feel it the moment you stepped off the plane, and I slipped right in.
IT WASN’T UNTIL later, after coming down from the high of campaigns and inundation with press releases and legislative infighting, that I realized how easily I had lost myself into the minutia and power plays. For all my shouting and debating, all I had to show for my time was a few great memories and a hoarse voice. I hadn’t made a lick of difference.
For a month or two, disillusionment settled in. Politics is a cog, a machine; it was going to keep running with or without me. In fact,
it felt a little more like I had been chewed up and spit out, a skin not “thick enough” as one friend put it, to withstand the verbal assaults and backhanded insults. I canceled my Washington Post subscription, turned off the split screen CNN/Fox newscasts and found myself in a job opposite from politics in every way. It took a while to come down from the spinning. Saturated in pundits, media outlets, Tweets and radio hosts, working with the communications director on how to phrase a particular vote, constantly watching every move word spoken… it takes a toll. I spent a good long while nursing wounds I didn’t know I had and seeking grace for the ones I had unknowingly caused. I hadn’t really thought about politics again until witnessing my friend’s Facebook onslaught and was brought back the reality of how important the dialogue really is.
003
I asked a few people their thoughts on political conversations with their peers. One said he was hard pressed to find people that agreed with his positions. Another admitted she would occasionally stir the pot just to watch the awkwardness. I call this the Arrested Development response: confront, or create awkwardness rather than find a solution. It’s funny, no doubt, but it betrays a greater truth: the average person feels a particular lack of options between silence and mud slinging. The problem is that neither in the church nor in the architecture of our government can we afford silence of the average person.
AS AN UNDERGRAD,
I was taught the sign of a functioning, healthy government was that a large portion of the country settled between the two extremes. The majority, in a sense, prefers a centrist position. Everyone wants a solution to healthcare, but no one really wants to be pick-pocketed either. Finding the common ground between comprehensive and none at all would be the ideal. No one wants the right-wing nuts or the left-wing demagogues having all the say. Take the general elections as an example of this truth. When a candidate wins by single digit points, it sends a clear message to the elected official to stick close to the middle in policy and verbiage. A sign of un-health in any society would be a dominant party winning by a large margin; too much power is afforded too easily. We see this in recently developing societies in Eastern Europe, South America and many other countries. Extremes are not bad as long as they remain the extremes and those caught in the center are allowed to remain active. Earlier this month, I had the privilege of listening to two brilliant scholars speak on the rapidly changing culture of the Western
002
world and church. I listened carefully as our own Dr. Gibbs and the esteemed Dr. Phyllis Tickle describe what is being called the Great Emergence within the church. Whatever personal opinions are held regarding this movement, there is a gleaming treasure of guidance in the result of once vehemently opposed denominations opening lines of communication. What started as a few people noticing the dysfunction in what should be functional (the church, its messages, its care reaching out to the masses, etc), became a critical look at where the dialogue had broken down. How can we learn from this? In no way, as citizens of heaven or America, or any other country for that matter, should people have to choose between silence or being verbally assaulted. This appears the case now and it is a large problem we will have to deal with. There is such a thing of tyranny of the masses and holding a responsibility to justice, something inside of each of us should rage when we see it.
A KEY CHARACTERISTIC
that fascinates me regarding the Great Emergence is the shift of focus from what we don’t agree on, to what we do. In church, the death and resurrection of Jesus is a great place to start. In politics, it doesn’t have to look much different. If we all want a country with effective policies, we have to start at the ground up: dialogue among the people. Take it from someone who spent time shouting not on the sidelines, but in the midst of war: “politics as usual” isn’t going to change. There will always be carnage and the use of fear to silence others as long as there is no other, better alternative. Getting into the fray isn’t going to help. I tried. Standing back from it, going the opposite direction, even embracing ‘the other side’
may sound radical, but it beats walking around a mountain for another 40 years… figuratively speaking.
happens, the verbal sparring becomes seen for what it truly is: loud noise.
In an increasingly hostile world toward the faith of Christianity, there is an inspired opportunity for giving shelter and sanctuary to those battered and bruised by the machine of politics. In a very real way, we can actualize a gospel of peace, without giving up what makes each of us unique and necessary. What if it isn’t about changing the others opinion and beliefs, nor needing to change your own, but instead recognizing the wisdom and logic on each side?
I find the call Jesus gave to His disciples when sending them out stunningly apt: let’s be shrewd as a serpent and gentle as doves. Let’s get smart, not vicious.
MILITANT REBUTTALS
and trying to grab a bigger sword never works, it only fuels the dysfunction and makes the individual just another tyrant. I see the world from a particular set of doctrines based on experience, age, gender, culture, etc. and to be honest, I don’t want to change them. To me, that’s what’s right! But the brilliance is, I don’t have to. That’s what I bring to the table and no matter how sound and logical, it will always be inherently incomplete, yet vital for progress. It isn’t about agreeing with someone, it’s about taking the best from both of our positions. In an upside down sort of way, the existence of conflict actually brings the balance necessary for an average person to have space to voice and be heard. Whatever reason we hold the values/traditions we do, there is inevitably someone on the other extreme bringing a different sort of wisdom. When we find a real, truly important common goal – whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Christian, atheist, agnostic or Big Bird – what becomes vital is accomplishing the goal. And when that
After days after I saw the Facebook posts, I messaged my friend again, asking his opinion on some political point. We are on opposite sides of politics and religion, and he and I know it, but I was curious, and I told him as much. What I received in response was a long essay regarding my question, but it wasn’t full of rhetoric or bitterness… in fact, it felt strangely thankful. As though all he wanted was to be heard. We dialogued for a while and I was blessed to learn something from him. In the end, we find, it’s not about ideology, or opinions, or any flat, typical answer. What it’s really about is conversation; no matter how we choose to vote. And maybe, for the immediate future, just saying “No” to Facebook the day after the debates.
SARA ANGELLA Sara Angella (MDiv, ‘15) hails from NorCal. She studied Political Science at from George Washington University, and her heart stays close to the Bay in sport fanaticism but D.C. in culture. A true Italian in volume and expressive movement, on most days you can find her selecting paint colors for her most recent DIY projects, searching out antique books on the cheap, or working to perfect the chocolate chip cookie.
003
THIS ELECTION ABOUT RACE POLITICS IN OUR COUNTRY
have always been divided, but it appears if the racial divide between the left and the right is larger than ever before. Political pundits make it almost impossible to ignore race in their speculation of the “black,” “Asian” and “white vote.” The left has solidified its position as the party of minorities -- consisting of 58% whites and 42% non-whites, while the right has become whiter than ever -- consisting of 92% whites. [1] With these staggering numbers it is hard to deny the significant role of race in this upcoming presidential election. But why is the country so divided and why are the parties so polarized? One of the reasons I believe is that the parties have competing worldviews based on an understanding (or lack thereof) of white privilege. What is white privilege? White privilege is the invisible privileges, benefits, and opportunities that white persons enjoy beyond that of nonwhites. “White privilege…is individually received and experienced in the daily lives of individual white persons.”[2] Beverly Tatum suggests, “The prerogative of white privilege is to be oblivious to one’s advantages. For many,
002
‘whiteness’ is simply the unexamined norm.”[3] What many fail to remember is that “every system and every institution in the United States was created originally and structured legally and intentionally to serve white people exclusively.”[4] This system is protected not because people ascribe to racism, but because they are afraid of what they may personally lose. The real enemy is self-interest. White privilege is often not recognized by those enjoying it, because it is simply not in their best interest to acknowledge it. It is much easier to ascribe a black person’s plight to “laziness” or the challenges of being Hispanic to “immigration.” To acknowledge the difference at all is to admit that one has partaken and benefited from a perverted system. Whether or not one subscribes to the existence of white privilege the facts of reality are indeed staggering. Studies show that people of all races use and sell drugs at similar rates and yet in some states, black men have been committed to prison on drug charges at rates twenty to fifty times greater than those of white men[5] The vast majority (79 percent) of white students attend schools where less than half the student body is poor, compared with 37 percent of black students and 36 percent of Hispanics.
N IS BY LES SCALES For schools where at least 91 percent of the students are poor, whites made up just 1 percent of the student body compared with 13 and 15 percent, respectively, for blacks and Hispanics.[6] Poor, largely minority (especially black) communities are far more likely to be sites for toxic waste dumps and other environmentally hazardous industries than are suburban or largely white neighborhoods.[7] Black Americans continue to lag behind white Americans in every indicator of economic well-being including life expectancy, home ownership, poverty, etc.[8] The typical white family has 20 times the net worth of the typical black family, and 18 times that of the typical Latino family. White men with criminal records are more likely to be called back for job interviews than black men without them, even when all other credentials and personal characteristics are indistinguishable. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I often meditate on these words of our Founding Fathers and wonder how they could be so right and yet do so much wrong at the same time. There was a time not too long ago in our country’s history when
only those who were considered “white” were granted citizenship. With citizenship came other rights such as voting, property ownership, freedom, education and dignity to name a few.
THE NOTION OF WHITE SUPERIORITY
was built into the very framework of these systems. Even after the abolishment of slavery, black suffrage, and the civil rights movements, injustices still occurred disproportionately to nonwhites. Although laws changed and individual behavior toward nonwhites were improving, white persons maintained their position of power. This power granted access and passed wealth to future generations. The fact that racism was imbedded in our systems was rarely addressed. Institutional discrimination became much more subtle and due to the legacy of laws created to maintain the status quo, nonwhites were left playing catch up. There is no doubt that Americans are ashamed by its legacy of racism. However, its attempts to move beyond race has actually made the issue worse and created
003
the illusion of color-blindness without fixing the undergirding foundations impacted by centuries of injustice towards nonwhites. For many Americans, the mere fact that a black man is in the White House is proof enough to suggest that America is a post-racial society. As a result, it is now easier to believe that any American -- whether white or nonwhite -- that does not do well has no one to blame. It is their own fault and they should stop blaming other people. The privileged often believe that they “pulled themselves up from their own bootstraps” and so should everyone else. Now to be sure, there are plenty examples of nonwhites who have greater privileges than whites, however, by and large the consequences of privilege disproportionately impact nonwhites.
THESE ISSUES and what to do about them, I believe, are at the heart of this election cycle and make it difficult to ignore the implications of race. As a black man, when I hear slogans such as “Taking America Back” or “We Built That” and I see a party made up of almost all white people, I cannot help but feel racial undertones and completely unwelcome at times. When I wrestle with the struggle that my ancestors fought for civil rights, the truth is I do not want to go back to that America. When I think of the sacrifices that those who have paved the way for me went through, I have a hard time honestly claiming that I built anything on my own. I come from a large family who believed in hard work. They taught me the value of excellence. However, they also recognized our own interdependence. We knew that deep down we needed one another. We realized when someone was down sometimes you needed to extend a helping hand. I am not accustomed to this rugged individualism proposed by the right. From my cultural background and my understanding of the gospel I have always
002
held a high value for community and the need to have one another’s back, that sense of shared responsibility. Martin Luther King Jr. once famously noted that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” 1 Corinthians 12:12-26 reminds us that we are all members of the same body, we need one another, and we rejoice and suffer together.
I BELIEVE the diversity
that exists in America is a good thing and, if embraced, will carry the nation forward. This diversity, when it comes together in harmony, can achieve new heights. In order for this to happen there must be unity. This will require time and research to become aware of the realities that surround the unprivileged. It will require courage to step out of comfort zones to intentionally engage the issues. So, as a minority, when I see a homogenous group of white people standing behind Romney in support, I see a party yearning for the days of yore instead of challenging the inequalities of today. I do not see it as hatred or racism, but as clinging to the benefits of white privilege. It has to do with whether we think our best days were in the past or whether we think they are still ahead. Believing that there can be a future where we all can experience the fruits of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and not simply an elite few, for me, means choosing leadership with a constituency that more closely reflects the diverse concerns of the overall population. See footnotes online at thesemi.org.
LES SCALES Naomi Wilson (MDiv, ‘13) is the AllSeminary Council Sports Coordinator and works in the admissions office. Her personal library has quintupled since beginning seminary. Besides reading and working, she enjoys singing, baking, and exercising.
MISSIOLOGY LECTURES 2012
FULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY SCHOOL OF INTERCULTURAL STUDIES
TOOLS AND THEOLOGIES OF THE MULTICULTURAL CHURCH Soong-Chan Rah
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2012 TRAVIS AUDITORIUM
CHAPEL
10–11 a.m.
The Next Evangelicalism: Appreciating the Multicultural Church LECTURE ONE AND PANEL DISCUSSION
6:30–8:30 p.m.
Cultural Intelligence and the Multicultural Church THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2012 TRAVIS AUDITORIUM
LECTURE TWO AND PANEL DISCUSSION
12:30–2:30 p.m.
Suffering and Celebration: Ecclesiology for a Multicultural Church LECTURE THREE AND PANEL DISCUSSION
3–5 p.m.
Navigating the Generations: Lessons from the Asian North American Church Our speaker will be Reverend Dr. Soong-Chan Rah, Associate Professor of Church Growth and Evangelism at North Park Theological Seminary. Dr. Rah was founding pastor of Cambridge Community Fellowship Church, a multi-ethnic, urban ministry focused church committed to living out the values of racial reconciliation and social justice in the urban context. Dr. Rah serves on the boards of Sojourners, the Christian Community Development Association (CCDA), World Vision, Evangelicals 4 Justice, and the Catalyst Leadership Center. His books include The Next Evangelicalism, which was named one of the 10 best books of the year for 2009 by the journal Leadership; Many Colors: Cultural Intelligence for a Changing Church, which won an award from Outreach magazine as a best resource for multi-cultural ministry in 2010; and Honoring the Generations: Learning with Asian North American Congregations (2012).
4 color
For more information visit: www.fuller.edu/missiologylecture
003
A NNUAL H ARVEST F ESTIVAL
FREE
O CTOBER 26 5.30 – 8 P
$4
$5
l
T I $8 C K E T 5.30-8 P R E
GIANT SLIDE BOUNCE HOUSE PONY RIDES
NACHOS HOT DOG S $6 ROASTED CORN POPCORN
KOREAN BBQ OR ZANKOU CHICKEN
PRE-SALE Tickets on sale from Oct. 22 – 25 Residential Community Office 250 N. Madison Ave. Lower Level CALL: 626-584-5680/5464
002
FREE
GAMES CANDY BALLOONS FACE PA INTING HAYRIDE
RIDE PASS
SNACK PASS
MEAL PASS INCLUDES SNACK PASS
P
F ULLER M ALL
추수의 계절 축제 10 월 26 일 오후 5.30~8
무료
$4 l
T I $8 C 5.30-8 K E T P R E
$5
사전 판매 10 월 22 일 부터 26 일까지 Residential Community 사무실에서 티켓을 미리 살 수 있습니다 250 N. Madison Ave. 지하층 전화번호: 626-584-5680/5464
무료
미끄럼 뽕뽕이 풍선집 조랑말 타기
나초 핫도그 구운 옥수수 $6 팝 콘
갈비 ZANKOU 로 티 세 리 치 킨
P
게임 사탕 풍선 페이스 페인팅 헤이 라이드
식사 패스 간식 패스 포함됨
노리 기구 패스
간식 패스
풀러 아롤 번즈 몰에서
003
CLASSIFIED Asian American & Pacific Islanders
Room for Rent
Free couples therapy!
Fuller Psych Grad has master bedroom with attached private bathroom for rent in 1300 square foot deluxe townhouse in Monrovia, conveniently located near freeway, stores, restaurants, theaters, etc. Includes access to the entire townhouse, including kitchen, dining room, living room w/fireplace, private garage parking, and beautiful pool and spa. All utilities included as well as wi-fi, Direct TV, monthly cleaning/ maid service and private laundry area. Pix available on request. Rent is $ 800/ month. Contact Dr. Lee Stoltzfus 818 590 4617 or dr.lee.phd@doctor.com.
Seeking Biblical Values and Social Justice Conference Have you ever wondered, “How would Jesus vote?” Are you seeking opportunities to expand your perspectives on important social issues and how they relate to your faith? Join an exciting, open discussion at this historic conference with keynote address by bestselling author and Sojourners founder/editor the Rev. Jim Wallis, and a panel discussion and workshops by AAPI Christian leaders. October 12-13, Union Church of L.A., Little Tokyo. Register early (student discount) at apisjchristians.tumblr.com.
Free Couples Therapy! The School of Psychology is once again offering up to 15 free couples therapy sessions on a first-come-first-served basis for qualified adults. This opportunity will be available during the Fall, Winter and Spring quarters of the 2012-13 school year. (Couples will see a therapist during one of these quarters). All therapy will be conducted by MSMFT masters students under the direct supervision of Dr. James Furrow and Dr. Terry Hargrave. Each session will be conducted under direct video supervision. Please contact Amy Drennan in the School of Psychology at (626) 204-2009, or at amydrennan@fuller.edu to set up an intake.
SUPPORT Group All student wives are invited to join SUPPORT, the Bible study, prayer and fellowship group just for you! We have two distinct meeting times, so choose the one that is best for you or come try both. Wed Mornings, 9-11 am Pasadena Presbyterian Church, 3rd floor Childcare is provided for children 0-5 years. Thurs Evenings, 7-9 pm Chang Commons, Theme Room 2 No childcare provided. Contacts: Lyndsay Piña 209.480.3609 or Janna McConnell 626.644.2942
026
columbia auto body Columbia Auto Body- Quality collision repair since 1982. We work with every insurance company. Lifetime Warranty! Owned by Fuller graduate. 323-258-0565 1567 Colorado BlvdEagle Rock.
childcare needed Fuller alumni couple in Pasadena is seeking part time childcare for a 4-month-old girl beginning December 3rd. In home care near to Fuller campus. Previous experience with infant care and willingness to be CPR certified preferable. Must demonstrate a patient, gentle, and loving personality. Schedule is flexible, although mornings are preferred. Please contact Ryan and Alethia White at 626-344-0766 oralethia.c.white@gmail.com
EVENTS October
24 7-9pm
October
25 3-5pm
Oct
25
Pirates and Prodigals - Travis Auditorium Join Barry Taylor as he hosts Kester Brewin and Peter Rollins in a discussion on why the prodigal story is a tragedy, and what this means for the future church.
“The Media, Film, and Human Thriving” - Travis Auditorium Fuller Theological Seminary invites you to a special lecture by John Shepherd, Founder and President of Mpower Pictures.
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict + Reconciliation Theology - geneva room
9am
Join in conversation with Salim Munayer, a Palestinian-Israeli peacemaker from Lod and instructor at Bethlehem Bible College. He is also founder of Musalaha, a non-profit organization promote reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians as demonstrated in the life and teaching of Jesus.
Oct
Harvest festival - the quad
26 5:30-8pm
October
29 3-5pm
October
31 3-5pm
November
01
starts 9am
November
07
9am - 4:30pm
Games, Candy, Balloons, Face Painting, Hayride. $4 Ride Pass: Giant Slide, Bounce House, Pony Ride. $5 Snack Pass: Nachos, Hot Dogs, Roasted Corn, Popcorn. $7 Meal Pass (includes Snack Pass): Korean BBQ or Zankou Chicken. Pre-sale Tickets Oct. 22-25th Res Comm Office.
Legal Issues in Church Counseling - geneva room
Your counseling work can expose you and your churches to very significant liability. This seminar will explore how liability arises, and in particular, the exposure to liability arising from sexual misconduct during counseling.
Brehm Lectures 2012 - Worship in a Digital Age - payton hall The 16th century reformations of the Western churches were a response to the cultural changes invoked by the advent of the printing press and printed word. To what extent are the seismic shifts in the practices of North American churches a new reformation?
Preaching in a Visual Age Conference - Ecclesia Hollywood
Preaching in a Visual Age is a three-day conference that invites pastors, theologians, visual artists, filmmakers, media professionals, and Christian leaders to come together to discuss how to use digital media and visual aesthetic in preaching and teaching.
What Did Jesus Do? The Atonement Symposium - Payton 101 Featuring Scot McKnight, J.R. Daniel Kirk, Leanne Van Dyk, Vincent Bacote, Linda Pecore, Mike McNichols. While every Good Friday the Church celebrates the work of Christ on the cross, questions abound about what exactly Christ achieved and how his action makes Christians able to fully participate in Christ’s kingdom.
for more event listings, visit thesemi.org and portico.
027