All posts by David Osielski

The Rhetoric of AIDS

Why what we say about this global disease matters.

A few years ago, I was traveling in Kenya and Rwanda, researching the rhetoric of the evangelical sexual abstinence movement. Although HIV prevalence rates in sub-Saharan Africa are some of the highest in the world, I was surprised to find that few young people mentioned the fear of AIDS as a motivation for abstinence.

A development worker responded matter-of-factly that African teenagers know all about AIDS, but figure they will die from malaria first, or even a car accident. I was stunned. In our country, talk about AIDS in Africa often sidesteps the thornier issues of poverty and oppression. The problem is much deeper and broader than a slogan on a T-shirt.

Is AIDS a symptom of global poverty or a gay disease? Is it a worldwide pandemic or a fashion statement?

For many of us, our only experience with something like AIDS is through the words and images that shape our understanding of its reality. This is the realm of rhetoric. In a political campaign season, we tend to associate “rhetoric” with bluster and pretension. Aristotle defined rhetoric as the art of persuasion. Current scholarship expands rhetoric to the study of symbols and their role in shaping meaning.

The new frontier in the struggle against HIV/AIDS is not medical or even political; it is cultural. New York Times Magazine reports that fear of stigma is preventing HIV-positive pregnant women in South Africa from taking an antiretroviral that reduces disease transmission to their babies (by rhonda). We have the medical technology to curb HIV; in some cases, it is cost effective and readily available. But what will persuade young mothers to swallow the pill?

Our words are powerful. Genesis tells us that God spoke the worlds into being. As co-creators with God, our words can build up or tear down.Through the power of the Holy Spirit speaking through us, we can give voice to the voiceless.

Our words influence our action. In the case of AIDS, framing the disease as a symptom of global poverty expands the scope of our care.

Our words also serve to constitute our character. Focusing only on AIDS in Africa ignores the scope of the crisis and portrays the church as hierarchical in its outreach, as if some people are more worthy of care than others.

Cultural critic Douglas Crimp has provocatively stated that “AIDS does not exist apart from the practices that conceptualize it, represent it, and respond to it.” The study of rhetoric at Wheaton is not just about “talk.” This isn’t ivory-tower theory. This is roll-up-your-sleeves theory in action. Issues like AIDS are matters of life and death. Our words can make the difference.

—–
Dr. Christine J. Gardner, Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Culture, teaches a course on the rhetoric of AIDS, serves as chair of President Litfin’s Task Force on HIV/AIDS, and advises the Student Global AIDS Campaign. She received her Ph.D. from Northwestern University, and has worked professionally in radio broadcasting, public relations, and print journalism. Christy and her husband, Brian, who works in development for Wheaton, are both from the Pacific Northwest. (The above statement was included at the time of publication — Wheaton Magazine, Autumn 2007)

 

Veritas

 

Has the pursuit of truth become irrelevant in the 21st century?

Truth matters—now more than ever. In recent years, I have watched the pursuit of truth wane in popular focus as well as intellectual discourse. A generation ago, Dr. Arthur Holmes ’50, M.A. ’52, encouraged graduates of Wheaton College to scrutinize carefully the truth in all realms of intellectual inquiry. Truth must emerge from biblical revelation in concert with the evidence God has proclaimed in His created order. Theory and evidence are married together, creating a symphony of insights that are relevant on and off campus.

I contend that the neglect of truth is potentially catastrophic for world civilizations, for truth is the gravity that draws human beings to the holiness of our Lord. Truth matters even more in a diverse, complex, and violent world for individuals and social systems alike.

Our Lord stated that possessing the truth makes us free. There has never been a riper time for Christians to pursue knowledge and truth than in this age of confusion. Talk shows promulgate specious ideas without sanctions. Other media outlets regress to levels of simplicity that often border on stupidity. Prophetic voices are muted by vacuous sound bites and petty sensationalism throughout popular culture. Like an epidemic of
obesity for the mind caused by the junk food of ideas, we languish in confusion as great visions and ideals atrophy under the oppression of relativism or the utter foolishness of dogmatism. The Columbia University historian, Jacques Barzun, has suggested in a recent monograph that our civilization has moved toward moral decadence. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. warned us generations ago about living in an age of guided missiles and misguided human beings.

Into this conceptual chaos, the students of Wheaton College must be educated to pursue truth, while recognizing the inherent biases, limitations, wounds, and pathologies of the human condition. Redemption must triumph over idiocy. Truth crushed to the ground must rise again (by tomoson). Good must prevail over evil, as Dr. Roger Depue (a Christian and former organizational leader of the FBI’s legendary Behavioral Science Unit) concludes in his recent book, Between Good and Evil, after decades of confronting the most horrendous evils among humankind.

At Wheaton, the legacy of Drs. Art Holmes, Merrill C. Tenney HON, Sam Schultz HON, Zondra Lindblade ’55, Norman Ewert, Donald Lake ’59, M.A. ’60, and many others, has created an intergenerational tapestry of truth where the integration of faith and learning can extend Christ’s kingdom to the problems of urban schools, crime, missions, inequalities, and churches.

Truth always matters at Wheaton College.

—–
Dr. Henry Lee Allen ’77, Professor of Sociology, teaches courses on the sociology of education, criminology, and urban sociology. He has consulted with the National Education Association, the FBI Academy, the American Bible Society, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Federal Correctional Facility in Pekin (Ill.), the Kettering Foundation, and the Aspen Institute. Dr. Allen has published many scholarly articles about the sociology of higher education and faith and learning. (The above statement was included at the time of publication — Wheaton Magazine, Spring 2007)

On Becoming a Father

God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. And because you are children, Cod has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” — Galatians 4:4-6

In the spring of 1998, shortly after Easter, my wife, Karen, and I traveled to Guatemala to meet our first child, Magdalena. We sat expectantly in our hotel room that morning, talking and praying, trying to quiet our hearts caught in the sway of so much emotion. At noon there was a knock; in walked our lawyer, our translator, and Maria, Magdalena’s foster mother.

Maria placed three-and-a-half-month- old Magdalena in Karen’s arms, and we both shed tears of joy and relief. Maria had dressed Magdalena up for the occasion and wrapped a white ribbon around her head. She was beautiful.

When we sat down to talk about things like bottles and diapers, Karen took notes while Maria sat next to me with Magdalena on her lap. Magdalena and I locked gazes and seemed to recognize each other immediately, father and daughter. She smiled. I was in love. “Go to your papa,” Maria said, presenting her to me.

This meeting heralded the end of a long wait. We had submitted our application at the beginning of Advent, making the anticipation of the Christ child very special that year. The story of Mary took on new meaning for me; she was a young woman who conceived a child out of wedlock.Joseph married her, never mind social stigma or scorn. He loved Jesus, and adopted him as his son. Our Savior was not born into ideal or fortunate circumstances. I understood this more deeply now.

Magdalena was born on New Year’s Day. We were notified shortly afterward. The wait until our spring meeting seemed interminable; we could hardly bear it.

But during that time a friend, also an adoptive father, said to me that our way of building a family mirrors the gospel. The Old Testament, he suggested, is about biology, who begat whom, the salvation of Israel and the Jewish people. The New Testament is about adoption, the grace of God extended to all of us as a free gift, regardless of the circumstances of our birth. God woos us to come, see His face, and find our true identity. We all can become God’s children.

We repeated the adoption process four years later when our son, Teodor, came to us and completed our family. When I look back, I see that as I anticipated my children’s homecomings, I might have had a small glimpse of God’s yearning for each of us.

Greg Halvorsen Schreck,Chair and Associate Professor of Art, has taught photography at Wheaton since 1989, in addition to accepting commissions as a fine art and portrait photographer He and his wife, Karen Halvorsen Schreck ’84, and their two children, Magdalena and Teodor, live in Wheaton. (Wheaton Magazine, Autumn 2006).

 

Breaking the Unwritten Rules

One need not be well-versed in the intricate details of rules of etiquette to know some basic truths about the unspoken rules of “polite” conversation. There are two topics that a polite guest never broaches at a dinner party: politics and religion.

Why might etiquette books warn people to steer clear of these subjects? Why are discussions of religion and politics so often taboo? It seems to me that the answer is quite straightforward: many individuals have very strong, deeply held beliefs about both.

Conversations about religion and politics tap into core values and beliefs, so these discussions can easily become deeply personal and polarizing.

Consequently, far too few people engage in open and honest communication that crosses religious and ideological lines.

As a scholar of American politics who teaches at Wheaton, I constantly examine the intersection of religious and political worldviews. Although tackling these subjects is not always comfortable and easy, such conversations are not only valuable—they are essential. To understand American politics today, one needs to understand the ways in which religious values and beliefs inform political behavior. To enter political debates about candidates and public policy, one needs working knowledge of the structure and limitations of American government.

I often hear people voice frustration with public discourse about Christianity and politics. From mainstream media portrayals that often fail to “get” religion, to the caricatures of Christians as single-minded ideologues, popular notions of faith and politics are often oversimplified and flawed. Compounding this problem, some churches preach ideology and single-issue politics instead of training parishioners to think biblically and theologically about politics and public policy. American Christians have very few resources to help them develop a thoughtful and informed approach to political issues and elections.

During my sabbatical next year, I will be writing a book tentatively titled Before Left and Right: what Every Christian Needs to Know about American Politics. Instead of repeating dogmatic arguments from the political left or right, this project will describe key elements of the American political system and help Christians apply their faith to their voting and civic participation. Drawing upon themes from 1 Corinthians 12 and 13, I build a case for politics as a means of demonstrating love in action and building the body of Christ.

This book will not claim to provide the only Christian interpretation of politics and political issues; instead, it begins with two central assumptions: first, that we all “see through a glass, darkly” and therefore should exercise humility when discussing politics; and second, that the diversity of the body of Christ makes room for Christians to disagree on many political matters. My hope is to educate and inform readers so that they will be equipped to serve Christ and His kingdom in the public square.

—–
Dr. Amy E. Black, Associate Professor of Politics and International Relations, who earned her Ph.D. from M.I.T., specializes in American politics and currently serves as the vice president and president-elect of Christians in Political Science. She and her husband, Dan Treier, assistant professor of theological studies at Wheaton, have found that religion and politics can indeed make an excellent combination. (Wheaton Magazine, Spring 2006)

Why Anthropology?

As a cultural anthropologist, people often find what I do very interesting. They like to hear about my time in the Philippines or subsequent travels to “out of the way” places. But even though it is interesting, many still think it is not terribly relevant.

I’ve come to believe that anthropological knowledge is more than interesting—for the Christian, it is imperative.

We can often see the benefit of anthropology for missionaries; but what’s the relevance for “the rest of us”? The fact is, most evangelical Christians now live outside of North America or Europe. They are not to be relegated simply as subjects of mission, but our brothers and sisters in Christ. Understanding what God is doing in these places is not about “them,” it is about us—the global church. Sure, we can live “good” Christian lives with no knowledge of other Christians whatsoever, just as we can come to a saving faith by simply reading Romans and nothing else. But God desires that we would know the richness of His Kingdom (Eph. 2.7), not just the minimum.

Moreover, increasing numbers of people are in contact with “cultural otherness,” whether through short-term service trips, or among cultural minorities in the U.S. Can we demonstrate love to people if we aren’t even sure how to communicate? A big hug and using first names are good ways to tell Midwesterners they are loved, but for a Christian in Zambia, or Hungary, or China, what is that big hug going to mean? More importantly, are we equipped to find out?

Most critically, anthropology has long held to the dictum that only in understanding others, do we understand ourselves. White Northern Americans are no less steeped in culture than the brown nomad living on the plains of the Sudan. Even our understanding of God’s revelation is inexorably linked with our cultural context. Wheaton alumnus and anthropology major Billy Graham ’43, Litt.D ’56 once said that if he could go back, he would have gotten a Ph.D. in anthropology to understand race relations and inequality in the United States. (When students ask what to do with a major in anthropology, I love saying that it can lead to a career in worldwide evangelism.)

Understanding the relevance of anthropology to the whole church is coming slowly in Christian circles. Only five of 115 schools in the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) offer a major in anthropology. But when a student leaves my class understanding that the U.S. church is culturally unique, but not perfect; knowing why we should learn from those who, though they are culturally different from us, are still our Christian siblings; and realizing that culture is part of God’s design, not a consequence of sin—I know again why He brought me to Wheaton.

Dr. Brian Howell, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, holds a Ph.D.from Washington University in St. Louis and joined Wheaton’s faculty in 2001. He specializes in global Christianity and has published work from his research on Baptists in the Philippines in various journals in addition to presenting it at international conferences. He is often asked to address student groups on topics such as cross-cultural ministry, gender, and popular culture. He and his wife, Marissa Sabio, have three children. (Wheaton Magazine, Spring 2005).

Conflict Resolution

Mark Lewis

As the lights dimmed to black in Arena Theater’s last play of 2005, the audience was left with the image of a young couple gazing at one another across a divide, their future together suspended in the distance between them.

Discussions following this production, The Cover of Life, by R.T. Robinson, have been engaging. What happens to that couple? It seems that the playwright does not intend us to know.

Furthermore, as the director of the play I was committed to creating a final image that would leave all of us squarely in the middle of the question.

Why? I am sometimes asked why so many of the plays we produce in Arena Theater do not resolve neatly, or sometimes even positively. Why not offer our audience encouragement by doing plays that offer more definitive resolutions? Are we trying to discourage or frustrate the faithful friends who come to support our work?

No, nothing could be further from my intent in choosing and directing plays. But I am fervent in this belief—”theater” operates or works most powerfully at the level of our shared and ongoing questions. There is immense value in evaluating a play not only by what message or moral it might offer, but also by the quality of the questions it leaves us asking.

So much of what we call “entertainment” is not meant to affect us in this way. Questions, if there are any, are beautifully crafted to resolve completely. One can practically know what time it is in an hour-long television drama by the story’s proximity to its resolution, which is usually very simple. When we are fed a steady diet of this type of ending to a story, what becomes of our ability to trust God in a world where endings so often seem, from our human perspective, to be unresolved or ambiguous?

Theater is intended to land differently—to leave a different kind of impression. It relies absolutely on writing that demonstrates honest conflict springing from opposing points of view. If a play is to succeed, these opposing views must be brought to life by actors advocating honestly for their character’s choices.

Additionally, theater demands that an audience struggle with its own presuppositions. Unlike film or television, where a camera focuses our attention for us, we decide where to look and whom to incline to. We may disagree completely with a character’s point of view and the actions it leads her to, but a good play asks us to lend our attention to that character’s story, and to consider it, for better and for worse.

Hamlet says, “The purpose of playing was and is…to hold a mirror up to nature, to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image.” We need to be open to seeing our image in both parts of that mirror if an experience in the theater is to fulfill its potential to reflect and challenge us.

Wheaton Magazine (Autumn 2005)

Masked: The Life of Anna Leonowens by Al Habegger

A brave British widow goes to Siam and—by dint of her principled and indomitable character—inspires that despotic nation to abolish slavery and absolute rule: this appealing legend first took shape after the Civil War when Anna Leonowens came to America from Bangkok and succeeded in becoming a celebrity author and lecturer. Three decades after her death, in the 1940s and 1950s, the story would be transformed into a powerful Western myth by Margaret Landon’s best-selling book Anna and the King of Siam and Rodgers and Hammerstein’s musical The King and I.

But who was Leonowens and why did her story take hold? Although it has been known for some time that she was of Anglo-Indian parentage and that her tales about the Siamese court are unreliable, not until now, with the publication of Masked, has there been a deeply researched account of her extraordinary life. Alfred Habegger, an award-winning biographer, draws on the archives of five continents and recent Thai-language scholarship to disclose the complex person behind the mask and the troubling facts behind the myth. He also ponders the curious fit between Leonowens’s compelling fabrications and the New World’s innocent dreams—in particular the dream that democracy can be spread through quick and easy interventions.

Exploring the full historic complexity of what it once meant to pass as white, Masked (published by University of Wisconsin Press, 560 pages) pays close attention to Leonowens’s midlevel origins in British India, her education at a Bombay charity school for Eurasian children, her material and social milieu in Australia and Singapore, the stresses she endured in Bangkok as a working widow, the latent melancholy that often afflicted her, the problematic aspects of her self-invention, and the welcome she found in America, where a circle of elite New England abolitionists who knew nothing about Southeast Asia gave her their uncritical support (by rhonda). Her embellished story would again capture America’s imagination as World War II ended and a newly interventionist United States looked toward Asia.

The Kenneth & Margaret Landon Papers (SC-38) are cited as primary source materials and are housed in the Wheaton College Special Collections, available to researchers.

———-

Alfred Habegger is professor emeritus of English at the University of Kansas. His previous biographies are The Father: A Life of Henry James, Sr. and the highly acclaimed My Wars Are Laid Away in Books: The Life of Emily Dickinson. He lives in northeast Oregon.

Christians in the Public Schools

As an education professor, I am frequently asked about the three types of educational opportunities: homeschooling, public schools, and private schools—each of which I believe is viable and valuable.

My own experience included a private Christian elementary school, public high school, a private Christian college, and a public university. My children attended public school until they enrolled at Wheaton. Our experiences have been rich and stimulating for academic, social, and spiritual growth. In these settings, we have encountered gifted Christian and non-Christian teachers who challenged our faith by helping us examine what we believe and why we believe it.

When asked to recommend one of these forms of schooling, I encourage parents to examine their own educational views and their child’s characteristics in order to find the best fit. Similarly, when education students ask where to begin their profession, I respond that they need to prayerfully match their educational philosophy with their own God-given personality He calls some to private schools and others to public schools. And often the call changes within a career.

Having offered this advice, I am frequently asked to defend my support of public education. Not only have I attended and taught in public schools, I consider it to be a vital area of service today.

First, the vast diversity in public schools includes both Christian and non-Christian students.While Christian teachers need to demonstrate God’s love to non-Christian families and colleagues, they also offer an important ministry by affirming Christian students for their core belief and values. Respecting every student requires that these individuals’ views be heard in the marketplace of ideas. In caring for all learners, Christian teachers in public schools can provide a model of Christianity in action for a student who might otherwise feel marginalized in a secular world.

Second, public schools offer an opportunity to reflect Christ’s love to students of all economic levels. Christ calls us to meet the needs of the poor. Public schools are increasingly the only option for our poorest students.They (like all students) deserve the most committed and compassionate teachers.

Economic hardship often creates the need for stability. When Steve Mcllrath ’93 began his teaching career at a public high school on Chicago’s west side, his young math students questioned whether he would still be there when they graduated. During his ten years there, Steve has seen nine principals and almost 50 other math teachers come and go (by rhonda). As the epitome of a Christian teacher who serves faithfully in a public school, Steve is much more to me than a former student; he is my hero.

Dr.Jillian Nerhus Lederhouse ’75, Associate Professor of Education, began teaching courses at Wheaton in 1978 while still an elementary teacher in the Chicago public schools. She joined Wheaton’s faculty full-time in 1989 and currently serves as coordinator of the elementary/middle grades program. Recipient of the 2001 Senior Faculty Achievement Award, she has been published in several education journals addressing topics ranging from classroom management to assessment and Christian teachers in public schools. She holds a B.A.from Wheaton, an M. Ed.from DePaul University, and a Ph.D. from University of Illinois at Chicago. She and her husband, Wheaton swimming coach Jon Lederhouse ’74, have three children. (Wheaton Magazine, Winter 2005).

Self-Criticism?

“Tell us your impression of the U.S. Is there anything that strikes you?”

As a visitor from “Old Europe,” I am often asked this kind of question. Actually, I have seen very little of the country. I’ve only caught a glimpse, through the Wheaton window.

What I have glimpsed, however, may be worth mentioning. I have been struck by the amount of self-deprecation in current discourse (not within College bounds necessarily), having heard and read a lot of self-critical talk, concerning American ways and values, especially “individualism,” and, in Christian circles, concerning evangelical tradition, or lack of tradition.

Self-criticism is praiseworthy—one hesitates to criticize it! Self-demeaning, to some extent in all cultures, and in some cultures hyperbolically so, it belongs to polite demeanor. It oils the wheels of social exchanges. Since every human group or institution tends toward inflated images of self, often bordering on idolatry, correction is salutary.

Individually and collectively, the ability to acknowledge weaknesses and faults reflects maturity. Combating pride, the ever-present enemy, is always timely-for pride disguises itself as loyalty or gratitude. (Remember the account in Luke 18:9-14. The Pharisee’s thanksgiving met the outward expectation of religious life, and yet, he did not go home justified.) But cannot self-criticism itself become a disguise? When we criticize our tradition, don’t we secretly feel that we thereby raise ourselves above what we censure?

We say “we,” and mean “they.” Of course, I realize that this boomerangs on me just now. Intellectuals in our societies, as they disparage established orders, often vent their frustration and resentment for not wielding power. (Nietzsche was not wrong on all counts.) Blaming the status quo, of which one is a part, relieves hidden anguish and projects the subject’s existential discomfort onto the world. An upcoming generation conveniently makes room for their own ambitions, brushing predecessors to the side. Not waiving their claim on the estate, they become “self” critical. In any case, as a general phenomenon of perception, attention is always drawn to what does not work properly, thus fostering exclusively negative assessments, and failing to honor that which is praiseworthy.

What are the marks of sound self-criticism? Balance and nuances, and recognizing that which is valuable and must be maintained—these are hopeful signs. Slogans or catchwords, conformity to fashions, ready-made generalizations, are all red signals. Critics are open to suspicion that keep enjoying the benefits of what they condemn. If it is truly self-criticism, it will entail some concrete steps of action.

The heart, however, is so crooked, “deceitful above all things,” that discernment ultimately belongs to the Lord, the Lord alone (Jer. 17:9). His Word is the “critical” (kritikos) agent, to which only we will turn for true and healing criticism (Heb. 4:12).

Dr. Henri A. Blocher, Wheaton’s Gunther Knoedler Chair of Bible and Theology, was born a Frenchman in Leiden, Netherlands. He studied at Gordon Divinity School and in Paris and London. He has taught in the Faculté Libre de Théologie Evangélique, Vaux-sur-Seine, since its founding in 1965, and currently chairs the Fellowship of European Evangelical Theologians. His books include In the Beginning, Evil and the Cross, and Original Sin. He and his wife, Henriette, a psychologist, have three children and seven grandchildren. (Wheaton Magazine, Autumn 2004).

 

Minding the Mind

I love maps I can spend hours poring over the details of a terrain that I have never seen and probably never will see. So when I travel somewhere, I am not content with a generalized map of the area; nothing less than a Delorme atlas with every gravel road marked will do.

How nice it would be to have such a detailed map of our spiritual pilgrimage—to have every decision clearly marked and the road for years ahead clear and straight. Some Christians try to get that kind of information out of their Bibles. They search for verses that will tell them what job to take, whom to marry, what school to attend. Of course, they are doomed to be disappointed—or worse yet, to think God is giving them specific direction in a verse that means nothing of the kind. Other Christians simply give up: since God has not told me anywhere what job I should take or what school to go to, it does not matter what I decide.

Both these responses miss the true nature of God’s guidance of us through Scripture. God has not given us a Delorme spiritual map revealing every twist and turn of our lives What He has given us instead is a revelation of Himself. Who He is, what He has done, is doing, and will do, and what He values most in His people.

By reading, studying, and meditating on this revelation, we find our very worldview being changed. Paul describes this process in his famous call for Christians to “renew their minds” (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:23). It is by this transformation of our fundamental attitudes and values that we will be able to “test and approve what God’s will is” (Rom. 12:2). God desires that we so immerse ourselves in Scripture that its values gradually become our values. These values, built deeply into us, will then guide us in all the decisions of life.

As my wife and I raised five children (now all grown), we were especially anxious to help them develop these renewed minds. We were not so concerned about whether they would agree with us on every lifestyle decision that we made. But we wanted them to make their own lifestyle decisions, not on the basis of the materialistic cultural values of this world, but on the basis of solidly biblical values.

I have a similar vision for the students I teach at Wheaton College. My goal is to expose them to Scripture in such a way that the very roots of their minds will be thoroughly Christian. For if, by God’s Spirit, their minds are being so transformed, I can be confident that they will emerge as strong examples of righteousness in a world that desperately needs such a witness.

Dr. Douglas J. Moo is Blanchard Professor of New Testament and Director of the Ph.D. Program in Biblical and Theological Studies. A relative newcomer to Wheaton, Doug arrived in 2000 after a long ministry at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He holds a B.A. from DePauw, an M.Div. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from St. Andrews in Scotland He and his wife Jenny live in West Chicago. Three of their children have attended, or are attending Wheaton College. (Wheaton Magazine, Winter 2004).