Regarding the reference at the end of my last post about the carrot and stick, I don't think that's how the mission probably saw their offering me the opportunity to get involve in teaching ministry. I think they saw me as having come farther along in the socialization process than I had, and these opportunities were just part of them treating me more like an insider. But that was not long-lived, as my eventual departure and the lead-up to it testifies.
But from my perspective, I still had not really capitulated to them (read: been properly debased) and so the possible effect these opportunities might have had on me (despite the mission's intentions) vis a vis socialization, would be as a carrot to entice me to capitulate through that means rather than debasement. Eventually they understood that I hadn't moved as far along in the socialization process as they thought.
However, that being said, there were other factors possibly involved in all this as well, so this might not be the final word in my sense-making about what was going on.
***
So what were those issues that caused me to sort of dig my heel in and not budge? I'll try to flush them out (although I've already made reference to some of these things in my discussions to date, but not so as to lay them all out together). I wouldn't say that this list is the final word, though, as I may revisit it and add to, subtract from, or otherwise change it later on. I was aware at the time of the big picture issues but there was also a lot of unclarity of thought also, probably corresponding to a large degree to the confusing (to me) aspects of the mission.
Different people will respond differently to this list, according to one's relationship to the mission; one's religious beliefs, values and affiliation; one's ethics - irregardless of religion; one's political persuasion; etc. The reason, presumably, that the mission would (or could) not have granted me these wishes is that it (undoubtedly) would have seen them as excessive and/or unreasonable.
1. What exactly are the values underpinnings that undergird the mission's modus operandi?
2. What are the Scriptural underpinnings that undergird the mission's modus operandi? (not exactly the same, necessarily, as #1)
3. If I capitulate, what exactly am I capitulating to?
4. Why don't you let me do things that in writing it says you're supposed to grant everyone? (e.g., time off to study German, time off for visiting supporters)
5. Why don't you trust me? (And if you say you do trust me, than why are you treating me the way you do?)
6. Why does the mission, apparently, have U.S. military connections (as evidenced by the 2 US reserve military chaplains and our having one of our annual retreats at the US military run Hitler's Crow's Next while I was with the mission)? Are there any other such connections (e.g., monetary support)?
7. How come you seem to have abandoned so much of what I learned in Bible school regarding missions and how they operate?
8. Why don't you seem to allow free and open discussion about fundamental issues in the mission (like the ones I'm asking here)?
9. Explain how you come/came to your values regarding your modus operandi? (this is a process question)
10. Who do you view as the stakeholders in the mission and how do you regard each of them (significance, power, role, etc.)?
11. How in the heck did you manage to socialize everyone else here? alternately: Why do I seem to be the only one here with these issues? or: How come people with more (particularly theological) education than me don't seem to have any concerns with these issues?
etc.
Again, this was, in big part all lumped together in my mind under just a very few rubrics, maybe as little as 2 or 3, but I they were serious enough infringements on seriously held beliefs and convictions that that was enough to help me hold my ground. My later studies, including the kinds of things I'm discussing on this blog, have helped me to flush out more details of the kinds of things I was concerned about. I hope that at least some of my readers would also like answers to some of these questions.
***
Now back to the text...
"Step Five: Careful adherence to the firm's transcendant values...
Much of our resistance to socialization stems from the suspicion that corporations are fundamentally amoral and their members, once socialized, will pursue inappropriate goals. There are, in fact, significant checks and balances in American society against the extremes of social manipulation. Government, the media, and various other stakeholders such as consumers, environmentalists, and unions become powerfully vocal when corporations cross the line of decorum." (p. 32)
Since my discussion here is regarding a conservative Christian organization (and my former relationship to it), it might be reasonable to admit to holding to a belief in "fallen man", meaning that since the historic fall of Adam man's very nature has been tainted by sin. I believe this and so did (and presumably still do) the others working at the Vienna mission. That is a basic tenet of our faith, without which the gospel would not make much sense.
However, that said, when we become Christians (by faith in our risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who sacrificed His unblemished life so that we could, by association, be forgiven and have new life untarnished by sin) we are given tools that are intended, at least in part, to help us actually live like we're supposed to in this new life. These tools include the Holy Spirit and a new nature, for example. However, (and this is a big "however") we do not always live as we should - our standing and how we live our lives do not always coincide as well as they should.
What this means is that Christians, despite everything going for us and despite what everyone (including God) expects of us, and in this manner it is within the realm of possibility that the mission might "pursue inappropriate goals." In the case of the Vienna mission, however, I am more concerned with the means than the goals, and I think that we can apply this text to that sphere (means) as well. That means that, despite whatever pedestal you might put missionaries in general or these specific missionaries on, the fact remains that it is within the realm of the possible for them to get involved in "inappropriate" things.
But it might also be worthwhile to address the term "inappropriate" here. For me and for my purposes "inappropriate" as applied in this manner to the Vienna mission means first of all anything "unbiblical". However, there are some things in life that aren't clearly addressed as being sin or not and might be left up to conscience or even someone else's conscience (e.g., not acting in a manner that might trip up a Christian with a more sensitive conscience than yours in a particular area, like whether women should cover their head in church, for example). So it is possible that if analyzed discreetly - with a micro analysis approach - it might be difficult to pinpoint unbiblical issues in their manner of operating. However, I think that if taken in a more panoramic - a macro analysis approach - I think there are things that raise serious concerns as to whether they are biblical or not. (I am at a further disadvantage in the "micro" sphere because I never really made it through socialization, so there are a lot of things I was not sure about vis a vis the nitty gritty their operations.)
The things that concern me in the broad brush realm include such things as an apparent entire lifestyle based on deceit and fear and also questions regarding, shall we say, giving "the appearance of evil" (I Thess. 5:22) regarding mission- U.S. military mutual appreciation. As to the latter, how else can you explain having 2 U.S. military chaplains in strategic positions in the mission and having a mission-wide retreat at the U.S. military retreat center, formerly Hitler's Crow's nest? Also, what is the biblical reasoning behind how the mission treated me in particular and its socialization methods in general?
Moving on in out text, we see that society has developed a lot of checks and balances that should limit employers' excesses regarding demands made on its workers. I'll start with the various potential constraining instruments listed in the text:
1) Government. If government (in the form of the U.S. military) was in bed with the mission, how effective of a constraint do you think this would be? Also, you must remember that this was before the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. Remember the admission by an administrator in my former mission (and the later CIA FOIA response) that they took money from the CIA for their short wave radio work? In case you aren't aware of this, I'll state it plainly that in many of the East Bloc countries the Christian groups were major (or the main) conduit for change. The U.S. government recognized such groups beforehand as a dissident force.
The other possible government that could have had a constraining role on the mission was the Austrian government. Foreigners all registered their residence and mail addressed to us by name followed by "Vienna, Austria" was enough of an address to reach us. I don't know that the mission ever had any problem with the Austrian authorities and certainly they tried to be inconspicuous in their local dealings, but I can't speak for this one way or another. However, there were a couple issues that, when I get to my chronology, could raise a question as to how likely they might be to interfere.
2) The media. The mission's effort to stay under the radar virtually precluded the possibility of any media attention. I'm not sure if I can envision a way that might be otherwise. In contrast, the mission so arduously controlled the materials that went out of mission, that we had to had all our prayer letters read and approved before we could send them out. So media is not a likely constraint either.
Which media might have served as a constraint? Again, I would expect that biggest likelihood of possible media interest would be in the U.S. (at least they had a reasonably large facility there and most of the missionaries were from there) or the Austrian media. I'm not sure how they might have been brought in to the picture, though. Would I have had enough specifics to go on if I'd contacted, say, the Seattle Times? Perhaps the Wiener Welt could have been tipped off and sent a bevy of reporters and cameramen. That might well have raised a lot of excitement. I can't see that I would have done that, but if I had the mission would have presented me as a nut case and that would have ended that.
3) "Various other stakeholders such as consumers, environmentalists, and unions." Consumers in the case of the Vienna mission would be the students in the various East European countries and they were not in a position to be a constraint; they lived in countries antagonistic to their faith (to one degree or another, depending on the country). Besides they mainly just saw the side of the mission that was those coming to teach them, so they had a very limited view of the mission to even become aware of any problem.
"Environmentalist and unions" were irrelevant in this context.
But I'd like to look at other possible "various other stakeholders" that could potentially have provided a constraints to the mission.
1. Sending churches. These would be the churches back home that each of the missionaries came from. I don't know about the other churches, but if mine was any indication at all, there was very little chance these churches would do anything. Mine, for example, just treated me like a ministry casualty and did nothing at all to question the mission about anything that went on. Really, this was a big disappointment to me. Churches wouldn't do anything unless the missionary they sent gave them reason to believe that there was a problem with the mission, and you might guess by now that I seem to have been the only one that saw anything wrong. So sending churches is out.
2. Other prayer and financial supporters. This would be other churches, friends and other Christians who had learned about the ministry and wanted to support it and the individual missionary. Unless a supporter was someone with influence or a church was more disgruntled about what I experienced and saw than my home church was, I think there would, in general be very little chance other supporters would try to intervene.
3. The Vienna mission board. This would be the governing body of the mission and included my boss, his boss and the director of the U.S. office of the mission, as well as representatives from each of the 15 member missions. Many organizations try to create a diverse board so that a variety of views and skills are present to help the organization proceed along the best possible path. The Vienna mission, instead, had a board made up of more or less like-minded individuals, and, in such a case, it's hard for me to imagine any of these board members being a constraint on the mission, although they undoubtedly were in a reasonably good position to have noticed problems if they were so inclined.
In fact, it's possible that any serious questioning and disagreement was considered just that - the delusions of a crazy person. And that was part of the mission's protective armor. I'm not talking about initial concerns, though, that would have been part of the regular socialization process; rather I'm talking about more protracted, intractable doubts.
Have I indicated to your satisfaction that any constraint that Mr. Pascale might have intended in this article does not seem to apply to the Vienna mission? So basically, there were no constraints on the mission and it could do what it wanted. Therefore, there was nothing between the individual newcomer and an "Orwellian nightmare."
***
"Step Six: Reinforcing folklore provides legends and interpretations of watershed events in the organization's history that validate the firm's culture and its aims." (p. 33)
In the Vienna mission these were mostly "feel good" stories that brought us all (from the various departments) together in a common effort and made us feel part of something bigger than just our own little contributions. I think it also helped mitigate the formation of sub-cultures, or at least keep help minimize differences that might naturally develop.
However, I think that organizational memory also played a role in other ways that wasn't so public. Examples of this would be others passing on to me this or that experience of another person prior to my arrival. I wouldn't be surprised if I became a byword (in the negative sense) too. I'm not sure how wide spread that kind of thing was though, as I only encountered it in one-on-one type settings.
***
"Step Seven: Consistent role models and consistent traits are associated with those recognized as on the fast track." (p. 33)
The text further elucidates that this is referring to organizations using mentors in their socialization process. As we've seen before, I had troubles identifying with the other secretaries, because I didn't seem myself as a professional secretary; instead, I just saw that position as a stepping stone in my career. So whether the were good role models or not didn't matter too much, because I didn't see them as role models that I particularly wanted to emulate. I wanted to do the job well but not take on the persona of a secretary. So I think the mission tried to use this socialization tool with me, but they did it wrong; that is, they picked the wrong role models for me.
***
I'm going to end here. This ends the socialization steps, but this article does continue on for a few more pages and has some other interesting insights.
