This next text comes in the context of Blacks having to constantly fend of the identity White's have created for them, but in the sense that there was a great power divide between me and the mission, I think it might be helpfully applied to my experience in that context:
"Pemberton (1992) has recently graphically described this identity work for Blacks and claims that the 'necessity of concentrating on surviving in Black skin saps the energies; not only does it keep real political and social power in the hands of Whites, but it makes the self no more than a sociological fact, dancing marionette-style, to a degrading tune.' She argues that confronting the meanings that others provide can be a full time task, leaving little room for self-constructed individuality." (p. 202)
If there were stereotypes vis a vis me and the mission it would be stereotypes of me as both a woman and also a secretary. I do think that the mission was particularly sexist, and it's perhaps the most gender-confining organization of any kind that I've ever been a member of. And I think its stereotype of secretaries was arguably equally all-pervasive, at least I experienced it that way.
But for me in that context, I think it was impossible to split things apart like that (e.g., gender & secretary) with any certainty because 1) everything was pretty much a package deal - take it or leave it; and 2) disentangling and distinguishing between the root causes of all the different elements (e.g., gendered or secretarial issues) of what was expected of me was probably a lesson in futility better left undone. I don't mean to imply by the second point that it was unimportant (to try to disentangle these things), just that there under the circumstances getting too obsessed with trying to dissect what was going on (and thereby diverting my attention away from other things that might have been more urgent and pressing) might not have been the most important thing I had to think about at the time. I think it's safe to say, though that to the extent that I felt the mission's behavior towards me as being prejudicial and stereotypically biased towards me as a woman and secretary, it was degrading to me and I took it that way. But I think the two issues were interrelated in as much as the secretarial role was viewed in a "pink collar" fashion, that is, woman's work.
Now before anyone gets all hot under the collar and excited about how this kind of gendered thinking was only a reflection of the reality of church life in Eastern Europe, I'd like to proactively cut such protestations off at the pass. You see, I lived in the heart of Siberia from 1991 to 1997, almost totally cut off from flesh and blood contact with foreigners (i.e., not counting contact by mail, for example). Where I lived there were at least two things that might argue in my favor that the extent of gendered discrimination at the Vienna mission was unfounded from the perspective of work in the USSR/Russia. The first of these arguments was the existence of women preachers, that is, women who preached sermons during Sunday morning services from the pulpit. This was especially true in the Pentecostal church (which was a registered church under Communism), where women determined to have sound Bible knowledge and wisdom were allowed to preach regular sermons. The second example comes from another source altogether: the local unregistered Baptist church/Christian library, which was operated virtually single-handedly by a woman. Furthermore, I contributed as much as anyone else by way of biblical insights, interpretation and application in the Pentecostal house church I attended, despite the fact that I am a woman. (Theological note: The Pentecostal churches where I lived didn't seem to practice the sign gifts, but they were open to them.) I can provide names and addresses if need be to back up these claims. I also think it's safe to say that believers there had a more lenient view towards women in ministry than I even had before I arrived.
The issue in Vienna wasn't that I demanded to be a pastor or something and I certainly wasn't any kind of raving feminist or the like. Rather, I just never saw myself in such a confining box because of my gender as what I experienced there in my two years with the mission. I'm sure they did work with some very conservative (gender-wise) groups and individuals in Eastern Europe, but I think that the mission was more solidly sexist (in an unnecessary, overblown fashion) than a lot of the people they probably worked with in those countries. Even if you consider the preferences of the 15 member missions on this issue, I venture to say you'd probably have found a lot more diversity of responsibility and service for women in these member denominational mission boards and nondenominational missions than you'd have found in the Vienna composite mission I worked at. Certainly churches back home would have been more welcoming of women in different kinds of ministries than the Vienna mission was. And women are more than just decorative figureheads on the bow of a ship, too, they can actually do things of substance and significance, and right alongside men too (and sometimes even over them).
One last comment: I submit that in as much as there is any truth in my claims that the Vienna mission's apparent view on the role women had in the USSR (if not also in other East European countries) was lacking, I'd like to suggest that my claims that their overblown security measures, which skewed their whole value structure and how they treated people, was also wrong and unnecessary. [I'm assuming here that how they viewed women in Eastern European churches was reflected in what I saw and experienced in the mission.]
I'm not saying there shouldn't have been any security measures, but just that they should have been held in the proper biblical perspective and not been allowed to have free rein in practically controlling every aspect of the mission and it's view of itself. Maybe they went the way of the medieval Scholastics (in fretting over how many angels could fit on the head of a pin) in taking a good thing too far. And they were a bunch of theologians in Vienna, too, just like the Scholastics. Maybe, just maybe, they needed a woman to bring them to their senses. And I hope the mission (if they're reading this) is aware by now that I reserve the right to disregard any demands put on me that I think run contrary to God's Word, even if it comes from someone with a penis. Yeah, that's crass, but that's what it comes down to, isn't it?
End of sermon.
***
Before I move on, in the text, I'm going to do things backwards here and make my usual preamble a postscript instead. We're already fairly familiar with faulty logic, especially regarding how I supposed mission leadership might respond to this blog. But this time I'd like to apply the faulty logic paradigm to how they tried to lure me in (assuming that's what they were trying to do) a/k/a socialize me. If my audience now were just the mission I might title this piece: "Oh, How You Failed, Let Me Count the Ways".
I'm going to use the same book I used before:
Hoover, A. J. (1982). Don't You Believe It! Poking Holes in Faulty Logic. Chicago: Moody Press.
I'll probably miss some things, but this should be enough to give you a good idea of what might have been going on in this regard. I'm going to speak in the present tense, but understand that I'm referring to how things were (from my vantage point) for me while with the Vienna mission from 1987 to 1989.
1. (Chapter 1): The Principle of Contradiction
1A. Law of Excluded Middle:
> The mission: You are either totally committed to us (i.e., your entire existence while with us) or not committed at all.
[My response: You don't have the right to demand that kind of total commitment from me.]
2. (Chapter 3): The Reductive Fallacy (I didn't know the book I'm using is online!)
> The mission: All you have to do is trust us....
[My response: Trust is only the first step of what you want; it's a lie to imply otherwise.
3. (Chapter 5): Faulty Dilemma
> The mission: It is impossible to be both a fully functioning member of the mission and also have a fully function Austrian life (i.e., outside of the mission)
[My response: It is possible to have both, unless the mission admitted to being a total institution and thus having the right to full control over a member's life. If it made this admission there would not have been a contradiction in assuming members could not have fully functioning lives in both worlds.
4. (Chapter 7): Begging the Question
> The mission: Our policies were decided on by competent leaders well-versed in the field.
[My response: Will you please give me more specifics, like what exactly are these things that can apparently make or break my success with the mission and on what basis they were decided?]
5. (Chapter 8): Misuse of Authority
> The mission: Our policies, procedures and organizational culture were developed by the greatest minds in the leading missions working in Eastern Europe.
[My response. Nice. Could you please tell me the basis for your policies, how you came to decided on them, what purpose they serve, and how the informal organization ties to the formal organization?
6. (Chapter 11): Argument to the Man
> The mission: Look, you're just an over-stressed female secretary, you don't know anything (or much) about this work. Take a little rest and come back when you feel better.
[My response: Oh. If I come back will you have changed? Or will I still have to put up with the same B.S.?]
7. (Chapter 12) Poisoning the Well
> The mission: No one's going to believe an over-stressed emotional female!
[My response: Maybe. But they might believe an intelligent one.]
8. (Chapter 13) Appeal to Pity
> The mission [H.R. director in particular]: Look, we only want to help you! (with nice big puppy dog eyes).
[My response: You still haven't convinced me. I little more proof would be nice.
9. (Chapter 14) Appeal to Force
> The mission: You're under a lot of stress and we want to send you away to get some help. [Implied: Option B is to quit now.]
[My response [what I wish it had been]: How about if I see my doctor here and see what she thinks first; there's no need to be hasty, now, is there? OR Well, that's interesting why don't I go home to my family instead and see my doctor there. If I need any counseling I'm sure he can arrange it at that point. If not, I'll come back with the doctor's bill of health.
10. (Chapter 15) Appeal to the People
> The mission: We don't see what your problem is with the mission, everyone else seems to think that things are functioning as they should be.
[My response: Maybe so, but I think the mission has a lot of basic issues and I have enough background in this area to stand my ground until proven otherwise.]
11. (Chapter 16) Appeal to Ignorance
> The mission: We don't know of any harm you might have done or intended to do to the mission, but we don't trust you because you won't submit totally.
[My response: I have never done anything that I know of that might have harmed the the mission nor have I ever had any intention to do such. I'm sorry you are so suspicious and untrusting, but I do not give anyone total obedience by God.]
12. (Chapter 18) Fallacy of Extension
> The mission: If you won't submit how do we know that you're not some spy sent to destroy us? How will we know if you turn on us? If you won't submit we'll welcome you the same way we would a Communist spy.
[My response: I'm sorry you're so paranoid. Have you gotten help for this?]
13. (Chapter 21) Cliche Thinking
> The mission: You're just experiencing culture shock, that's all.
[My response: Huh? The shock I'm having is from the mission!! I'm getting along just fine except for the mission. Maybe we should look into this a bit deeper to find the true cause of my stresses.]
14. (Chapter 25) The Ultimate Fallacy (Pigheadedness)
> The mission: There's nothing wrong with this mission!
[My response: I can't make you believe; I've given you enough arguments [assuming I had], now it's between you and God.]
***
That's it for this post. This list of fallacies isn't comprehensive, I'm sure, but at least you should get the idea. You might not know the context of some of them, though, unless you've picked it up from my posts so far.
