One comment concerns how I expanded my experience with the Vienna mission to the broader church context is that I eventually came to understand (although my thoughts crystallized more after I left) that there must have been certain presuppositions in place for the mission to be able to operate as it was. In some sense these could be general presuppositions, but most likely there were a mix of these that each member (contributing mission, missionaries) brought with it. I've had to recreate what I think these presuppositions might be because I never became a true insider and so it would have been very hard for me to know for sure what these were or who held to which ones, etc. But I disagreed with enough of these strongly enough that I couldn't comply by submitting to the mission, thus indicating acceptance of its ways. Seeing, then what the end of some of these presuppositions might be, they become all the more repulsive and it restrains me from relating with those I see exhibiting these values and qualities, especially people I think should know better, like Christians. Again, these are just my educated guesses as to what some of these presuppositions might have been at work in the Vienna mission.
- The mission is good in an absolute way, can do no evil and always has good intentions towards all of its members (hence, it is trustworthy as a total institution), because A) it is made up of missions that everyone knows are good and/or B) it is made up of so many theologians that it is impossible that all of them can be wrong; and/or C) everyone knows that missions are good. This is nonnegotiable; you either trust us or you don't; in this way you're either in or out.
- The mission is always right and can never be wrong because: A) the mission knows more than you do; and/or B) so many missions working together and so many theologians can not be wrong; and/or C) we have more power than you do. This is nonnegotiable; you either trust us or you don't; in this way you're either in or out.
- Communism is evil and atheistic and therefore... A) is cause enough to justify any means necessary to see to it that our ministry is carried out successfully and/or B) it would be tantamount to testing God to not use any and all means available to us to make sure our ministry is carried out successfully, including a lot of means that otherwise might not be acceptable.
- Suffering is to be avoided at all cost in as much as it is in the power of the mission to avoid, which means that this is more important than a lot of things that otherwise might take precedence.
- Security is of ultimate importance and as such... A) justifies demands for complete submission; B) justifies any means necessary to maintain organizational security (and the security of its member missions and missionaries).
- A) The Bible is the basis for all mission norms and activities (as described above). And B) the mission leadership has the final word on interpretation of Scripture as pertains to mission activities and values.
***
The other comment is regarding my view of authority. I think the view of authority I described in that last post is consonant with my being an idealist along the lines of St. Augustine. It also fits my church background in which my church was named after the New Testament church in Berea, whose members didn't take Paul's word on its own, but compared what he said against Scripture. So the Bereans had a higher authority than Paul. So these are the kinds of things that might have fed into my view of authority. I don't think I'm antagonistic to authority, just that human authority can never be total and an end-all.
Also, the other thing specifically in regard to my attitude towards the Vienna mission authority was that even if I may had not respected it as authority I was greatly afraid of it, so I respected it in that way, but eventually only that way, I think. You might appreciate this fear when you see to what extents they went to try to rein me in.
***
This next text is brief and there is only one (longish) section from it I want to use. The source is:
Miner, J. B. (1988). Organizational Behavior: Performance and Productivity. New York, NY: Random House.
This section is taken from "Part Four: Organizations", "Chapter 16: Corporate Culture", the section titled "Cultural Socialization."
"For most firms, managing the culture involves careful selection of newcomers, with multiple interviews focused on values that are important in the culture. Those whose personal values do not fit are given plenty of opportunities to opt out. After hiring there is considerable training, participation in meetings, and general exposure to the culture in operation. Humility-inducing experiences are often introduced in order to undermine or weaken prior beliefs and values so that the individual becomes more receptive to the values of the new culture. To this end, work for which the individual is overqualified is often assigned. Making new management trainees 'start at the bottom' and 'get their hands dirty on the shop floor' is usually intended more to foster cultural learning than to develop technological knowledge. As time goes on, rewards such as salary increases and promotions are closely tied to behavior that matches the values of the culture." (p. 576)
I guess it's pretty clear that I didn't really fit the mission culture, and undoubtedly should have just left much earlier. But the problem was that I wasn't sure what other options were available to me as a missionary to Eastern Europe. Well, there were other ways, such as I probably could have worked with Child Evangelism Fellowship with no such conflict of values. But that wasn't the ministry I really felt called to, although I'm sure I could have done it. And I do like CEF, so it had nothing to do with them per se; I just didn't feel called to work with children. When I get that far in my chronology (which I'll pick up again after I finish with this socialization file), you'll see how I struggle with this kind of thing after I return home from working those 2 years in Vienna.
The other thing here in this text is how it deals with the humility-inducing/debasing/divestiture experience. Here they assume that the intention in using it is to "undermine or weaken prior beliefs and values so that the individual becomes more receptive to the values of the new culture." Is it realistic to think that the mission might have had me spend 2 months pouring over software manuals with the intention to "undermine or weaken prior beliefs and values so that the individual becomes more receptive to the values of the new culture"?
There are a few problems with this, although I'm not saying the mission could not nor did not intend this result. One is that I was already in a position which did not even begin to use all the gifts, skills and knowledge I thought I had to offer, and, although I hoped eventually to move to another position, I didn't expect it within the two years I'd committed to. So I had already committed myself to two years in a position which could be looked at as "humility-inducing" in as much as it ignored the skills and trainings I had spent some 7 years of my life trying to develop. So from that perspective the software manuals stuff looked more ludicrous to me than humility-inducing.
Furthermore, I don't think I ever made the connection between software manuals and either finding fault with my beliefs and values or becoming more receptive to the values of the mission. They were two completely different spheres of existence and if someone had told me point blank that that's what was happening I might have sat and stared at the software manuals in great puzzlement wondering what sort of perverted logic this could represent. What in tarnation do software manuals have to do with values? For Pete's sake, people, get a grip on yourself: software manuals have zilch to do with values and if you think I'm going to change my values because of some stupid software manuals someone had better get their head checked, and I don't think it's me. They must have really, really thought I was an idiot if that was what they were trying to do. But in a sense I was an idiot, because I didn't know about debasement. If I had, maybe I could have played along better and fooled them on that one too. (You know, do the old sob routine where I lay my guts out about how I just don't understand anything and I want to go home, blah-blah-blah, etc.) Maybe I'd have saved myself a lot of grief by doing that. [For those of you new to this blog, they made me read software manuals for most of the first 2 months I was with the mission, when I had asked my sending mission if I should learn the software in advance. They passed the question on to the Vienna mission who said that would be unnecessary and didn't say what software they were using. Not a very good basis for changing one's values or even for being open to changing them, I'd say.]
Anyway, the point is, that I don't change my values based on pressure, including debasement. And if you don't believe that about me now, you will eventually, if you stick around long enough.
Another thing in this text is that it's about management trainees. Presumably, the idea is that these trainees want to stay with the company and move up the ladder. In my case I was a secretary on a 2-year term, and although I hoped eventually for more, I didn't expect anything else than what I'd been promised which was to be a secretary for 2 years... for the assistant director specifically. They might not keep their word, but I try to. And I also expected that from them, since they did purport to be Christian missionaries who lived by the Bible, which clearly says that we should let our "yes" be "yes" and our "no" be "no" (Matt. 5:37), meaning if we say something it should be so, just as if saying it as an oath or promise.
***
This is all for this brief text. There really aren't a lot of articles left in this folder, so I expect by the end of the week, at the latest (especially at the rate I've been going) I should be returning to the chronological narration of my life.
