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.

Entertaining Angels Unaware: Welcoming the Immigrant Other

My book is now available in paperback and hardback directly from Wipf & Stock (though it is a Cascade imprint).  

https://wipfandstock.com/9781725259478/entertaining-angels-unaware/

One can also buy an epub version (Google Play).

https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Philip_A_Gottschalk_Entertaining_Angels_Unaware?id=aE8TEAAAQBAJ

Gottschalk Gazette December 2020

 Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

 

Dear Friends,

 

We want to pause to say, “Thank you!” for your prayers, friendship and encouragement. We have finished our Fall 2020 semester Final Exam Week this past week at Tyndale Theological Seminary in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.  Linda and I are so grateful to all of you who continue to support us.

 

August 2020 marked our twentieth year at Tyndale Theological Seminary and our 30th year in Europe.  

 

The past Spring 2020 semester and this Fall 2020 semester have been rather bizarre due to the COVID virus.  In the Spring 2020 our faculty, staff and students managed to avoid any infections, but we had a pretty strict lockdown in the Netherlands, which the government ordered.  In mid-March 2020 we started to teach all classes virtually using video conferencing.  

 

Linda and I decided not to travel to the US this past summer of 2020 due to COVID.  Others on our faculty and staff did return to the US and some, who returned to NL from the US, fell ill with COVID.

 

This past summer (2020) while on vacation we prayed and sought the Lord about our future. As we reported earlier, we believe the Lord is leading us to leave Tyndale in June 2021.  We plan to return to the US for a year and then to go to Zaporozhye, Ukraine for two to four years (until 2024-26) before we officially retire. We will teach as a part of the Master of Theology program of the Zaporozhye Bible Seminary where we have taught before and where Phil has been coordinating the MTh program.

 

We returned to the classroom at the end of August 2020 only to have the seminary shut down an extra week during our normal Fall 2020 Reading Week (so two weeks).  Unfortunately, the second wave of COVID affected 30-40% of our faculty, staff and students.  One student was hospitalized and is still struggling.

 

After that Fall 2020 extra week-long Reading Week (two weeks) some professors elected to continue with face-to-face classes and others, like us, decided to return to video conferencing classes. Throughout the Fall 2020 semester Linda struggled with two health crises, one being COVID. Thankfully, she is fully recovered from both.

 

LIke many of you we have also had to suffice with virtual church.  We both miss singing and playing in the music group at church.  Both of us have contributed to the worship by recording sermons and music for some of these services.  Our church has decided to cancel Christmas Eve services due to the new measures instituted by the Dutch government on COVID.

 

Since we expect to sell our home here in the Netherlands in June 2021 we are in the process of sorting, packing and giving things away. We have accumulated a lot of stuff here in Europe over the past 34 years.  This process is both one of a slow saying goodbye and more or less a process of cutting down what will remain in Europe and what will either be sent to the US or given away.

 

Despite the circumstances we have taught a large number of courses.  Phil taught Foundations for Theology, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the History of Philosophy I in the Spring 2020 Semester.  Linda was on sabbatical and worked on writing a history of Tyndale Theological Seminary which is about half done.  

 

In the Fall 2020 Semester Phil has taught the Ethics of War, Peace and Peace-making, Communicating Christ to Postmodern Culture and Introduction to Islamic Philosophy.  He also had three mentees for spiritual formation and one Master of Evangelical Theology thesis writer. Linda taught Research Methods (two sections: Master of Divinity and Master of Evangelical Theology) and Topics from the Reformation. She had worked with one MET thesis student, but that was the student who came down with COVID and was hospitalized and then decided to stop her studies for this semester.

 

In Spring 2021 Phil will teach the same three courses as last Spring semester.  He will also have the three mentees for spiritual formation and the thesis writer who will hopefully defend his thesis in May. Linda will teach Modern Church History and Thesis Prospectus (helping MET thesis writers develop their thesis proposals).

 

We appreciate how you have continued to support us financially and emotionally with your prayers and encouragement. We are grateful to you and the Lord that we have had 30 years of ministry in Europe next summer.  We hope by God’s grace to last until we hit 40 years as missionaries in 2024.

 

Warmly in Christ,

Phil & Linda Gottschalk

Going! Going! Gone!

 

As the current, but not for long Chair of the Division of Theological and Historical Studies at Tyndale Theological Seminary near Amsterdam, the Netherlands I would like to share a few thoughts.

 

You all know that I like science fiction both to read and to watch. The movie Ghost in the Shell came out a couple years ago. Ghost in the Shell is a Japanese anime (cartoon) series of graphic novels and anime movies, however in this iteration it was done with live actors and CGI.

 

The main protagonist is Major Mira Killian, the Ghost in the Shell, who is played by Scarlett Johansson. Mira was murdered and then her brain was put into a cyborg body. The main theme is how she tries to understand who and what she is.

 

At one point in the movie she is discussing this with the scientist Dr. Oulet, who “created” her. Outlet is played by actress Juliette Binoche. To keep Mira on focus with her task of fighting terrorists, the scientist has regularly “wiped her memories” and given her false memories to motivate her. Mira has some flashbacks, but cannot figure out what they mean.

 

Dr. Outlet says to Mira:

 

“We cling to memories as if they are what defines us, but what we do defines us.”

 

I was struck by this statement. There are layers of irony in the film, but on face value this statement is pregnant with wisdom.

 

We cling to our memories, our successes, our accomplishments as if they define us, and they do to a point, but we always face the danger of falling into defending who we are by our past accomplishments. In a publish or perish academic institution one must, well, publish or perish.

 

In the sort of institution Tyndale is, as Cecil Stalnaker, our long time Missions professor, used to call it, a mission school, the roles of the faculty and staff constantly change. This can be due to shortages of personnel either administrative or academic, as it was in the past. In the past everyone carried several administrative jobs as well as academic jobs. We all pitched in and did what we needed to do to keep the school going.

 

As the faculty and staff have expanded there is no longer the need for us to do several administrative jobs or to carry a heavy load of courses. We can divide and conquer now.

 

For me this time has been in many way enjoyable. I have been able to focus on a few courses I excel in and feel passionate about and to develop some electives which I like.

 

Another thing I have tried to do is to mentor my successors. I count Szaszi Bene to some degree, Rahman Yakubu, and Solomon Dimitriadis,as some I have tried to encourage and even Bob Landon as a former student. I hope that all of us who are going, going, gone sooner rather than later are focusing on helping younger colleagues get their feet and find their place.

 

However, every era comes to an end. Throughout the past twenty years I have survived several changes of presidents, vice presidents, academic deans and even colleagues who unfortunately came and went for a variety of reasons. Each time we reinvented ourselves. 

 

Accreditation was a great accomplishment, but like many things it is not a “once and for all” accomplishment. It is moving target as we are assessed and given requirements for change.

 

“We cling to memories as if they are what defines us, but what we do defines us.”

 

The past is the past. It may be a foundation, but it is gone. What we do now is what defines us.

5-4

5-4

When Brett Kavanaugh was added to the US Supreme Court, “Conservatives” got control of the Court. When Amy Coney Barrett was added the Court went 6-3. Some hope that the US Supreme Court will rule in their favor. We shall see.

 

5-4

was also another significant margin of votes for me. I have been obsessing lately about news related to the US Presidential election. I was very, very afraid that there would be violence particularly on the Saturday after the election after news media had called the election. That feeling wasn’t lessened much when I saw Rick Santorum say that he thought what the President was tweeting was dangerous. Santorum in no liberal. He is a Republican of sure pedigree.

 

Why I asked myself was I so worried about violence starting in the US following this election? Was it just news media winding me up?

 

As I was preparing my class today, the Ethics of War, Peace and Peacemaking to speak about my experiences in Yugoslavia, I realized why I was so upset and worried about the possibility of violence in the US following the election: I’ve been there and done that.

 

As a naïve and ardent young missionary, I took my family to Belgrade, Yugoslavia in 1986. Through the 1970s and into the 1980s Yugoslavia had been the picture poster child of Communism. The Adriatic coast brought movie stars to vacation there. The Winter Olympics had taken place in Sarajevo in 1984. Belgrade is a lovely town on the Danube River. Who could imagine the violence and destruction that would soon descend on Yugoslavia? But a young Serbian Communist politician called Slobodan Milosevic wanted to replace Josip Broz Tito who had been the leader of Yugoslavia after World War II.

There were changes which Milosevic wanted to make that would make him the “king” in Yugoslavia. The numbers were 5-4.

 

Tito had devised a very, as some say, “torturous” system of government in Yugoslavia. Each of the six republics: Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia & Hercegovina, Montenegro and Macedonia had a seat in the Presidium, the highest ruling body. The leadership of the Presidium rotated through the republic leaders to try to keep a balance.

 

There was a large number of Serbs in Yugoslavia. They were about a third of the population and the largest group. The Serbian king had ruled Yugoslavia before the World War II Allies had replaced him with Tito. The Serbs wanted power.

 

Tito kept the Serbs from power by a unique system: 5-4. Each republic has a vote on the Presidium. So, there were six votes. However, to control the Serbs Tito divided Serbia into three parts: Vojvodina (in the north), Serbia proper and Kosovo (in the south). Vojvodina and Kosovo were given autonomous status within Serbia. Vojvodina is a very ethnically mixed area with Serbs, Slovaks, Czechs, Romanians and Hungarians. Kosovo, though the home and birthplace of the Serbian people, was 90% Albanian. Each autonomous region had their own courts, government and executive branch. Each of the autonomous regions had a vote on the Presidium. So, the result was 6-3: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia & Hercegovina, Macedonia, Vojvodina & Kosovo vs Serbia, Montenegro, and the Army which had a vote.

However, Slobodan Milosevic and his forces changed the Serbian Republic’s Constitution taking autonomous status away from Kosovo and Vojvodina. Thus, Serbia had now 5-4: Serbia (with Vojvodina & Kosovo), Montenegro & the Army vs Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia & Hercegovina and Macedonia.

 

When Serbia manage to pass this change and gain a 5-4 advantage in the Presidium, in effect control of the country, first Slovenia and then Croatia seceded from the Union of Federated Socialist  Republics of Yugoslavia. The real war started with the secession of Bosnia & Hercegovina. Bosnia & Hercegovina was about 1/3 Serb. The Serbs in Serbia proper were not about to allow the Bosnian government to control those people. The war, which the West calls the “Bosnian War,” started in earnest. To the Serbs it was always a “Civil” War since the three republics seceded (though the Serbs changing the Constitution precipitated the war).

 

5-4

So, 5-4 and more 6-3 frightens me. People feel justified. This is the way the system works. The President was able put three Justices on the Supreme Court. Now he should be able to expect support for his court cases.

 

Will “We the People” end because of 5-4 or 6-3? There may not be violence in the US on the scale of former Yugoslavia and everyone in the US thinks they are far above that sort of war. But are we? Many see their candidate as God’s choice. Many see the other side as godless or religious maniacs. Yet, the country is almost literally divided in half in terms of the popular vote. We are a nation divided. E pluribus plures. “From the many, many.”

 

I hope that the US does not descend to the madness of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. However, I have seen how populism, nationalism and religious fanaticism can end. Compromise is the essence of democracy. If we cannot get past our demonizing of the other side and start to work together, we are doomed. Sooner or later our country will descend into violence or dictatorship. We must work together. We must live together. We must care for each other.

 

Three keys of a speech

 

When I was taking a preaching course or perhaps it was a pastoral duties course in seminary, my professor said that there were three elements of rhetoric or speech: pathos, ethos and logos.

 

Pathos means, in effect, emotion or passion. If a speaker does not touch the emotions of his or her audience, then he or she will likely not be persuasive. Some preachers and speakers can “play the audience like an organ,” my professor said. They know how to play on emotions. Other speakers, who have something to say, may fail to convince because they do not move peoples’ passions.

Ethos means that a speaker is a moral person or has moral authority to speak. If a person has the right message, but is perceived as having no character, then he or she probably won’t be convincing. On the other hand, if the speaker has a long track record of speaking truthfully, keeping his or her word, and is known to be a morally good and consistent person, then his or her message is more likely to be received and be persuasive.

 

Logos means a message. For a speaker to communicate something, the speaker has to have something to say, a message, a word. Often it seems some speakers are great with pathos, they know how to persuade an audience, even if their message might be lacking. At other times those with ethos, moral authority, may be mistaken and advance a message that is false or faulty. In effect they may abuse their moral high ground to advance a questionable message.

 

Evangelical preachers tend to focus on logos, the word, or message. Is our exegesis, our biblical interpretation right? Some preachers, however, have been consummate “organ players” and even though they had fantastic “falls from grace” (committed obvious and egregious sins), however, they continued to be allowed to preach by their audiences. Some preachers, as I just mentioned, have lost their moral authority due to sinful behavior. However, people follow them because at least for a while the message seems sound.

 

We Evangelicals need to focus on ethos. We have always been strong on logos. I am proud that I have learned biblical Greek and Hebrew and that I went to one of the best Evangelical seminaries in America. However, I am appalled when I see well-known preachers deliberately sin over a long period of time and be “forgiven,” as if their sins made no difference to being qualified to preach the Bible.

I’m also afraid that Evangelicals have become showmen or show women. It’s easy, if you are a persuasive speaker, to move peoples’ passions. It is harder to persuade them to live godly lives. The scriptures warn that in the end times (the last days) people will gather to themselves preachers who will “tickle their itching ears.” 2 Timothy 4:3 

 

“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

 

This means that rather than ask preachers to speak God’s truth to them in an uncompromising way, people will seek preachers that make them feel good and give them esoteric knowledge, rather than provoke them to lively godly lives.

 

I could tell many stories and it is not my purpose to bash anyone in particular, however, I know of one extremely well-known preacher who committed adultery and left his wife. He tried to force his son to side with him and not his mother. The son declined.

 

I don’t know all of the circumstances of this case, but it was pretty clear. I know that at times marriages are in bad shape and some don’t survive, but when you have been preaching faithful marital monogamy for decades and then take a “trophy wife,” there’s a fundamental problem with your ethos.

I used to think that logos was the essential element to good preaching. Who can argue with a sound exposition of the World of God? (At least among Evangelicals). But it is too easy to say the right words, to sign the doctrinal statement and harder to maintain ones’ spiritual life and integrity.

 

We need logos to have a sound message. We need pathos to be able to persuade people to follow the Truth. But without ethos we have nothing to say that anyone will hear.