I feel like I need to explain some of my distance from organized (Evangelical) Christianity. Also, I should probably qualify that further even to be "organized Evangelical American Christianity." I'm not sure how far geographically to spread that net, so I'll just stick with "American" until I learn otherwise (i.e., that I need to include Evangelical Christianity in other places as well).
Since this all started basically with my experience with the Vienna mission, I'm going to use that as my main reference point. However, it should be noted that while with the mission in Vienna I realized that there were also hints of things earlier that also could have been a part of the phenomena (or phenomenon, depending on whether you want to see it as one issue or multiple issues) I witnessed and experienced in Vienna. Since I haven't gotten to the Vienna part of my chronology yet I might be jumping the gun a bit here, but I think you know enough already (that's assuming, of course you've read all my prior posts which is highly unlikely) to hang your hat on, so to speak. That is, you should be able to able to follow along without too much difficulty, even if you don't know all the details.
***
The issue here, I think, is how far the net needs to be thrown by way of how things could have happened as they did in the Vienna mission (whether for me in particular or in general - in as much as I've interpreted things correctly). I'm going to be assuming at the front (and I'm not saying that this is the case, because I think there's a good chance it's not, but that I'm going to err on the side of caution, if you will) that there was not governmental connection in how the mission operated in general or in my experience of it. (By governmental, I mean things, for example that might have pertained to my dad's work, or military connections - as in the 2 U.S. military reserve chaplains comprising the h.r. department.) Besides, if we included any possible government involvement that would go into a lot more than I want to right now. Believe me, there will be enough to chew on without including that possible influence in the mix.
So, basically, you have 15 missions, all with their own culture, values, ways of doing things and connections coming together to form one mission, apart from their separate, individual stand-alone ministries. They send missionaries, money and board of director representatives to the Vienna mission so that it can function as they've intended it to.
The missionaries on the staff, besides coming from different missions, also come from different church backgrounds and, to a certain extent, different professional backgrounds as well. The church diversity included churches like Conservative Baptist, Christian & Missionary Alliance, and independent churches (which was my background). Really, there's not that much difference between these backgrounds, which made theological integration that much easier. And by far most of the missionaries were pastors/theologians/chaplains by trade, with secretaries and layout and design comprising the remainder of the group.
So where in this process would it have been possible to come up with the kind of organizational culture and value system that I witnessed in Vienna? I think the "inputs" and "facilitative" elements include some of the following:
1. the 15 missions
2. the denominational backgrounds (and some missions were denominational too)
3. the seminaries
Let me illustrate what I mean here:
1. Each of the seminaries must have educated the pastors/theologians/chaplains in such a way to make the kind of normative structure of the mission possible and/or acceptable and/or tolerable and/or preferable, etc.
2. Each of the denominational backgrounds of the missionaries on staff must have prepared the missionaries in such a way as to make the kind of normative structure of the mission possible and/or acceptable and/or tolerable and/or preferable, etc.
3. Each of the 15 missions must have come to the table in such a way as to make the kind of normative structure of the mission possible and/or acceptable and/or tolerable and/or preferable, etc.
I'm leaving no one out here because I was evidently the only one who, as far as I knew ever objected to the things I objected to, or at least no one else stuck to any reservations they might have had. So in this way everyone of these groups are culpable, at the very least, of making it possible for the mission to operate as it did, but some actors had to have made it desirable or even imperative that it operated in the function it did while I was in Vienna.
But beyond that, of all the other (non mission-related) American Evangelical Christian seminaries, denominations and churches, and missions to Eastern Europe could be seen as tangentially connected to this whole mess in as much as American Evangelical Christianity includes a lot of interconnectedness and cross-fertilization and the like. It is possible that, for the most part, they would not have had much of a causative input. BUT... I think they could have had, to one extent or another, a preventative or corrective input. But it's clear they didn't and in all my years since working with the mission in Vienna (1987-1989) I have never ever ever come across anyone who thought that preventative or corrective action was called for. So, in as much as these other players have (or had) some knowledge of the kinds of things going on in the Vienna mission, they are also accomplices of sort.
So where does this leave me? Churchless, right? Maybe you understand where I'm coming from on this now, at least understand it somewhat better than before I explained this. And if you knew who the 15 missions were and how very large some of them are, you'd see how also might spread some of the culpability out.
Your response now probably depends on whether...
1) you agree with me or not that the mission was wrong in some of the things it did and was,
2) how much you knew of the mission (specifically during the time I was there), and
3) your view of what your responsibility, if any, might be vis a vis this knowledge.
Of course, at this point you probably don't know enough to make much of a determination, but this is the kind of thinking that I've gone through in my a lot of my relations with churches since my Vienna experience. I'm too disillusioned and my experience there has tainted too much of my perspective on American Evangelical Christianity. Maybe one could say that the Vienna mission has become the epitome of American Evangelical Christianity to me. Virtually all the conditions necessary for the mission to be the way it was came from the the Evangelical Church in the USA.
(I understand that the mission's logic would have included an aspect of responsiveness to the situation in Eastern Europe, but that does not justify the route they took, and that choice - or choices - was enabled as stated above, from its USA roots. I also understand that I seem to be the only person in the USA - or possibly anywhere - who disagrees/disagreed with the mission.)
***
This next sub-section in our text (under the main heading "A Model of Entrepreneurial Socialization") is "Motivational Bases for Adaptation."
"The socializability of newcomers is directly related to their motivation to adapt to the expectations, norms, and values of incumbent organizational members. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors predispose new recruits to attend to socializing cues and adjust their conduct accordingly. Further, an individual's psychological make-up, as well as tangible incentives, influence the novice's willingness to explore, learn, and adapt to the behaviors and attitudes required in the new setting. Thus, individuals will respond differently to organizational socialization efforts, resulting in personalized responses to the new setting." (p. 70)
I think I came to Vienna with a reasonably high motivation to adapt to the mission's ways, although I don't particularly remember giving it any conscious thought beforehand. In hindsight, I might actually have given more thought to thinking about ways to get involved with the Austrian culture, with ministry in mind particular, than I did to what strategies I might take in getting used to the mission culture. I think this is because I took at face value that I was going to be a secretary and nothing more, and, while I did want to be part of the mission because I thought it was great what they were doing (equipping church leaders in Eastern Europe), but it never occurred to me that my relationships would be sort of defined for me before I arrived even. That is, the outside of work relationship with my boss and his family and with the other secretaries. I've already talked some about these people as my reference group though. My sending mission also didn't seem to have any problems with my interest in local ministry while serving as a secretary. But the Vienna mission, quite obviously, thought otherwise and evidently didn't communicate that back to my mission's home office (and probably not to the Eastern European office of my sending mission either).
Normally I am a person with high intrinsic motivation and don't need a lot of external motivation. That's as a rule, although I'm sure there probably are exceptions. I'm also a dependable worker too in this regard. That is, once I know what to do I'll get about to doing it with little oversight needed, and you can trust I'll get it done and if, per chance something happens and I might not get it done in time I'll let you know as soon as I realize there might be a problem. Some might call this Protestant work ethics, I suppose.
I think then, that if a situation arises where I don't appear to have high internal motivation, there's probably a reason for it, although I may or may not be aware of it. I think, for example, the mission predicted that when I arrived and was confronted with reading software manuals my internal motivation might kick in and I'd come running in to my boss's office in tears about how I really can and want to do so much more than read software manuals. But I didn't do that, for several reasons, some of which I've already mentioned, such as trying to figure out what was going on. But I think too that I was "green" to the job that I wasn't sure what exactly what to expect and wasn't inclined to make waves. From this perspective, I could be trying to think the best of the mission and assuming there was some good explanation (other than debasement) that could account for what I was given to do, and sooner or later I'd find out what that reason was. This might be an innocent until proven guilty stance towards the mission. But since I was rather intentionally holding back and watching and observing at the same time, a small inkling of guilty attribution might have been forming, or at least the suggestion of something going on that wasn't what it seemed to be.
The other thing I'd like to comment on in this text is the phrase "tangible incentives." My experience of the Vienna mission eventually led me to never believe any carrot or stick innuendos or suggestions. On the other hand, if someone said to me, "Next Monday you're moving to reception," then I would know that that stick meant business, or "We'd like you to go on a women's ministry trip from Jan. 15 to Jan. 25, you'll have your briefing for that trip tomorrow at 3:00" then I'd know that that carrot meant business." Otherwise, I pretty well got to ignoring anything less specific than that because I couldn't tell what was a real possibility (or how likely a one) and what wasn't such a real possibility. That ambiguity was beyond what I could deal with. Although, that being said, I think I did respond some to things I thought I would like, but in hindsight I think it was foolish of me to do so; it would have been better to not respond.
***
Within this section there are paragraphs dealing with specific variables that might affect motivation. The first one is personality.
"Personality variables may affect the motivation to become socialized. An individual's response to authority, need for control, and feedback may affect the newcomer's mode of adjustment and accommodation to the expectations of organizational members." (p. 70)
This is only a small part of the paragraph, but the other is material I've already discussed. The main issue of interest in this text regards the response to authority. I don't know where I got this from, but I think probably my adventures in preparing myself for ministry to Eastern Europe maybe over-developed my sense of self-efficacy in a way that made me not be afraid of authority for authority's sake. That is, I wasn't cowed or intimidated by authority and if I thought they were wrong being in a position of authority would not of itself be convincing enough for me to change my mind. Think of the 18-year old upstart confronting (with composure and sound reasoning) the garden shop manager in front of the merchandising manager at KMart. That is, I didn't disrespect authority, but I didn't see authority, at least human authority, as authority in any absolute sense and if they crossed the bounds of what I thought their authority gave them rights to I disrespected them as authority figures to the extent to which they overstepped those bounds. I'm still like that. I can just imagine the Vienna mission leaders (the ones who were there when I was there) saying, "Now you tell us!"
***
I don't think I have anything to say about the rest of this article, so next time we'll move on to a new one.
