Managing Editor Carmen Valdés Editor Randall Frederick

Production Editor Matthew Schuler

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.

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.

002

CREDITS

LEGAL

EDITOR’S NOTE RANDALL

FREDERICK

Technology - maybe not the first thing you think about when you’re discussing religion, but certainly a part of our lives here. We’re continually talking about the latest gadgets and upgrades and apps, downloading Bibles and textbooks, salivating over the 3D-Hi-Def-Blue-ray-exclusive and yet... Where are we going?

Culture changes. Like the Jewish curse, we live in interesting times when everything is changing faster than we can process. From laws to downsizing to exercise, we live in a

perpetual state of flux - and yes, our theology, whether we recognize it or not, changes.

The articles in this issue bring together some insights towards this end. Who are we? Where are we going? And what does it have to do with Fuller?

Matt Lumpkin, an IT specialist here at Fuller, discusses the way our beloved seminary is adapting to the times, budget cuts, and latest innovations. Nick La Casella addresses what technological changes look like for us in our down time, and Matthew Schuler concerns himself with (mad) scientific advancements so far-fetched you may be inclined to question their legitimacy.

As we look to the future, these are some of the questions we must ask ourselves - what, indeed, does technology have to do with religion?

003

Many systems are designed to make things easier for either a. the computers that run themb. the people that made themc. the people who bought them

My job is to make things easier for the people who use actually them.

For the past two years I worked on eReserves and eCommerce for Fuller while I completed my MDiv. Last summer, I took on a new role as Online User Experience Strategist working with Jeff Harwell and the rest of the IT team. In this new role, I focus on the many facets of the online experience that are a part of Fuller (fuller.edu, Moodle, Portico, and many many more) with a particular emphasis on:- the actual experiences of the people who use them- how they fit and work together or don’t - how we can make small changes to the

way systems or processes are deployed that can greatly improve the experience of the people who use them.

Last September I attended a conference focused on User Experience (sometimes known as UX) in San Francisco and I’ve been using a lot of the insights from it since. The most important shift is in looking at systems and processes on and off the web from the perspective of the people who use them rather than from the perspective of the people who create them. As an MDiv grad, it wasn’t long before I began to see how almost all of these insights work just as well when thinking about ministry, mission and communication. Many of you will be doing ministry of some kind as you study, even moreso afterward. Many of you will also be editing, planning, or creating websites. If you aren’t already, you will be, or will be asked to soon!

DESIGN AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ENACTED HOSPITALITY: USER EXPERIENCE PRINCIPLES FOR THE WEB AND FOR MINISTRY

004 Article

What follows are some bullet-points about UX for the web and for ministry, then a few words of explanation on each. I’m going to use the word “design” in the broadest sense possible to mean the application of human intention to a process, artifact, space or experience. I propose an exercise as you skim through them: try to imagine how each item might yield just as much useful insight in an opposite column since the boundaries we draw around what is and is not ministry are artificial.

User Experience Principles for the Web:- People’s eyes are drawn to username and password fields like magnets. If you put them on a page, don’t expect them to read anything else.- Logos conventionally go in the top left or bottom right. If in the top left, clicking them should return the person to home. Login info and identity are usually in the top right. Designers sometimes like to flout conventions like this but they had

MATTLUMPKIN

MATTLUMPKIN

Matt Lumpkin, MDiv, works at the intersection of theological education and technology in order to help this Gutenberg moment into becoming a Wittenberg moment. His social reading project, read-together.com, is just beginning private beta (request an invite now). When not working, he is either teaching himself to play the cello or building circuits & painting watercolor with his two daughters.

More at mattlumpkin.com and @mattlumpkin on Twitter.

005

better have a good reason to reward the user as payback for the disorientation they introduce.- Rules like those above seem arbitrary and many of them are. But so are many of the rules of language. They shape the context of what you do and the expectations of your audience. You ignore either at your own peril.- People who don’t read what you wished they had read on your website aren’t lazy, they’re selectively deploying their attention in an exponentially rising sea of noise. It’s your job to give them hints, cues and choices that help them deploy their attention efficiently.- Form and design communicate what genre of communication you intend. They determine what kind of attention your users will deploy and how they will interpret what you show them: blog post, form, photo gallery, ad etc. We read each of these differently.- If you haven’t built a map in your mind of how what you’re saying, posting, designing, building fits together, then the people using your system will have to do it themselves and you can be sure it will be incomplete and confusing. Instead take the time to plan out carefully not only what you intend to communicate but how it fits with the larger whole of your page, sub-section or site.- Getting people to pay attention to text involves the entire composition of what’s visible. Simply applying Bold and red isn’t enough.- If everything is bold then nothing is. - People using your site are unconsciously assessing whether you are trustworthy or not. Everything from design, to content, to whether things work like they expect all contribute to a user’s sense of whether or not they are in good hands.- Your use of the web is the new hand writing. You will be judged and understood by means of it. This means more than font choice. This means the entirety of the composition of a given web

site and the entirety of the experience they have while using it.- Good design is iterative, that is, there is no good design only good redesign. The more you build into your design process soliciting feedback and input from the people you say you are designing for, the faster your iterations will begin to communicate.

User Experience Principles for Ministry: - Time and attention are increasingly scarce, precious and the most valuable thing people have to offer. Asking for either should be done with recognition of their scarcity, respect, intention and care.- If you haven’t taken time to think about and understand who you’re trying to communicate with, you will design your communication for yourself and it will work for people to the extent they are like you and fail to the extent that they are not.- Checking what you think you are communicating with even a very small sample of your target audience can have exponential benefits at refining your communication. A little user testing is a lot better than no user-testing.- Communication is about creating an interface to ideas, models, concepts or experiences. It is necessarily a translation, an abstraction or a process of encoding. The best interfaces use metaphors that help connect the intended idea to what the user already knows. But beware: metaphors as are not the thing in itself. There is no actual recycling bin in your computer and even when you “empty” it the files can still be recovered in many cases. The bin is a metaphor and metaphors always break down.- Design is an act of gracious service. Good design does unto others what it would have done unto itself. When you encounter it you know that someone you can trust has taken care to think of how their choices will affect your life. Bad design is a tireless, structured, ignoring

006

of who you are and what you care about that systematically tells you that your experience is not thought of and you are unwelcome.- Design is asynchronous communication between humans through the medium of an interface. Design that takes the user’s experience into account is one of the ways institutions can and do communicate their regard for others.- Interfaces should be redundant and multi-channel. If something is important you should find multiple ways to communicate it rather than communicating it just once, loudly or in bold print. Different people will hear and prioritize different channels differently. Use more than one to increase the odds they will get it.- Ambiguity in your communication will be filled in by the mind and assumptions of the people who hear it.- Design is an opportunity for inclusion. Design with the other in mind is enacted hospitality. People can tell if you have thought of them and if you haven’t. One communicates that they are welcome. One communicates that they are alien.

User Experience at ChurchWhile completing my MDiv, I interned at Altadena Baptist Church altadenabaptist.org. This was the first church I had attended that wasn’t made up exclusively of white Americans. About ⅓ are Anglo, ⅓ are African American and ⅓ are Hispanic, Asian and ex-pat. Altadena Baptist is a place I could literally bring anyone and know they would be welcomed and included. Yet as I began leading several adult Bible studies, it became apparent that our experiences as individuals and as groups meant that we read certain texts, comments and actions very differently. By making room for and hearing one another’s stories and how they shaped us, we were all enriched. All kinds of unconscious assumptions we had been carrying around were opened up for

examination and discussion. As I learned more of the stories of my church family, I began to see the subtle but intentional ways that the pastoral staff had designed the worship services and their ministries with those different experiences in mind.

Without paying attention to what our systems, sermons, websites and communities communicate to those who we hope will use them, we will design experiences that are easiest to create and maintain for those of us doing the designing. In doing so we run the risk of carving our own blind spots and biases into stone and then becoming annoyed when those who don’t share them bump their heads on them.

User Experience at SeminaryFuller is famous for having originated the idea that you could grow churches quickly among people who are like one another -- homogenous units of people. We have since come to question how much transformation can actually happen when the all the people who influence you are already like you. Indeed the strongest argument for the transformative power of encountering people who are different from you may be Fuller Seminary itself. As former provost Sherwood Lingenfelter once said, Fuller is an opportunity to practice being with people who are not like you --hearing their stories and having your way of seeing the world expanded. Seminary itself can be a practicum in cross-cultural encounter if you let it.

User Experience at WorkMy work involves building and refining web sites, services and experiences I think about these issues every day. As more and more of aspects of our lives are moved into the online space, the question of who we include and exclude with our systems becomes more and more immediate. In Fall of 2013, Fuller will begin to offer two new degrees

007

which are almost exclusively online. But as most Fuller students already know, there is a whole other dimension to the Fuller community spread across Moodle forums, blogs, Facebook threads and Twitter conversations. As our institution begins to explore the the possibility of transformative encounter and spiritual formation online, my role is to continue asking the questions: Who is this for? Who have we ignored?

My colleagues and I are working to design spaces, structures and systems that create the opportunity for the kinds of encounters I had at Altadena Baptist, and during my MDiv at Fuller to unfold in the online space. I’ve already begun interviewing students, faculty and alumni on how they use Fuller’s current online tools, and soliciting feedback on the direction we are headed. If you would like to help shape the future of theological education and human discourse, I’d love to spend some time hearing your story and making sure that we are designing with you in mind.

Good places to start to dig deeper on user experience:Nielson Norman Group NN/g Useability 101: a great introduction and orientation to basic user experience / usability principles for the web specifically.http://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability/

TED: Shyam Sankar: The Rise of Human-Computer CooperationMinimizing the friction in the interface between the human and the computer is the decisive variable in maximizing. Start by designing the human into the process.http://www.ted.com/talks/shyam_sankar_the_rise_of_human_computer_cooperation.html

008

009

One of the perks of living in the greater Los Angeles County is the availability to watch movies in different movie theaters. One can choose to watch a high quality presentation at ArcLight Cinemas, with the option of screening it here in Pasasdena or at the Hollywood location in the legendary Cinerama Dome, the rustic Laemmle Theaters, even the two-buck-Chuck prices of Academy Cinema for second-run films. We, as residents of Southern California, have the gem of screening top-notch films at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ (A.M.P.A.S.) Samuel Goldwyn Theater in Beverly Hills for films as low as $3 per person! Though there are many options for watching movies, sometimes the choices

come at a cost to presentation, quality, and location. These can either twist or enhance the viewing experience that matrons and patrons of cinema have in their drive toward enjoying a good movie. The specific technology in each theater can alter the enjoyment of a film. The contemporary climate can feel as if viewers are rushed to either embrace the new waves of change, by electing into a ‘nicer’ and sleeker movie presentation, over the outdated “rustic” options of older theaters. But does it have to be that cut and dry? Technology in California has tended to favor progress over recession. In terms of cinematic presentation, the past couple years have favored digital presentation techniques over ‘outdated’ analog

010 Article

formats. Examples include the transition from celluloid stock/reels of 35mm film to digital projection, the analog-to-digital television transition implemented by the Federal Communications Commission in June 2009, to the ever-improving market for digital radio stations. These moves within mass communications are just a few examples of how transitions within mass media have widened the availability of certain presentation formats for the end user—that is, how you and I can enjoy what is the mainstay of the present, the grandeur of the past, and the innovation of the future.

Outside of my studies and employment here at Fuller, I have the privilege of working a few film festivals here in Los Angeles as a cinema projectionist.

iPh-ased Out: retaining the movie magic through new mediums of presentation

nick la casella

011

NICKLA CASELLA

Matt Lumpkin, MDiv, works at the intersection of theological education and technology in order to help this Gutenberg moment into becoming a Wittenberg moment. His social reading project, read-together.com, is just beginning private beta (request an invite now). When not working, he is either teaching himself to play the cello or building circuits & painting watercolor with his two daughters.

More at mattlumpkin.com and @mattlumpkin on Twitter.

As a kid, I was always amazed by the magic behind the scenes, which in this instance, the magic that lay behind the small window in the back of the movie theater. “How on earth does the movie get visually shot up on screen,” I often thought, as I gander abroad the ways in which I enjoyed such movies. Working major festivals—such as the Los Angeles Film Festival and AFI Fest—I have exposure in handling and projecting a variety of film formats from all over the world. To say the very least, cinematic presentation has experienced widespread changes in how movies are delivered to theaters, how they are presented in each venue, and how subsequent viewers will watch these movies for years to come. The way I watched Disney’s The Lion King in 1994, Jerry Maguire in 1996, or The Matrix in 1999 were drastically different than the ways in which people enjoy movies now, begging the question: does the old VHS copy of The Lion King resemble the 35mm film version I saw in the mid-1990s, let alone the Real-D remake a couple years back? Furthermore, can I (and should I) replicate that same experience in a new time?

Now, I must admit to you, that as of the date of this writing, I have not seen The Hobbit. However, from what I gathered from friends’ reactions and comments, many felt that the high frame rate version of the film (i.e., 48 frames per second), created a very distracting and superficial experience as film lovers flocked to their cinemas for entertainment.

A little technical mumbo jumbo as to why this is important: frame rate is the speed that pictures move across the screen. In a movie, more frames per second result in what I call “ULTRA smoothness” between pictures, where the movie looks seamless all throughout the presentation. Most (and by that I mean pretty much all) movies up to this point were 24 frames

per second, which, it has been argued, coincides with the 24 hours that are in one day. By doubling such a frame rate, one would be immersed into a faster experience by not recognizing the details once enjoyed in watching a movie, and that experience being replaced by high-contrast visuals and images. The viewer is not deprived of their enjoyment, but she or he is somewhat ‘rushed’ to experience the story.

In an article published by Forbes, online contributor Anthony Kosner writes concerning the immense amount of visual detail and smoothness between each scene. The article showcases how The Hobbit compares to other films in recent years as being too advanced from the previous method of projection. Surveying both critics and general audience reactions, Kosner states that “many found the lighting shrill and their experience of the film compromised by the very technology that was supposed to make it ‘more immersive.’” Furthermore, Kosner suggests that the problem is not within the actual frame rate itself, but rather it is due to the century-old technique of adapting cinematic projection to audiences where intense visuals are not widely appreciated, let alone a faster method of showing these images on screen. In essence, smoothness might be coarse in the long run.

Again, I have not seen the film yet and cannot judge its quality having not had the pleasure of viewing the film. But having had multiple conversations with a variety of different people, who represent different levels of the ‘cine-buff’ language and appreciation, I feel there seems to be uniformity within the mindset suggesting that 48 frames per second is a bit much for a wider blend of filmmaking techniques. It is supposed to be the wave of the future, but to assume that one method of presentation will dominate

012

all experiences is a perspective that falls short of our history of enjoying stories presented to us as attentive viewers. The newer medium of technology is taking away the experiences that many have had and have enjoyed over the past decade or so of experiencing cinema. My concern is whether the way that I enjoyed technology over the past two decades will be overthrown by new and improved technologies. Should I fight to preserve those older experiences of movie entertainment, or should I throw these by the wayside? Is my allowance of new mediums of technology wide enough to include something foreign to my expectation, or should I try to retain those experiences? We may say that these are not explicitly a deep pastoral concern for people in our communities, but as I suggest, the progress of moving forward in society is showcased though seeing new and improved techniques based upon centuries of proven presentation. People may either be liberated from limitations or stripped of their joyful experiences of enjoying good story telling techniques, especially those in such a technologically rich environment as movie watching. Though, we may argue, that the precise visual presentation is different (e.g., The Lion King in ‘94 and The Hobbit in ‘12), there is some sort of experience that can be captured between the decades removed from their cinematic breakout.

My suggestion is to not simply throw out the new medium as too advanced or out of this world (that’s what they said about Cinerama and 3-D films in movie theaters in the 1950s—now look where we’ve come). At the same time, recognizing that with the advent of new technology, the means toward eliminating light flicker, picture separation, specks of dirt, or any other form of inconvenience in presentation, might actually take away

from the beauty that is found in the classic flicker long associated with film. I actually look for a locally-playing 35mm version of a film over any digital copy.

Be that as it may, your choice in going to any of the above listed movie theaters—in addition to the other screening venues across the world—will have its share of strengths and weakness in technology, which may enhance or detract from your experience of the story. What is important is this: so long as stories are told ‘on the silver screen,’ people will be moved to have similar experiences in new contexts. The exact form of presentation will be different, but rest assured, you are participating in an experience that is as old as storytelling as it has been ingrained in the fabric of human history. Though Grauman’s Chinese Theater on Hollywood Blvd is one of very few screens that actually retained its silver screen, it goes to show that one can experience the classic amidst the contemporary. One does not have to throw off the way they have enjoyed movies in the past simply for a new medium, nor do they have to simply allow for all mediums of presentation to replace the grandeur of good old fashion storytelling.

(The Forbes article, entitled “The Reason Why Many Found The Hobbit At 48 FPS An Unexpectedly Painful Journey,” was posted by Anthony Wing Kosner on January 11, 2013) Nick La Casella (MDiv, ‘15) is studying theology, ethics, and pastoral counseling in the School of Theology. He drinks way too much coffee and enjoys having conversations built upon tangents.

013

“We’ve all known that the day would come when we’d have to decide whether or not to allow the reconfiguration of human beings through genetic technology. Well, that day is now.”

- Dr. David King, editor of GenEthics News

in London

Intentional Evolution

As a species, we humans have been practicing genetic modification long before we began writing in caves, constructing pyramids, or inventing religions. In fact, our crowning achievement from that primordial era is still a major commodity in the modern world, garnering $2.31 billion in sales last year alone. Our genetic blockbuster? Dogs. There is no

“natural” dog on earth today. Dog breeds were produced by centuries of selective breeding, a process that was used to maximize desired traits like particular fur colors or better hunting instincts. Any puppy that did not exhibit the desired traits was killed, and eventually human beings intentionally evolved dogs into over 300 different breeds, all exhibiting rough approximations of homogenous characteristics.

But they are still dogs. They may look different, act different, and cost different amounts of money, but they still have four paws and a tail. We would say that they are still the same species, classified by the programming language encoded

The Economic Divide Goes Physical

Embracing Genetic ModificationWith All Four Arms

matthew schuler

012 Article

into their cells. But today, the term species is becoming increasingly obsolete. Intentional evolution can now customize animals in ways that blur the lines that usually distinguish one creature from another. Dogs, regardless of breed, can now also be cats, or mice, or spiders. Here are some of my favorite genetic mashups from the 90’s:

1. Beefalo (Cow/Buffalo)2. Geep (Goat/Sheep)3. Liger (Lion/Tiger)4. Zorse (Zebra/Horse)5. Glow in the dark kittens

(Kittens/Coral)6. Glow in the dark monkeys

013

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

MATTHEWSCHULER

Matthew Schuler (MAT, 2012) is a filmmaker, author, and designer living in Pasadena, CA. He is the current CEO of Snowtone Limited, and spends his freetime camping and hiking.

(Monkeys/Jellyfish)7. Biosteel - blending spider silk with

goats milk to make the toughest material known to man

These animals are not the future, they are the past. You can already purchase genetically modified glow-in-the-dark pets at your local pet store. Bioluminescent zebrafish are the most popular, available in yellow, blue, red, green, and orange. These creatures are actually plant-animal hybrids that mix the genes of fish and the genes of various types of coral. You have probably noticed from the images above that we can apply this same process to monkeys, an animal that is 98% genetically identical to human beings. Which means that we are now bio-technologically capable of producing humans that glow in the dark.

R.I.P. HIV (and Depression)

In 2004, Richard Hays told Selective Science that “a modified variant of the human 5-HTT gene significantly reduces the risk of depression.” Using in-vitro fertilization, doctors can insert this new 5-HTT gene into a human embryo and safeguard that future child/teen/adult against even the possibility of struggling with mental illnesses such as depression. This procedure is called DNA Therapy, and allows hospitals to vaccinate children against mental illnesses before they are ever born. I imagine that anyone who has personally struggled with the devastating, often lifelong, effects of depression would be thrilled at the opportunity to protect

their child from such a crippling mental condition. What parent wouldn’t? I imagine that when depression vaccination goes on sale, Black Friday will seem like ****. iPhone lines***** And in fact any biologically-based disease or mental illness can be short-circuited by these new techniques. Imagine the attractiveness of even the possibility of eliminating your child’s susceptibility to influenza, Parkinson’s Disease, cancer, or AIDS. Here’s a quote from Bosarge in 2001:

“We were able to successfully elicit a protective immune response following genetic immunization of mice. Another advantage is the significantly lower cost of production, since DNA is more easily produced and transported. Considering that the greatest morbidity and mortality from pneumococcal diseases are seen in the populations of developing countries, such factors are extremely important. DNA vaccines are more heat stable than traditional vaccines, a fact which increases the efficacy of their use in developing countries, where storage and transportation capabilities may be lacking. The economic and physical characteristics of DNA vaccines make them good candidates for global vaccination programs.”

So these DNA vaccines can be stored at room temperature and don’t need special containers for transportation. Basically, you can throw them in your backpack and deliver them anywhere in

014

the world without needing any additional equipment or special tools. What is more, these techniques have become so advanced that DNA vaccines can even be applied externally to the skin instead of with an injection. This is achieved using a handheld form of the biolistic system, which can propel DNA-coated gold microprojectiles directly into cells. This means that it is possible to dramatically boost a person’s immune system efficiency without any medical procedures of any kind. No surgery, no hospital bills.

Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger

So yes, we can coat our kids with genetic armor to protect them from disorders and diseases, but the real question is, can my kid have purple hair and chainsaw hands? And the answer is: sort of. We can reliably produce faster, stronger, and smarter human beings, but physical details such as eye color or nose type are more “slippery” genetic traits, and therefore are the most difficult to successfully customize. However, traits like intelligence, learning, memory retention, height, body proportions, and how ripped your kid will be are much easier to enhance.

In a recent Nature Reviews Neuroscience article, Yong-Seok Lee “lists 33 genetic modifications that lead to enhanced memory and learning in ‘Doogie’ mice,” which are affectionately named after the quirky teenage TV genius. After receiving a simple shot, these mice learn faster, remember more, and can solve complex abstract problems that mice, as a species, should not be able to solve. Research shows that NMDA receptors, enzymes, and messenger calcium plays a crucial role in the cellular foundation of memory. On

a biological level, many mechanisms that directly influence memory retention and cognitive ability, such as glia expansion and the rate of presynaptic signaling, can now be genetically altered to significantly improve mental performance.

In addition to increasing mental flexibility, genetic modification can refine physiological attributes. Scientists from Ohio State University and the Center for Gene Therapy at Ohio’s Nationwide Children’s Hospital have successfully demonstrated the enhancement of skeletal structure and muscle mass in monkeys. Researchers injected the human gene that facilitates the production of follistatin (a glycoprotein that blocks myostatin and encourages muscle growth) into the right quadriceps of macaque monkeys, flooding the tissue with follistatin and stimulating considerable muscular expansion. This technology allows the genetic remodelling of isolated muscle groups, such as biceps or quads, providing the means to “build” human bodies to any specifications or proportions that we desire. These changes can be both athletic and cosmetic.

The Economic Divide Goes Physical

“As the ability to control the genetic makeup of our offspring becomes more advanced, parents are morally obliged to make these changes in order to benefit their children. It is argued that throughout human evolution we have chosen our mates for their positive qualities, and the use of genetic engineering to remove possible tendencies towards illness or to enhance other physical

015

attributes is only an extension of this.” – Lee

And now, a few of questions:

1. If you could pay $100 to immunize your child against depression with a 97% success rate and no side effects, would you?

2. Would you pay $100 to immunize your child against cancer?

3. If you could pay $100 to give your child a 70% chance of a stronger and healthier body that includes improved bone density and muscle mass, increased overall strength, upgraded dexterity, and better overall athletic ability, would you? (Remember, the parents of the other children in your class are probably purchasing the procedure. Football and volleyball practice is going to be pretty rough if you don’t.)

4. Would you pay $100 to give your child an edge in school? This enhancement gives your child a 99% chance of significantly increased learning abilities, improved focus and attention, better memory retention, and overall better intellectual performance? (Remember, most of the other parents are probably purchasing the procedure, without it your child will be behind.)

5. Now let’s say that the cancer immunization is not $100 but $1,000. Would you still do it?

6. What if the cancer immunization was $10,000?

7. What if it was $1million?

Many of us don’t have a million dollars, but these already-available enhancements are going to cost money, and lots of it. Which brings me, at last, to the point of this article. Very soon, the world’s wealthy will have smarter, stronger, more disease resistant children. This will likely fracture humankind along economic lines, and if this occurs, the economic divide will become a physical divide, and the battle for power will be fought on a genetic level. It is probable that all of this will occur under the guise of immunization against cancer, HIV, and mental illness, which we can all agree would be a beneficial development, but which could open the floodgate to a whole host of other genomic revisions that will further economic disparity to an unprecedented, and possibly irreversible, degree.

After we get this LGBTQ basic humans rights thing sorted, I believe that bio-engineering will be the next great wave of moral ambiguity for the church. Will we have religious groups that draw distinctions between those who are modified and those who are not? Is it a sin to alter what God has created and called “good?” Do we accept the “mods?” Will we need “mod-inclusive” churches that will harbor those we will inevitably hate for being radically thinner, faster, stronger, smarter, and more attractive than we are? (And rich too.) Will there be extremist groups that want to wipe these “freaks of nature” off the planet, using violent means whenever possible? Remember, these modifications will be purchased by parents, responsible or not. Children will have no say in the matter. I may hold a passionately fierce conviction against genetic modification, but if I am born a “mod,” I will have to make peace

016

with that identity. What may seem like a blessing to well-intentioned parents, could in fact become a curse for their kids.

I write this because traditionally the church’s decision-making paradigm as favored the “Waiting forever to engage in difficult discussions and in the process hurting and alienating lots of people who are genuinely struggling with whatever issue we’re avoiding talking about” Model. This is a not a model I’m particularly thrilled with. I believe that the church is the perfect place to look forward, and begin dialoguing about problems before they become explosive and nuclear. As it says in Proverbs 24, “Wisdom for your soul is a hard search. But if you find it, there will be a future, and hope will not die.” Instead of being late to the game, I say we search and search hard, get out in front of it all. It is possible to take what we have learned from the past use it to open ourselves up to impending possibilities of the future. Will we embrace genetic modification with all four arms? Humanity will decide, whether the church weighs in or not. I say we do.

SourcesStassen, G. H., & Gushee, D. P. (2003). Kingdom Ethics. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Sider, R J. (2007). Just Generosity. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Lee, Y., & Silva, A. J. (2009). “The Molecular and Cellular Biology of

Enhanced Cognition.” in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(Feb), 126-140.

Kota, J., Handy, C. R., & Haidet, A. M. (2009). “Follistatin Gene Delivery Enhances Muscle Growth and Strength in Nonhuman Primates” in Science Translational Medicine, 1(6), 6-15.

Bosarge, J. R., Watt, J. M., & McDaniel, D. O. (2001). “Genetic Immunization with the Region Encoding the Helical Domain of PspA Elicits Protective Immunity Against Streptococcus Pneumoniae.” in Infection and Immunity, 69(9), 5456-5463.

Hayes, R. (2008). Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks. Retrieved Dec. 2, 2009, from The Washington Post, Arlington, VA. Web site: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041501620.html.

017

018

019

MinistryEnrichment

classifieds

UNDERSTANDING HOSPITAL CHAPLAINCY:HOW TO PREPARE FOR CPERev. Cheri Coleman, ChaplainTuesday, February 19th, 20131:00 PM - 3:00 PM Conference 220 (Second Floor, 490 E. Walnut St)

Rev Cheri Coleman, a Fuller graduate and a current CPE supervisor at Arcadia Methodist Hospital, will be sharing important tips on how you can best prepare for your CPE experience. This seminar fulfills the requirement for interns applying for CPE and also fulfills a general Ministry Enrichment Seminar requirement for FE1. For more information on CPE, please access the CPE packet which can be found on the Field Education website.

ORIENTATION TO THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION Dr. Scott CormodeFriday, April 5, 201312:00 PM - 2:00 PM Payton 102

Participation in Field Education’s Orientation to Theological Reflection is required for those enrolled in their first quarter of the FE501 Part-time Church Internship (FE501A), FE533 Full-time Church Internship (FE533A), or FE500 Ministry and Leadership Practicum, for the Spring Quarter 2013. Contact the Office of Field Education at 626.584.5387 or fielded@fuller.edu to sign up.

020

Community Coordinator and Intentional Community Coordinator

POSITION DESCRIPTION

Residential Community will be hiring individu-als who desire to encourage residents to ac-tively nurture Christ-centered, living-learning, intergenerational and intercultural communi-ties through sharing their unique identity, culture, and personal history. Serving God and

our neighbors as a Community Coordinator or Intentional Community Coordinator is one avenue for this type of intentional communitydevelopment. Weekly hours worked vary between communities: 8 – 13hrs per week along with monthly rent credit ranging from $300 - $500.

Application process will begin March 11th, visit Fuller’s Human Resource site for more informa-tion in coming weeks.

JOBS SOON TO BE AVAILABLE

March

410am

April

107pm

March

411:30am-2pm

April

117pm

April

208:30am

March

2510am

March

4-97pm

March

1312pm-3pm

April

9-12details soon

March

107pm

ANGLICAN: CATHOLIC, EVANGELICAL, & CHARISMATIC?

Payton 100

Fr. Jose Poch and Rev. Cathie P. Young will be share about what it means to be Anglican and Charismatic, and will also take time for Q & A. Sponsored by the Pneuma Society.

bit.ly/XIJbpC

ROB BELL AT LAKE AVE CHURCH

Sponsored by CLL, The Burner Blog and the Church in Contemporary Culture Initiative.

MOST HOLY THEOTOKOS, SAVE US!

Presented by the Brehm Center and Galerie Gabrie, this exhibition is focused on icons reflecting the life of the Most Holy Theotokos with accompanying lectures on March 7 & 28.

Open March 4 through May 10 at the David Allan Hubbard Library.

WORD MADE FLESH: CHRIS AND PHILEENA HUERTZ

Pasadena CampusJoin Word Made Flesh founders Chris and Phileena Huertz as they speak about social justice on Fuller’s campus.

Sponsored by the Center for Lifelong Learning.

EMPOWERED BY GRACE PRAYER RETREAT

Meet at Catalyst

Come enjoy a morning of rest and renewal in the beauty of God’s creation with the Fuller Prayer Retreats at the Los Angeles Arboretum. Retreats are led by Chris Murphy. For more information please contact the Office of Student Affairs.

SPRING BREAK!

Everywhere

Time to get weird. Or sleep.

ONE TABLE FILM FESTIVAL

Travis Aud

The films being screened are Milk, God Loves Uganda, Pariah, How to Survive a Plague, and 7th-Gay Adventist.

COMPOSTING WORKSHOP

The Quad

Come learn how to compost! Hosted by G3, helping to green Fuller.

MISSION FAIR

Stay tuned for more information.

“RISING FROM ASHES” FILM SCREENING AND DISCUSSION WITH FILM MAKER

Peninsula Covenant Church 3560 Farm Hill Blvd. Redwood City, CA 94061

Fuller and Windrider invite you to a special film screening and conversation with the film makers.

021