Three types of thinking

As we, professors at Tyndale Theological Seminary near Amsterdam, the Netherlands, were discussing problems about how to help our students understand our subjects, I thought of David Hesselgrave's teaching about these two forms of thinking, abstract – logical and concrete - relational.

 

Actually he advocates three forms. (My memory of 40 years ago is probably failing.)

1) The "conceptual postulational thinking" of the Western world.

2) The "concrete-relational/pictorial thinking" of China.

3) The ''psychical/intuitional thinking" of India.

 

I have attached an article he wrote which explains these ideas and how they can be used in missiology (and teaching).

 

It was interesting for me after forty years to think back on this material.  We used Hesselgrave's first edition of his Communicating Christ Cross-culturally and his book on Dynamic Religious Movements which came out at the time.

 

I was struck that Russian thinkers are somewhat similar in their mindset to Hindus.

 

Nicholas O. Lossky, on whom I wrote my dissertation, had a three tiered approach to knowledge:

 

1. Sensual intuition - ("concrete-relational/pictorial thinking") which meant what Kant meant by our faculties, which process sense data and construct a "phenomenal" world.  Everyone is engaged in this type of knowledge production. It takes no special training or giftedness.  It is something everyone does "intuitively" without any thought.

 

2. Intellectual intuition - ("conceptual postulational thinking") Some, who are trained, can become logicians and mathematicians.  These people must also have a native ability for this type of thought, but anyone can also improve their grasp and use of this sort of knowledge with training. (He does not mean what Kant means by intellectual intuition, which only God would have: thinkings something creates it.)

 

3. Mystical intuition- (''psychical/intuitional thinking") Only a few adepts can reach this type of knowledge which we might call intuitionism.  Through spiritual exercises and asceticism, they reach a non discursive knowledge of God and spiritual things.

 

I think we as Western Evangelicals have traditionally focused on the 2nd tier.  We (like Norman Geisler, for instance) give arguments and expect people to learn to think this way.  (Geisler is actually using Thomas Aquinas' method.) Often average believers cannot follow such arguments. Fundamentalists eschew these arguments for a "simple preaching of the Gospel" or other theologians prefer some sort of fideism.

 

These days more Western Christians are enamoured of Eastern Orthodoxy and just these sorts of mystic experiences and exercises.  Many feel that there is much more than simple rationalistic arguments.  They hate apologetics.  Many are reading the works of mystic saints, e.g., Theresa of Avila, Julian of Norwich, et alia.  Ignatian spirituality is gaining a lot of ground.

 

If Hesselgrave is right, we use all three types of thinking.  Our students from Africa and some parts of Asia are using Concrete relational thinking.  They tell stories and use discrete examples, simple examples.  They often do not understand making an argument and simply continue "circling" around an idea without drawing conclusions and don't see the need for an explanation or a structure.

 

Our attempts to give rational explanations or logical structures (XYZ statements a la Turabian) seem unclear to them, if not pointless.  We need to try harder to use concrete examples, but continue to teach logical argumentation and its importance.

 

Gary Habermas gave me a simple illustration to help people understand the cosmological argument. He would draw a caboose and a train car and ask, "What pulls the caboose?"  He would continue on with car after car and then ask, "But what pulls the whole train?" “The locomotive... This is God. He draws all things towards himself.”  (This is pure Aquinas, his First Way (proof) of his Five Ways; which is also Aristotle's Prime Mover argument.)

 

In Apologetics I would ask students to memorize the ontological, cosmological, teleological, moral or deontological and Francis Schaeffer's argument from the Trinity.  They would memorize like anything. However, they often couldn't explain them at all.

 

The idea of the teleological argument and the moral argument are clear enough and easily demonstrated. Who created the eye? Who is the judge of the moral law within? But still I couldn't get them past raw memorization.

 

North American students and European students (even those without a BA) had no problem with logical arguments or understanding these arguments (even if they thought that they were dull).  My children when they were in high school had a course called "Theory of Knowledge" at the Rijnlands Lyceum in Oegstgeest, the Netherlands.  It was, in fact, a course in argumentation.  They excelled in the class.  When asked how they knew how to argue so well, they said, "Our dad is a philosopher.  We argue this way every night at dinner." ;-)

 

Some professors give some assignments using mystic literature. But in general we as Evangelical eschew the "subjective."  If the subjective is rooted in the scripture, it is not a problem, but as evangelicals we have no authorities, no way to limit such experiences to say which are legitimate.

 

In the Roman Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox Church each monk or nun has a father confessor (a priest), a spiritual director (abbot/ abbess) and must submit to the rites of the church.  They must confess the creeds or symbols of faith.  They must make confession on a regular basis and do penance.  There is a "rule" or “anchor” which directs their days: 

• Matins (during the night, at about 2 a.m.); also called Vigil and perhaps composed of two or three Nocturns
• Lauds or Dawn Prayer (at dawn, about 5 a.m., but earlier in summer, later in winter)
• Prime or Early Morning Prayer (First Hour = approximately 6 a.m.)
• Terce or Mid-Morning Prayer (Third Hour = approximately 9 a.m.)
• Sext or Midday Prayer (Sixth Hour = approximately 12 noon)
• None or Mid-Afternoon Prayer (Ninth Hour = approximately 3 p.m.)
• Vespers or Evening Prayer ("at the lighting of the lamps", about 6 p.m.)
• Compline or Night Prayer (before retiring, about 7 p.m.)

This arrangement of the Liturgy of the Hours is described by Saint Benedict.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_the_Hours#Major_hours

 

There are also rules about working a physical job, a regular routine of the hours and taking the sacrament (Eucharist).

 

There are also the Pope and Magisterium which determine orthodoxy.  A mystic can be disciplined, if they do not follow their Rule or do not take the sacraments or refuse to say the creeds.  

 

In the end only the "profession of the lips" can be known objectively.  If they refuse to say the creeds or promulgate known heresy, they are disciplined.

 

Having a Pope and a Magisterium has been appealing to some who left Evangelicalism (e.g., Thomas Howard, Elizabeth Elliot's brother).  Others want an "Apostolic succession" and a bulwark against modernism (e.g., those who have become RC or EOC to protest ordination of women).

 

Since Protestant churches lack this sort of structure, mysticism is more dangerous and cannot be challenged except by appeal to scripture, though the interpreter can always be rejected (just start another church).

 

Some Reformed communities focus on creeds (and synodal decisions). James KA Smith is a member of a Christian Reformed Church NA congregation.  He manages to stay "orthodox" by submitting to the creeds (I guess), though he attacks logic and "Enlightenment Reason."

 

I think we can learn from Hesselgrave and Lossky.  Most people are on the Concrete - relational level.  They need examples, pictures and stories.  Some are Conceptual - postulational thinkers.  We must teach logic and argumentation, rational belief. We dare not become fideists, which will lead as Hesselgrave says to liberalism and universalism.  We can use psychical - intuitional thinking, but we must be sure to (as we do) ground students in the concrete - relational (OT stories, Gospels), but also insist on learning logical arguments and reasoning (Pauline epistles and apologetics / systematic theology).

 

We who call ourselves Evangelical apologists fall into two camps: Evidentialists and Presuppositionalists.  I am an Evidentialist (like Norman Geisler or William Lane Craig, et alia (those who Smith calls the "California school" (Talbot))). We must be very careful to avoid giving the impression that anyone can interpret the Bible without a worldview (theism and a commitment to rationality, the laws of logic).  We must avoid in my opinion falling into the sort of fideism which Hesselgrave speaks of which lead to the demise of the Japanese Evangelical Church.

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service GIVE

 

Compassion.

It’s what we’re all about.

For 80 years, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS) has been a champion for refugees and migrants from around the globe. We compassionately serve the most vulnerable as they rebuild their lives in America. 

At a time of unprecedented crisis, these newcomers need our help more than ever. Learn more about our work and how you can make a difference today.

DONATE NOW!

Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service (LIRS) HAS WELCOMED MORE THAN 500,000 REFUGEES & MIGRANTS over 80 years!

For 80 years, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service has been a champion for refugees and migrants from around the globe.

Our legacy of compassionate service has made a difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who have found safety and hope in America’s communities.

See their website

Donate to Church World Services!

 Church World Services

Make an impact in our world with your gift today

Excerpt

Our vision is a world where everyone has food, voice and a safe place to call home. To do that, we come alongside families and communities, helping them to make that vision a reality.

... Refugee families are settling into new homes and jobs, far from the conflict that forced them to flee.

Donate here!

Church World Service Celebrates Executive Action to Restore Life-Saving Refugee Resettlement Program

CWS Celebrates Executive Action to Restore Life-Saving Refugee Resettlement Program

Excerpt

“Today is a great day for refugee families seeking safety and the countless American communities who want to welcome them. Our resettlement program should be rooted in compassion and fairness, and today’s order is an important first step to ensuring that it is,” said Rick Santos, President and CEO of Church World Service. “While this is an important step, there is more to be done. The administration must now take additional action, by raising the refugee resettlement goal for this year and by rebuilding this vital system at home and abroad, so the United States can return to its role as a global humanitarian leader during this crisis.”

See the whole article

Biden commits to 125,000 refugee immigrants

Legal immigration to return to earlier levels, but will require rebuilding of some institutions which help

Excerpt

Matthew Soerens, the director of church mobilization at World Relief, one of those resettlement agencies, said his group closed eight offices during the Trump administration. He said resettling 125,000 refugees during the remainder of fiscal year 2021 would likely be impossible, given the current infrastructure.

"We're really eager to rebuild and excited for the opportunity," Soerens told CBS News. "But we're also doing this as quickly as we can with limited resources. It's not going to be something that's going to be rebuilt overnight."

Resettlement agencies receive refugees when they arrive to the U.S. and help them with housing, finding employment, enrolling their children in schools and other matters to facilitate their integration into American communities.

Meredith Owen, the director of policy and advocacy at Church World Service, another resettlement agency, echoed Soerens' comments.

"We're going to need the Biden administration to really take concrete steps to rebuild the overseas and the domestic infrastructure to actually be able to resettle the number of refugees that we're hoping to over the next four years," Owen told CBS News, saying the processing of refugees should also be expedited.

The Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service closed or suspended services at 17 of its 48 resettlement offices during the past four years. While acknowledging the logistical challenges of ramping up refugee admissions, Krish Vignarajah, the group's president, highlighted the symbolism of Mr. Biden's commitment.

"Raising the ceiling will literally be life-saving for hundreds of thousands fleeing violence and persecution because of the color of their skin, how they worship or who they love," Vignarajah told CBS News.

See the whole story

Chapter Two Welcoming Strangers... Who do you see at your door?

 

You can find the video for Chapter 2 here Ch 2 

Text:

We have a war going on about perception, how we see things.  Some argue that only one media network is trustworthy, while others argue a different one is the only one.  Some argue we don’t know the truth, since everything we see has been edited or filmed in a way to convince us of one thing or another.

We often say: “Seeing is believing,” but what if we can’t trust what we see? Much of what we see depends on what we are prepared to see and what we expect to see.

News media makes money by gaining viewers.  Often the most extreme image is used over and over again to catch our attention and to try to convince us to do something else or at least to watch some show.

The National Geographic channel had a series called the “Evolution of Evil.” At one time the commercial for this series ran just about every commercial break.  In that short commercial break, we saw Hitler, Stalin, Osama bin Laden and Kim Jong-Un.  We saw the Twin Towers in New York City fall on September 11th, 2001, over and over and over.  We saw jihadis shouting with AK 47s in their hands.

Certain images move us.  We come to accept a certain view of people and events based on the images we see.

We see Al Shabab Muslim extremists behead someone. These sorts of images “sell” in the sense that they strike a nerve.

The problem is that these images become the “normal” for us.  All Muslims become jihadis.  All Muslims hate Westerners.  All Muslims are blood thirsty.  We have learned this from what we have seen with our own eyes.

However, real life is not so interesting.  We don’t see the other 1.7 million “ordinary” Muslims baking bread, sweeping streets, selling their wares, playing with their children.

We see what we have seen and what we have become conditioned to see. We don’t take the time to see the majority of the people as they are.

A friend was unsure about meeting Muslims, who were immigrants in her neighborhood.  She wondered how they would accept a woman, particularly a middle-aged American woman.  She found to her surprise that they treated her with respect and dignity.  She was surprised when one Muslim man picked up a saxophone and began to play it expertly.  For some reason she hadn’t expected a Muslim to be able to play a saxophone.

As this friend talked to these Muslim immigrants, she finally asked, “Aren’t you angry with Americans?”  To which one man said, “We love the US Marines! We hate our government!  They bombed us!”  Of course, this surprised her.

We are conditioned by our cultures and education to see certain things and people in certain ways. It’s convenient for us to have stereotypes.  No one wants to admit that they have stereotypes, but we all do.

How we see things and people depends on what we have known previously. Throughout history Jews have been despised in many places.  Ashkenazi Jews with long noses, dark hair and dark skin often encountered prejudice and even abuse.  The fact that some religious Jews wear black suits, yarmulkas and fedoras also makes them distinctive.  Also, because religious Jews can sometimes be standoffish towards outsiders, they are seen to be elitist or exclusivist.

Since the Holocaust during World War II, most people in the West know more about Jews.  They recognize at least Ashkenazi, eastern European Jews.  But sometimes they don’t know that there are also Sephardic Jews, who come originally from Spain and Portugal.  Here in the Netherlands the first Jews who came to the Netherlands were Sephardic Jews.  Some Sephardic Jews are blond or red headed and have blue eyes.  Those of us who knew only Ashkenazi Jews are surprised to realize that there blond, blue eyed Jews!  We see what we are prepared to see, what we know.

As we look at immigrants, we tend to see stereotypes, if for no other reason than we don’t know anything else. Stereotypes allow us to deal with abstractions: “Muslims” or “Hispanics.”  However, anyone with knowledge of “Hispanics” knows that you should never confuse a Cuban with a Puerto Rican or a Puerto Rican with a Mexican.  Here in the Netherlands and in neighboring Belgium to call a Fleming (a “Dutch” speaking Belgian) a Dutch man is an insult! 

When we get to know individuals, we come to understand that while they might belong to a larger group (“Muslims”), they as individuals may belong to a smaller subset, which hates another subset.  Some Sunni Muslims hate Shi'a Muslims.  Sunni Muslims are committed to the legacy of the Prophet Muhammad as expressed in traditions passed on by him to his relatives.  Shi’a Muslims follow a leader, an imam or Ayatollah. Many Iraqi Muslims are Sunni, while Irani Muslims are Shi’a.  Many Sunni Muslims consider Shi’a Muslims to be heretics and vice versa.

For many of us that have grown up in the Western world we have never had to learn or had occasion to learn such distinctions.  Perhaps you know that Turks hate Kurds and Kurds hate Turks.  However, both groups are Muslims.

My point is that all of us see what we are accustomed to see. I was in the London Heathrow Airport in a long snaking security line waiting to reach the security point.  Another American near me cocked his head at a security guard and said, “Look, they have Muslim security guards.” I turned and said, “He’s not a Muslim.  He is a Sikh.  Sikhs have been the queen’s personal body guards for hundreds of years.  He doesn’t like Muslims.”  My countryman in the line did not know a Sikh from a Muslim, but why would he without being taught to know the difference between a Sikh turban and netted beard compared to a Muslims white turban and flowing beard?

We should not make assumptions about people merely based on appearances.  We should get to know people as people.  Rather than fearing a stranger who “looks dangerous,” we should try to get to know that person as my friend did when she met the Muslim man who could play the saxophone.

When we reach out to be helpful to immigrants, we learn more about the world and about ourselves.  We grow. We learn.  We come to appreciate others.

When you have made friends with Ahmed and Afra and they invite you to a lovely dinner of lamb and tabouleh followed by a dessert of baklava, they cease to be an abstraction and a threat and become real people. When Ahmed asks you in a Bible study whether you believe in jin (demons) and you have to explain that you do and why, you grow.

There was another image which was repeatedly broadcast on television in the last several years. It was a haunting image. It was a picture of a father who was kneeling on the beach of a Greek island. The father was holding his dead three-year-old son.  His son had drowned.  Migrants hoping to reach the coast of a Greek island from Turkey are often put into boats which are not seaworthy.  The boat that this father and son were on had sunk.  The son was drowned and the father had not been able to save him.

People all over the world were struck by the image.  The father’s grief was palpable.  Almost anyone could identify with his anguish.

When we see another person, who is in need or in pain, we empathize.  We want to help. At least we want to help when we are at our best.  At our worst we turn away or change the channel.

When we see that father, we become in a way responsible for him. We feel an ethical responsibility for that man and his situation.

Jesus told us to love others as we would have them love us.  We must ask what we should do for these people.

It’s too easy to say, “I didn’t start that war! I’m not responsible for their suffering.” No, but we are responsible for our own reaction: Will we turn away, change the channel or respond from a heart of compassion?

That father might have been a Syrian fleeing Aleppo, a city which was repeatedly bombed until there was no “home” left. I met Syrians on the Greek island of Lesvos in the Migrant Detention Centre.  That man could easily have been someone I would have met there.

Rather than seeing enemies or jihadis or “dirty foreigners” we need to look at these suffering people through the eyes of Christ, through the eyes of compassion.  “In as much as you did it to the least of these, you did it to me."

Chapter one: Welcoming Strangers... or Terrorists?

In this video I am introducing Chapter one of Entertaining Angels Unaware: Welcoming the Immigrant Other.

You can find the video here Chapter one

Text:

Chapter 1 Welcoming Strangers … or Terrorists?

My name is Phil Gottschalk and I have written a book called Entertaining Angels Unaware: Welcoming the Immigrant Other. I am making a series of videos to highlight the chapters of my book. This video is about Chapter one Welcoming Strangers... or Terrorists?

One summer when I was in college I worked in a print shop in Madison, WIsconsin.  Every lunch time the whole crew would gather around the radio and listen to the inimitable Paul Harvey read “The Rest of the News.” Paul Harvey had a very distinctive voice and style as he read the news.  I’m not sure what made it “the Rest of the News,” but he had a way of reading the advertisements in the same way he read the stories and without any pause between them.  He would also say, “Page 2” as he started the next page.

I don’t know whether Chapter one of my book is “the Rest of the News,” but it was a chapter I didn’t want to write.

I really didn’t want to argue about terrorists or terrorism, because legal immigrants haven’t been and aren’t terrorists. However, a good friend said that I could not publish a book about immigrants without addressing the issue of terrorism. So I did.

My main argument regarding legal immigrants to the United States is quite simple: no immigrant who entered the U.S. on an immigrant visa has killed anyone since the mid 1970s.  The odds of an American citizen in the US being killed by a legal immigrant are 1 to 3.86 billion per year.  In other words you’re more likely to be struck by lightening.  It hasn’t happened in a long time.

But what about the 9/11 bombers?

There is a lot of confusion real or imagined about legal immigrants and terrorism.  The first issue is that people confuse some terrorists with legal immigrants. As soon as I say that there have been no killings by legal immigrants in the US since the mid-1970s, people begin to list “immigrants” who have killed others in the US.

The 9/11 bombers usually spring to mind.  However, none of them were legal immigrants.  They entered the U.S. on student, tourist and business visas. As well, they were from Saudi Arabia and not any of the countries labeled as “state sponsors of terrorism.”

PAUSE

Some have pointed to the Tsarnaev brothers, who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing.  However, they were not vetted through the normal process used for legal immigrants who apply from abroad.  They were children when their parents were admitted on tourist visas. Later their parents sought political asylum, which follows a different process than legal immigration through the UNHCR and US Resettlement Support Centers. They did not undergo the rigorous vetting refugees hoping to become legal immigrants receive. 

Others have pointed to the San Bernardino shooters, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik.  However, Syed was born in the US.  His wife, was admitted to the US on a K1 Fiancée visa, not an immigrant visa. Thus, she did not go through the same scrutiny a legal immigrant goes through.

Again the facts are simple: there has been no killing by a legal immigrant since the mid-1970s and the odds of being killed by a legal immigrant are 1 to 3.86 billion per year.  The report which contains these facts was trying to assess whether the US government could make US citizens more safe by spending more money.  The conclusion of the report was “No.” The US spends 13.5 million dollars per year per citizen to keep US citizens safe.  No amount of money could make US citizens any safer.

So what can be done to stop attacks by “home grown” terrorists, those who have been radicalized in the US? I’m sure in the US the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and other agencies are doing all they can. This is not the focus of my book.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion mean that people can read and believe what they want.  However, criminal acts must always be prosecuted.

The law is the law.  This has confused some people I have talked to.  I am not advocating receiving anyone and everyone as an immigrant.

People on both sides of this issue confuse and conflate (bring together) various issues. Part of what I am trying to do in the book is to explain who is and who is not a legal immigrant.

I do not make any attempt to say anything about immigrants who cross the US southern border illegally (illegal immigrants). M. Daniel Caroll R (Rodas), himself half Guatemalan and an American evangelical Christian, a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College in Illinois, has written an excellent book on that topic: Christians at the Border: Immigration, the Church, and the Bible. I cannot speak credibly to that issue.  He has and can. I heartily recommend his book.

I want people to understand that legal immigrants are safe. Legal immigrants have been vetted as extremely as anyone could possibly vet them.

To become a refugee you must first apply to the UNHCR for that status.  When a person asks for that status, they are first labeled a “migrant.” Getting the refugee status is not a given or easy. 

Biometric data: photographs, fingerprints, history, identification verification, health checks and more are used to make sure the person asking for this status is in fact a refugee. This status is not granted lightly or quickly.

In the case of legal immigration to the United States a person’s case then goes to a US Resettlement Support Center located outside the US.  The same processing takes place for a second time.

Once a person is considered a safe person for legal immigration to the US, a US based agency has to volunteer to receive them, like the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS).  This group promises care for the integration of these legal immigrants in the US.

A potential legal immigrant can even be stopped at the US border and refused entry, if for any reason these legal immigrants might be judged dangerous.  In fact the process can be started again for any reason the government deems worthy.  One family had to restart the process due to the birth of a baby.

The US government does all that it can to ensure that those who enter the US as legal immigrants are safe and trustworthy.  Those who have worked with this system know that it is extremely careful and credible.

So, remember there has been no killing by a legal immigrant in the US since the mid 1970s and the odds of being killed by a legal immigrant are 1 to 3.86 billion per year.  You don’t need to fear legal immigrants or be reticent to help them.

I have focused in this chapter on legal immigration to the United States.  In other chapters I will speak about immigration in Europe.  Stay tuned!

+++++++++++

These statistics come from a risk analysis written by Alex Nowrasteh of the CATO Institute. “Terrorists by Immigration Status and Nationality: A Risk Analysis, 1975–2017” 

May 7, 2019 • Policy Analysis No. 866 

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorists-immigration-status-nationality-risk-analysis-1975-2017 

Entertaining Angels Unaware: Introduction Welcoming the Immigrant Other

I have made a short video introducing the book.  

You can find it here Entertaining Angels Intro

Text:

Where’s the beef?

My name is Phil Gottschalk and I have written a book called Entertaining Angels Unaware: Welcoming the Immigrant Other. 

In general I’d say that my book is like a hamburger, which is composed of different parts. Some chapters are technical and difficult, but they had to be to deal with the content of that chapter.  Some chapters are full of true stories about people, heroes I call them, who helped refugees and immigrants.  Some chapters are biblical exposition for how we should deal with refugees and immigrants.  Some chapters are more philosophical attempting to bring across not only facts, but feelings; how being a refugee or an immigrant feels.

When I was a teen, Wendy’s restaurant opened.  It was competition to McDonald’s and Burger King at the time.

Wendy’s had a series of ads, which featured a white haired old lady asking, “Where’s the beef?” The idea was that Wendy’s hamburgers had more beef, while competitors emphasized either special sauces or flame broiled burgers.

My dad developed a lot of food allergies as he got older.  He couldn’t eat anything with glutin in it.  So much for his beloved Cinnamon buns! 

However, at Wendy’s my dad got more beef for his buck. So my dad would order his double and take the bun off and set it aside.  He couldn’t eat the bun, but he could eat the salad and the beef patties. Boy, could he eat the beef!  He could even eat their chili!

My book is like a burger.  There is “real beef” in the book.  The core of the book is the stories of heroes who cared for refugees and immigrants.  There’s a lot more to the book, but the stories are the core.

There are tough chapters of analysis and exposition of how different countries have deal with or deal with immigrants.  They are good solid chapters, but perhaps just a little too heavy for some. If you are reading my book, you might want to skip some parts or chapters that seem irrelevant to you.  I believe all the chapters have something to say, but if you don’t understand a chapter or it sets you off, skip to the next one. The various chapters work together like the perfect burger, but if you’re allergic to parts or you don’t want the sauce, skip to another chapter.

Why should you listen to me?

When I showed up in Leuven, Belgium where I studied, I was telling stories about our experiences in Yugoslavia, where we spent the first ten years of our missionary career.  Some people thought I was telling “tall tales.” I think I laid that to rest when I was speaking in Russian one day with a Russian Ukrainian fellow student.  After I wrote my MA thesis about a Russian Jewish philosopher, I think people began to realize my stories were real.

The stories in my book are real.  There is in one sense no political agenda to my book.  My goal in the book is to motivate Christians, evangelical Christians especially since that is my “pedigree” as a missionary and teacher, to help immigrants.

Finally I want to say that you should be careful not to believe reviews or accept a short portion of the book, which you might read on some website, as representative of the book or its main message.  You won’t know the whole book without sampling several or all of the chapters.

Don’t miss the beef! If you have been turned off by one chapter or even two.  Read on or skip to the next section.  The beef of the book is the stories of the heroes, those who have helped the refugees and immigrants. 

So who am I?

Briefly I am a professor at Tyndale Theological Seminary near Amsterdam, the Netherlands.  I have lived in Communist Yugoslavia, Austria, Serbia, Belgium and the Netherlands.  I have experienced dealing with refugees in all of these countries, as well as in Greece.  If you wish to know more of who I am, you can go to our seminary’s website: tyndale-europe.edu and look for me under the Resident Faculty members.