I'm sort of sad... I'm writing this after just having returned home form physical therapy (and I'm somewhat tired too from it). The reason I'm sad is because I feel like today was another goodbye experience. They hadn't received a new faxed in receipt from my doctor to extend my session; not that I expected them to have received one since my doctor and I discussed this last Monday and agreed I should continue p/t in his office. Still, it sort of ends an another era in my life in a way. That is, the first year I came here for a good career job and then shortly after arriving began to get sick, then lost my job and spent months scrambling trying to find out what was wrong with me, and finally I found it in this one group of medical facilities and received such wonderful care that when it became necessary to move from my out of state residence (a family member had extended help to me since I had no income at that point), the care at those medical facilities was one of the two main reasons I came back here just over a year ago (the other reason was the weather was good for my fibromyalgia).
But then when I started having new health problems there was so much bungling of my care that when they dropped my insurance I didn't change insurances to keep them, and after that physical therapy was the only service (besides the hospital itself) that I could use. There were a lot of doctors, though, that I was sorry to leave; it's just that they weren't the central ones to get me the care to help me through this crisis. So now I don't have any medical providers at any of those facilities and it seems sad to me. This is an example of how I really don't like to move around so much, but there always seems to be something that makes me do so.
***
The thought occurred to me that there is a subject that I studied in a later area of professional interest (separate from issues around my life) and that is aspects of social psychology. The topic of study involved certain aspects of social movements. I have a ReferenceManager (bibliographic software) database and just did a quick search using only "social psychology" and came up with 23 results. "Power" got 5 hits. "Social control" got 3. "Power" got 99.
Here's an interesting title from that bibliography:
The Emergence of Leadership: Linking Self-Organisation and Ethics, by Douglas Griffin. (book)
This book even deals with ethical issues!
Or here's a journal article:
How Identity and Perspective Constrain Moral Choice, by Kristen Monroe.
The abstract alone is enough to send my mental wheels racing full speed:
What drives moral action? A narrative analysis of rescuers of Jews during World War II suggests it is not reason or religion (the explanations most frequently offered by scholars), but rather identity and a particular view of self in relation to others. Findings suggest the tremendous power of identity to constrain choice, reveal the complexity of the moral life, underscore the importance of identity for moral motivation, and fill in critical gaps in our understanding of the moral psychology. In particular, an examination of moral exemplars focuses attention on the self concept, especially the extent to which critical values are integrated into one's sense of self and the extent to which a particular perspective (a way of seeing one's self in relation to others) triggers a sense of moral salience. The analysis suggests that if we can understand how people see the world and themselves in relation to others, if we can decipher their cognitive frameworks, perceptions, and categorization schema, we may begin to determine why identity exerts such a powerful influence on our treatment of others.
Really, what did drive the moral actions of the mission and its members in Vienna?
Unfortunately for you this database has 5,505 entries. Seriously, though, there are a few duplicates that need to be deleted and not all of them would be relevant or very helpful in understanding my Vienna experience.
***
I changed my mind and decided there wasn't anything else in the Jones article to comment on, so I'm moving on to the next one:
Robertson, R. J. & W. T. Powers. (1990). Introduction to Modern Psychology: The Control Theory View. Gravelswitch, KY: The Control Systems Group.
Specifically, I'm going to discuss chapter 13, "Social Psychology: Multi-System Control of the Environment." (p. 171-181)
I also want to assure you that this is NOT one of the 5,505 items in my bibliographic database, but just one more article in my socialization file.
***
"The traditional field of social psychology is something of a hodgepodge. Different psychologists have seen it various as the study of interactions between individuals, the influence of groups upon individual behavior and development, the process of group formation and action, or the principles of communal/organizational behavior. Others organize the subject in terms of supposedly different, basic processes of social behavior, such as attitudes, social motives, social perceptions, social norms, interpersonal attraction, and affiliation. However, some anthropologists, and notably the American investigator of social class, Lloyd Warner (1952), view all social behavior - all forms of group action, as well as cooperation and competition between individuals - as expression of one basic principle: control over the environment." (p. 171)
I just present this text to give you an idea of the types of things that social psychology might provide by way of helping me understand my experiences in Vienna and what was going on there. However, there is a limit as to how much I can address because discussing these issues assumes that I know enough about specific aspects of what has happening, that my memory is good and/or that I have other lasting documentation to rely on.
***
"But the postulate that social behavior, like all other behavior, serves the survival of the organism (and hence the species) helps to organize our thinking about social behavior." (p. 171)
In the Vienna mission context, this would mean that the behavior of the organization as a collective entity acted as it did in order to ensure its continuance/survival. I think this is more true than it should (biblically) be. What I mean is that the mission was obsessed with survival, by way of security concerns in particular. My understanding of ecclesiology and missiology (theological studies of the Church and missions, respectively). Is that, in short - very short, is as follows:
Ecclesiology
"[It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." (Ps. 118.8)
"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." (Col. 1:18)
"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." (John 15:5)
Missiology
"For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake." (Philippians 1:29).
18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. 21 But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me." (I John 15:18-21)
"20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps." (I Pet. 2:20-21)
Summary:
I know these (for most Christians anyway) sound obvious and simple or even simplistic, but I'm putting them out here because I don't think the mission lived by these, and one would usually expect to receive reliable leadership in the very fundamentals of the faith by a Christian mission, and one no less than a theological institution! Maybe their heads got in the way of their hearts?
My contention is simple and it rests now and rests then (at least I had come to this way of thinking by the end of my time in Vienna):
Collective Christian life should live out the spiritual reality that Christ is the Head of the Church. Living in a permanent state of fear and trusting in human machinations is about as antithetical as you can get to a Christian life of faith. So they failed the ecclesiology test with flying colors. On to missiology...
If we are personally living by faith, collectively following the Head we should expect to suffer for our faith. I don't find that Scripture says to go to great lengths to create some tower of Babel to man's intellectual ability to protect oneself against the Evil One and his emissaries, especially not using his (the Evil One's) own tactics. Or maybe you've joined with him? (e.g., military connections). Look at who you're emulating! Personally, I'll stick with Christ as my model and my Rock.
[4/7/11 Comments: Translation - Regarding the Church, it is ultimately Christ's responsibility to see to the 'survival' of the Church. Our responsibility is to do what He's called us to do and trust Him for the 'survival' part. And, yes, while we are doing what He's called us to do we might well suffer. Moral of the story: Trust in God for 'survival' of the Church. I don't think the mission did this or it wouldn't have been willing to make the kinds of compromises it did for the sake of 'security'.]
Okay, so how did I get off on that tangent now. Oh, yes, survival of the organism. In short, ultimately that's in God's hands, especially if we're talking about Christian organizations. It's our job to be faithful and He's given us enough to do without trying to take over His responsibilities too.
***
I'm going to break now, but it's a bit disconcerting that I only got one sentence-length quote covered here. I may sneak in another post tonight.
