I'm going to have to take another health reprieve, as much as I really don't want to, but I'm really feeling crummy. I even canceled physical therapy today because I didn't think I was up to driving down therre even (15 miles almost all on highway). I begged my way into my pain doctor and he ordered an x-ray for the thoracic and a pain cream that is evidently real special and the pharmacy brings to me. Meanwhile I'm walking with a cane and doing precious little because I feel so crummy. Between my g.i.system, migraine, back, neuritis in the feet and the balance problem from the migraine, I'm a mess. So I'm not up to any heavy thinking or prolonged sitting, either.
l'll be back when I'm up to it
Friday, May 25, 2012
Thursday, May 24, 2012
428. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 45 (Gilbert, pt. 1; Fioramonti, pt. 1)
Yesterday was a bit of a long day for me, with the two medical appointments spaced a couple hours apart and geographically located so it wasn't worth it to come home between them. And I hardly ever take naps and if I do just sort of collapse out of exhaustion on a couch or something and start to fall asleep I usually get up pretty quickly because I'm afraid I'll just sleep until the next morning, so I just keep going... sort of drag myself around the apartment exhausted (in the evenings especially). I just don't have stamina. I usually get 7 hours sleep, no matter what time I go to bed - 11:00 or 3:00. But last night I got 10 hours sleep, which is practically unheard of for me, and it sure felt good! I guess I'm glad it doesn't happen all the time though.
I think this is so, and this is how I explained it to the neurologist too, because I do still have fibromyalgia underlying all these other things and one of the major symptoms of fibromyalgia is fatigue. Besides, the back conditions, the various aches and pains (rheumatoid arthritis, neuritis in the feet, fibromyalgia, migraine, spinal stenosis - for which I just had the epdural a couple weeks ago, etc), and all these pain sources cause extra fatigue in themselves too.
Altogether, I think I do pretty well, considering everything I'm dealing with. But I'm really pushing my limits and lately I've been thinking I need to find a housecleaning to help me out some because even though I designed this place to make it easier to clean, I'm finding it difficult to keep up. Right now I'm doing my morning 45-minute stimulator session. I took my pre-breakfast medicines & supplements and then when I'm done with the stimulator I'll have breakfast and then start getting washed up for the day.
I have no appointments today, but the neurologist yesterday said to take it easy the next couple days and if I don't get better (for the dizziness) by the weekend to take the medrol dosepack script he gave me. And I have to go over my meds to see if I need to get any refills for tomorrow when I will portion them out for the week. And I really should make new portion bags because it's hard to read the ones I have now I've used them so much. They just need replacing. I need to look at my financial things too. And it's really important that I keep my stress down because that's the last thing I need with my fibromyalgia and migraine, so I'll have to pick the things to do today because realistically I won't be able to do all of these today, even if you might be able to, as a healthy person. I just can't zip-zip-zip through things. And then I have to take breaks from physically demanding things. And then my day is broken up by when I have to take my meds and I have to make myself sit down and drink full glasses of water at meals because my g.i. system is such a mess. I think taking the time also is a stress break too, though.
Anyway, I'm just saying, this is the kind of thing that I deal with day in and day out. I just can't up and go and do things really easily, and I tire easily and my body can go out of whack so easily it can set me back for days or weeks. I'm sort of a slave to my body, when you think about it.
Gilbert, B. C. (1972). Value education. Military Chaplains' Review, 1(2), 49-51.
This article is from the very first year of this journal that so many of these articles have come from!
1. Tent-making.
I've said a lot about tentmaking already, and even posted my unpublished article (post 214) on it. There's a keyword "tentmaking" that you can check all the articles on it.
I'll just summarize to say that Paul worked (made tents) in order not to be a burden on the believers. It had absolutely nothing to do with his accessing or getting into various communities or whatever. He just didn't want to be a burden or there be the potential for people thinking he was taking advantage of them. This is where the idea of tentmaking comes from, but erroneously so, in my opinion.
2. Citizen's duty with special talent.
I have also already said that I consider my citizenship to be primarily in heaven, that I am a pilgrim here on earth and that I am an ambassador for Christ.
With this in mind, it is true that I may be born into an earthly citizenship and that the government might exact certain rights and responsibilities from me, the earthly authority must in all cases be subject to the heavenly authority.
But in this case the heavenly (chaplain) becomes subject to the earthly (military). How backwards is that?
3. Entrée/way to relate to Army members.
Is this sort of like becoming a drug addict helps one minister to drug addicts? Do you really absolutely have to become a soldier to minister to the soldiers? Is it possible to minister to them without becoming one? Have other people and groups successfully done so without becoming soldiers?
Fioramonti, Mary E. (1993, Spring). The Army chaplaincy and change. The Army Chaplaincy, 18-20.
This is, by the way, the first female author in this file.
In language learning, when we find words that are the same or very similar in different languages was call them "false friends" - they look the same, but they really mean something different. For example, if you look at the Russian transliterated word mashina you probably automatically think "machine," right? Wrong. The Russian word mashina means car, so it is a false friend, it is not what you think it means even though it looks a lot like a word we have in English. I think that life in the ministry team compared with life in a civilian church in a comparable position, say as a deacon or board member of some sort, would be a "false friend". Maybe the new recruits to the ministry team might think they know what to expect with a lot of church or other religious background but the differences could catch them by surprise unless they have a very good (realistic) idea before hand about what to expect.
But this blog isn't, ultimately, about the military, now is it? So what tripped me up in Vienna? Was it because I was my father's daughter and there wasn't a thing I could do about it, I was going to have problems no matter what happened? Or did I really come all that naively, not knowing anything about what was going on? Or did I know too much and stood my ground too ardently and rejected their tighthold too vigorously?
So let's use these stages on me as pertains to the Vienna mission.
For me the formation stage was a matter of getting to know people and the ropes and all. If formation meant being paranoid, however, I wasn't particularly interested. There's a fine line between paranoia and being careful and discerning, and the mission didn't know the difference. I'm selected in what I form to, and they made it difficult to really want to form to them.
As to development... I already discussed trust in some detail and how the mission didn't do anything to make me want to trust them. My values remained unchanged, but where values wheren't an issue I had no problem accepting the way certain things were done. Throughout all this I never really could adjust my feelings, which were basically a shipwreck and there was so much family and mission conflict I could have single-handedly started the third-world war, I think.
I never even came anywhere near sustainment, so I'm not even going to attempt that one.
This was a little different take on my experience with the mission, and each approach provides some more information, I think, to what happened.
I think this is so, and this is how I explained it to the neurologist too, because I do still have fibromyalgia underlying all these other things and one of the major symptoms of fibromyalgia is fatigue. Besides, the back conditions, the various aches and pains (rheumatoid arthritis, neuritis in the feet, fibromyalgia, migraine, spinal stenosis - for which I just had the epdural a couple weeks ago, etc), and all these pain sources cause extra fatigue in themselves too.
Altogether, I think I do pretty well, considering everything I'm dealing with. But I'm really pushing my limits and lately I've been thinking I need to find a housecleaning to help me out some because even though I designed this place to make it easier to clean, I'm finding it difficult to keep up. Right now I'm doing my morning 45-minute stimulator session. I took my pre-breakfast medicines & supplements and then when I'm done with the stimulator I'll have breakfast and then start getting washed up for the day.
I have no appointments today, but the neurologist yesterday said to take it easy the next couple days and if I don't get better (for the dizziness) by the weekend to take the medrol dosepack script he gave me. And I have to go over my meds to see if I need to get any refills for tomorrow when I will portion them out for the week. And I really should make new portion bags because it's hard to read the ones I have now I've used them so much. They just need replacing. I need to look at my financial things too. And it's really important that I keep my stress down because that's the last thing I need with my fibromyalgia and migraine, so I'll have to pick the things to do today because realistically I won't be able to do all of these today, even if you might be able to, as a healthy person. I just can't zip-zip-zip through things. And then I have to take breaks from physically demanding things. And then my day is broken up by when I have to take my meds and I have to make myself sit down and drink full glasses of water at meals because my g.i. system is such a mess. I think taking the time also is a stress break too, though.
Anyway, I'm just saying, this is the kind of thing that I deal with day in and day out. I just can't up and go and do things really easily, and I tire easily and my body can go out of whack so easily it can set me back for days or weeks. I'm sort of a slave to my body, when you think about it.
***
The next article is:Gilbert, B. C. (1972). Value education. Military Chaplains' Review, 1(2), 49-51.
This article is from the very first year of this journal that so many of these articles have come from!
***
"Army chaplains have for years been involved in the work of value maintenance and formation. Character Guidance, Moral Heritage and Human Self-Development programs are nominal testimony to the fact that we have taken seriously this function which amplifies the spirit of the chaplain's role as advisor to commanders in matters of morality and morals. Some of us have justified this aspect of the ministry by calling it a kind of "tent making" which puts us in a position to go about our Father's real business. Others have considered it a duty in which we as citizens have a special talent and a special training. Still others have considered it an entrée with men and women who might not otherwise relate to us. In any event we have been the Army's primary specialists in moral education." (p. 49)So I guess individual chaplains develop or come into the work with metaphors or visions as to how they see themselves and their work. Let's, consider each perspective, one by one.
1. Tent-making.
I've said a lot about tentmaking already, and even posted my unpublished article (post 214) on it. There's a keyword "tentmaking" that you can check all the articles on it.
I'll just summarize to say that Paul worked (made tents) in order not to be a burden on the believers. It had absolutely nothing to do with his accessing or getting into various communities or whatever. He just didn't want to be a burden or there be the potential for people thinking he was taking advantage of them. This is where the idea of tentmaking comes from, but erroneously so, in my opinion.
2. Citizen's duty with special talent.
I have also already said that I consider my citizenship to be primarily in heaven, that I am a pilgrim here on earth and that I am an ambassador for Christ.
With this in mind, it is true that I may be born into an earthly citizenship and that the government might exact certain rights and responsibilities from me, the earthly authority must in all cases be subject to the heavenly authority.
But in this case the heavenly (chaplain) becomes subject to the earthly (military). How backwards is that?
3. Entrée/way to relate to Army members.
Is this sort of like becoming a drug addict helps one minister to drug addicts? Do you really absolutely have to become a soldier to minister to the soldiers? Is it possible to minister to them without becoming one? Have other people and groups successfully done so without becoming soldiers?
***
I thought there was another passage to comment on, but I don't have anything to say about it, so I'll pick another text.Fioramonti, Mary E. (1993, Spring). The Army chaplaincy and change. The Army Chaplaincy, 18-20.
This is, by the way, the first female author in this file.
***
This section of text falls within the contex of advising the chaplain as to how to gage the health and effectiveness of their ministry team. This text suggest one aspect of that process:"Every soldier goes through a formation stage. The challenges to face include belonging and acceptance, settling personal family concerns, and learning about leaders and other soldiers.In this particular situation we're talking about adjusting to working in a ministry team, but ministry teams could include somewhat diverse religious groupings in the military setting as the chaplaincy attempts to meet the needs of the various religious backgounds represented in the troup (or whatever size unit they're in). So, while the team member might not have to make an adjustment to a secular setting, he will have to make the adjustment to a somewhat religiously diverse one and also the ramifications of being located inside the army.
The next stage is development. A soldier learns to trust leaders and others, find close friends, decide who is in charge, accept the way things are done, adjust to feelings, and overcome family vs. unit conflict.
The final stage, sustainment, is where a soldier begins to assist and trust other team members, whare iteas and feelings freely, sustain trust and confidence, share mission and values, experience feelings of pride in the unit and cope with personal and family problems." (p. 20; bold in original)
In language learning, when we find words that are the same or very similar in different languages was call them "false friends" - they look the same, but they really mean something different. For example, if you look at the Russian transliterated word mashina you probably automatically think "machine," right? Wrong. The Russian word mashina means car, so it is a false friend, it is not what you think it means even though it looks a lot like a word we have in English. I think that life in the ministry team compared with life in a civilian church in a comparable position, say as a deacon or board member of some sort, would be a "false friend". Maybe the new recruits to the ministry team might think they know what to expect with a lot of church or other religious background but the differences could catch them by surprise unless they have a very good (realistic) idea before hand about what to expect.
But this blog isn't, ultimately, about the military, now is it? So what tripped me up in Vienna? Was it because I was my father's daughter and there wasn't a thing I could do about it, I was going to have problems no matter what happened? Or did I really come all that naively, not knowing anything about what was going on? Or did I know too much and stood my ground too ardently and rejected their tighthold too vigorously?
So let's use these stages on me as pertains to the Vienna mission.
For me the formation stage was a matter of getting to know people and the ropes and all. If formation meant being paranoid, however, I wasn't particularly interested. There's a fine line between paranoia and being careful and discerning, and the mission didn't know the difference. I'm selected in what I form to, and they made it difficult to really want to form to them.
As to development... I already discussed trust in some detail and how the mission didn't do anything to make me want to trust them. My values remained unchanged, but where values wheren't an issue I had no problem accepting the way certain things were done. Throughout all this I never really could adjust my feelings, which were basically a shipwreck and there was so much family and mission conflict I could have single-handedly started the third-world war, I think.
I never even came anywhere near sustainment, so I'm not even going to attempt that one.
This was a little different take on my experience with the mission, and each approach provides some more information, I think, to what happened.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
427. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 44 (G'Segner, pt. 1)
This next post is:
G'Segner, Ford F. (1986, Fall). A chaplain's perspective on the application of values. Military Chaplains' Review, 55-61.
I hope you're not going to try to tell me they're exactly the same; the ethics, I mean. You'd have a hard time with that one. Or are you going to try to say they're somehow complementary? I'd like to hear the argument on that one, although I'm very sure there are people who would hold to it. This is, basically, of course, a close cousin to the argument (at least I think it is) to not being able to serve both God and mammon. It's not exactly the same, but I think the logic is similar.
The other thing is that, really, the ethics that the Chief of Staff presents could mimic those found in Christianity, especially the ones found after the "Ultimately, strengthening..." These are: strengthening our inner self, bonding to others, strengthening our commitment to a higher calling."
instead of "bonding to others" we have "love thy neighbor as thyself";
and instead of "strenthening our commitment to a higher calling" we have "love the Lord they God with all they heart, and with all they sould and with all they mind."
Which "higher calling" takes precedence? Is Jesus Lord of your life or is the Chief of Chaplains lord of your life?
The thing is that I'm doubtful that military chaplains can live without compromising their faith within the military.
Hessian has, in his interview, beliefs, values, attitudes & motivations, and behavioral changes, which aparently come in that order. Now, in my understanding, researchers and and other scientists generally would hedge this a bit by saying something like, in 90% of cases, or with .05 validity, etc. So I'm going to assume that this is the case here, although Mr. Hessian didn't say that. And I'm not sure where he got this information from anyway. I have the source, though, so I could go try to look it up. It was in some newspaper called "Pentagram" though, and I have a feeling that's in the Pentagon, so I'm not sure that's available to the public or not. Maybe it is.
Anyway, in diagram form, here is what we have:
beliefs => values => attitudes & motivations => behavioral changes
Usually in these kinds of flow charts there end out being back tracks and sometimes skipping a step and things like that so you could have things like this:
Person A:
Beliefs => values => beliefs => values => attitudes & motivations => behavioral changes
Person B:
Beliefs => values => attitudes & motivations => behavioral changes => values => attitudes & motivations
So then it guest quite messy, right? (By the way, person B's value changes didn't require any behavioral changes.)
But that's okay, one size fits all, right?
In my case, my values started changing in Vienna and then in Russia I went through another big values change and contineud that in the U.S., especially when I had such a hard time finding work, and my family just thought I was lazy. Each time, though, I did some serious and extremely conscious and conscientious soul searching, sometimes involving researching, like you're seeing here. I really was just trying to make sense of my life and it did make me mad that I never did anything to hurt anyone and I tried even tried sometimes, when I could, to make it clear that I wasn't interested in anything political.
But as I reacted to the horrible or at least difficult situations, like in Vienna, part of that also included thinking about my beliefs and values especially. And I did change a lot. For those who wouldn't believe me about what happened in Vienna, they just couldn't understand the changes in me. But those who believed me, like my grandmother, understood me better. So that was the key, you had to believe me, or it wouldn't make any sense at all.
Dad was the main one behind the push to not believe me. When mom came to Vienna to help me pack up and saw the different in how they were treating me compared to a couple months prior when she was there and helping teach health at the new English language school, but dad convinced her that a lot of the stuff she had seen (and I have with me in writing from when she was in Vienna helping me pack) was bogus and couldn't be true.
G'Segner, Ford F. (1986, Fall). A chaplain's perspective on the application of values. Military Chaplains' Review, 55-61.
***
Evidently the army has (or had, I don't know if they still do or not) annual themes and the one for 1986 was "values.""The Chief of Staff Army "Values" White Paper uses these concepts and expands their application.
The thing is that the military is a "total institution," right? I don't think there's any doubt about that, at least not among experts on the subject. And it can be argued that for Christians the Body of Christ should be like a total institution, too, in as much as it's all consuming and it invades your whole life, right? So how can you live by the ethics of two total institutions at the same time?
Our Oath of Commission, Oath of Enlistment, or Oath of Office, requires that we live by the tenets of the professional Army ethic that we live by the tenets of the professional Army ethic and those Personal values that strengthen and enable us to execute the missions entrusted to us. Values are what we, as a profession, judge to be right. They are more than words -- they are the moral, ethical, and professional attributes of character. Our character is what enables us to withstand the rigors of combat or the challenges of daily life that might tempts us to compromise our principles such as integrity, loyalty, of selflessness. Ultimately, strengthening the values that make up our character enables us to strengthen our inner self, strengthen our bonding to others, and strengthen our commitment to a higher calling.
This is familiar language to chaplains. We are charged to our churches and religious groups to represent these values to soldiers. In addition, we are expected to apply the professional Army ethic with its individual values to our lives and the lives of the soldiers we serve." (p. 56)
I hope you're not going to try to tell me they're exactly the same; the ethics, I mean. You'd have a hard time with that one. Or are you going to try to say they're somehow complementary? I'd like to hear the argument on that one, although I'm very sure there are people who would hold to it. This is, basically, of course, a close cousin to the argument (at least I think it is) to not being able to serve both God and mammon. It's not exactly the same, but I think the logic is similar.
The other thing is that, really, the ethics that the Chief of Staff presents could mimic those found in Christianity, especially the ones found after the "Ultimately, strengthening..." These are: strengthening our inner self, bonding to others, strengthening our commitment to a higher calling."
Matthew 22Here instead of "strengthening our inner self" we have "love... thyself";
King James Version (KJV)36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
instead of "bonding to others" we have "love thy neighbor as thyself";
and instead of "strenthening our commitment to a higher calling" we have "love the Lord they God with all they heart, and with all they sould and with all they mind."
Which "higher calling" takes precedence? Is Jesus Lord of your life or is the Chief of Chaplains lord of your life?
The thing is that I'm doubtful that military chaplains can live without compromising their faith within the military.
***
"In a recent newspaper interview Chaplain Patrick J. Hessian, former Army Chief of Chaplains, put the piety and ethic relationship into this perspective.Well, certainly I've changed my values in my adult lifetime. Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial Development are a well known example of how people might go through stages of value development in life. But, of course, institutions like the army might want to know how to more specifically effect value change. And I assume the Army would reject Martin Buber's approach out of hand because respect for the individual is unacceptable to them.
I attempt to stress the importance of looking at the spiritual belief structure that underlies any values we talk about.
It's important to understand that we don't start with values. We start with beliefs, and we build values on top of that. It begins with primary beliefs, those you larned at your mother's knee. Then you acquire beliefs just in the process of living. It's on this belief structure that your values rest. Once values are entrenched in your being, your attitudes and motivations in life flow from them, and from those attitudes and motivations come behavioral changes.
So, there's a clear path here of changes that start with belief structures, which are very frequently involved with spiritual things. If you're going to deal with values, it's important to understand the why of them -- what do you believe that's causing you to do this or that?
Contrary to a populary view, values can be changed -- if Chaplain Hessian is correct about values stemming from beliefs. (p. 58)
Hessian has, in his interview, beliefs, values, attitudes & motivations, and behavioral changes, which aparently come in that order. Now, in my understanding, researchers and and other scientists generally would hedge this a bit by saying something like, in 90% of cases, or with .05 validity, etc. So I'm going to assume that this is the case here, although Mr. Hessian didn't say that. And I'm not sure where he got this information from anyway. I have the source, though, so I could go try to look it up. It was in some newspaper called "Pentagram" though, and I have a feeling that's in the Pentagon, so I'm not sure that's available to the public or not. Maybe it is.
Anyway, in diagram form, here is what we have:
beliefs => values => attitudes & motivations => behavioral changes
Usually in these kinds of flow charts there end out being back tracks and sometimes skipping a step and things like that so you could have things like this:
Person A:
Beliefs => values => beliefs => values => attitudes & motivations => behavioral changes
Person B:
Beliefs => values => attitudes & motivations => behavioral changes => values => attitudes & motivations
So then it guest quite messy, right? (By the way, person B's value changes didn't require any behavioral changes.)
But that's okay, one size fits all, right?
In my case, my values started changing in Vienna and then in Russia I went through another big values change and contineud that in the U.S., especially when I had such a hard time finding work, and my family just thought I was lazy. Each time, though, I did some serious and extremely conscious and conscientious soul searching, sometimes involving researching, like you're seeing here. I really was just trying to make sense of my life and it did make me mad that I never did anything to hurt anyone and I tried even tried sometimes, when I could, to make it clear that I wasn't interested in anything political.
But as I reacted to the horrible or at least difficult situations, like in Vienna, part of that also included thinking about my beliefs and values especially. And I did change a lot. For those who wouldn't believe me about what happened in Vienna, they just couldn't understand the changes in me. But those who believed me, like my grandmother, understood me better. So that was the key, you had to believe me, or it wouldn't make any sense at all.
Dad was the main one behind the push to not believe me. When mom came to Vienna to help me pack up and saw the different in how they were treating me compared to a couple months prior when she was there and helping teach health at the new English language school, but dad convinced her that a lot of the stuff she had seen (and I have with me in writing from when she was in Vienna helping me pack) was bogus and couldn't be true.
***
That's the end of this article.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
426. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 43 (Seidel, pt. 1)
It's interesting to watch the statistics of who's reading these posts, and it looks like the Americans in particular, while their readership of the Military Chaplaincy file dropped off precipitously took a sharp spike for the Vienna Backtrack (post no. 424). This makes me think that maybe there really is something to the dumbing of the American mind that they can't take logical discourse and are more prone to 3rd grade ready level, such as personal correspondence.
Of course, there could be other reasons, as well, which I will leave to the readers' imagination, but as of this writing, it is only the Americans that this seems to pertain to. (By the way, I'm an American too, but I consider myself an equal opportunity critiquer, and I think that my American readers may be perhaps a certain class of Americans.)
So I see that those Americans might really like me to keep on that kind of simple autobiographical mode. Very interesting. Then maybe I shouldn't do that. What do you think? Should I just give them what they want? It could be my old boss among them (the director of the mission now). As Evgeni Zamyatin said in "We", in discussing how to deal with the overarching control of the state, "You have to think, it helps." (Nado dumat', eto pomagaet'.) That's what got me through my years in Vienna... barely. Why stop now?
Seidel, Andrew B. (1981, Summer). Developing a healthy self-image. Military Chaplains' Review, 49-59.
However, the church is supposed to value each member of the Body, so that one part can't say to another part that s/he doesn't need the other (I Cor. 12:14-23), no matter how apparently insignificant the role a person plays in the church. (I underline apparently because that's just a biased view and not God's view of the individual's role in the church.)
Even after the counseling in the USA, I had decided just to cooperate in the areas that wouldn't impinge on my values. That's like me not being a cultural relativist and being okay with taking my shoes off at the door but as soon as you start impinging on my moral beliefs I won't budge. I wouldn't budge with the mission either. So for them to say that I just couldn't stand the stress is really misleading, because the reason I couldn't stand the stress was because I was withstanding them the their pressures. And in a lot of ways, I was flaunting it actually, by having friends come from the States, going to the Austrian church, insisting on my own apartment, etc. And I didn't come running to them all broken like I was supposed to by the stressors they were throwing at me either, and I wasn't telling anyone about what I was thinking about all the things they were throwing at me. So they had no clue what I was thinking at all, except that I was cheerful and under stress, which I'd told a couple secretaries.
The Vienna mission really broke my self-concept a lot, but I knew that everything I'd done with them I'd done well and they never said otherwise. But it was humiliating that I knew I could do a lot more than they ever had me do. And the fact that when they finally did have me go on mission trips and I did well and they seemed to think so too that I knew that I had redeemed myself and proved to myself and them too that I really was everything I knew all along I was and everything they treated me like I wasn't.
But, still, I returned home to the U.S. humiliated and there was no getting around that. I was devastated and all the humillation that I'd had to live with and bury inside myself all those 2 years I was finally free to release. But then I had to find people who would believe me, and that was a very hard thing to do it turned out.
It's just hard now with the hurts I've been through. I try to learn from the mistakes I make now though (Oops! I guess I should have let my guard down there and considered what the group values were...) I think people who have been through extremely difficult or painful situations often have some kind of re-learning to do that might take time to get comfortable with certain kinds of situations again. I know I'm not being very clear, but I don't really want to go into examples.
When I first moved here I had a friend from the government agency library branch down here that was the same as the agency I was working for in the D.C. area. We got along great and when I got sick she came to me, which was nice, but then she started trying to get me to make new friends, but she didn't understand how hard it was being sick. I was trying to go to a Scrabble group and church and a midweek Bible study, but those were all sporadic, depending on how I felt. So it was hard to make friends, and still is. Eventually we just sort of drifted apart, and then I moved up to New York.
Then I came back yere and I have a couple acquaintances, but no real friends, I don't think. There's no one I can just buddy around with, no one I can just call up and chat with (or e-mail, or whatever), no one to have coffee with. Since I'm not well and don't have a lot of energy, I would need someone who understands that and isn't very demanding. Even just stopping by for half an hour or an hour for coffee or tea would be nice.
I assume by accurate, he means not over or less then the truth.
And by balanced, he means considering various aspects of the person, or perhaps various perspectives.
And, finally, by healthy, he means constructive, rather than emotionally destructive.
God would definitely want "accurate", so I don't think that that's an issue. I say that because He is interested in the truth.
I'm not sure what God would say about "balanced", because I think that "balanced" could be used as a kind of self-rationalization for sin, so it depends on how "balanced" is used.
As to "healthy", I don't think God is so interested in that. God is interested primarily in whether something is morally right or wrong. But I think that if something is morally right it will more than likely be also "healthy." I don't know all the different cases and situations for what is morally right to say for sure, but I'm pretty sure that will be the case. That is, if a self-concept is morally right (or upright), then it will also be healthy.
Okay, so let's say we're left with an accurate / truthful and morally right /healthy self-concept as the ideal that God might want for the Christian.
I think I had an accurate view of my knowledge and skills and this was born out by the time I left Vienna, such as during the mission trips I took. Also, my view of myself in these areas was based on actual experiences and feedback from others prior to coming to Vienna so I had concrete reason to believe that these things about myself were true.
In contrast, when I left the mission feeling a huge failure there was not a whole lot to hang that feeling on except the way the mission treated me like moving me around so much and things like that. Otherwise, they did nothing to negate the fact that the previous things I knew I could do I could still do and still knew. They only humiliated me. So they didn't have evidence that I didn't know how to do things, such as type or file or travel in Eastern Europe, etc. That is, my self-confidence was at least in part because I was dashed because I was "standing up on the inside," for example, and the repercussions of that stance. Being my father's daughter may have made standing up on the inside a more heinous crime than it otherwise might have been, resulting in a stronger and more multi-faceted backlash.
So the humiliated self-concept I had when I returned from Vienna was not at all accurate to the true me, but it was what the Vienna mission did to me, through the way they treated me.
Of course, there could be other reasons, as well, which I will leave to the readers' imagination, but as of this writing, it is only the Americans that this seems to pertain to. (By the way, I'm an American too, but I consider myself an equal opportunity critiquer, and I think that my American readers may be perhaps a certain class of Americans.)
So I see that those Americans might really like me to keep on that kind of simple autobiographical mode. Very interesting. Then maybe I shouldn't do that. What do you think? Should I just give them what they want? It could be my old boss among them (the director of the mission now). As Evgeni Zamyatin said in "We", in discussing how to deal with the overarching control of the state, "You have to think, it helps." (Nado dumat', eto pomagaet'.) That's what got me through my years in Vienna... barely. Why stop now?
***
The next text is:Seidel, Andrew B. (1981, Summer). Developing a healthy self-image. Military Chaplains' Review, 49-59.
***
"Certainly Jesus Christ neither lived nor advocated a life that would qualify by today's standards as 'self-actualized. 'For the Christian the self is the problem, not the potential paradise."That's true, the gifts of the spirit are not for personal building up and to make you feel good, that's not what they are intended for. I don't know of any passage where people in the Bible said they "felt good" for giving to others or helping others. Often they were acknowledged or thanked for doing something, but what the givers and doers felt is not an issue evidently. And the focus is more on meeting needs. Individuals are given spiritual gifts to meet various needs and they use them for good.
However, the church is supposed to value each member of the Body, so that one part can't say to another part that s/he doesn't need the other (I Cor. 12:14-23), no matter how apparently insignificant the role a person plays in the church. (I underline apparently because that's just a biased view and not God's view of the individual's role in the church.)
***
"A person's self-concept is also the product of his own evaluation of his experiences. All of us react to our experiences by making value judgments about them. When we succeed in accomplishmeing something we desired to do, we feel good about ourselves. When we do not succeed, we place a negative value judgement on ourselves for failing and feel bad about positive self-image. A number of failures to meet our own goals would tend to produce a negative self-image. It is, however, extremely difficult to talk about value judgments as being strictly individual because our goals and values are so heavily influenced by other people." (p. 52)The mission already crushed my self esteem by sending me home to the U.S. in the 5th month of my time with them. I was reading through some of my notes from them and the contrast from the sommer of 1987 to the fall of 1987 was amazing. They did it to me. What else could it be? But it wasn't how they want to make it out to be as much as they are dying to do so. They want so much to say that I just couldn't stand the stress, as if I was trying to cooperate, but couldn't. But that isn't so. This is how it really was: I was withstanding their pressures to conform and couldn't stand the stress. There's a big difference. I never did try to fully cooperate.
Even after the counseling in the USA, I had decided just to cooperate in the areas that wouldn't impinge on my values. That's like me not being a cultural relativist and being okay with taking my shoes off at the door but as soon as you start impinging on my moral beliefs I won't budge. I wouldn't budge with the mission either. So for them to say that I just couldn't stand the stress is really misleading, because the reason I couldn't stand the stress was because I was withstanding them the their pressures. And in a lot of ways, I was flaunting it actually, by having friends come from the States, going to the Austrian church, insisting on my own apartment, etc. And I didn't come running to them all broken like I was supposed to by the stressors they were throwing at me either, and I wasn't telling anyone about what I was thinking about all the things they were throwing at me. So they had no clue what I was thinking at all, except that I was cheerful and under stress, which I'd told a couple secretaries.
The Vienna mission really broke my self-concept a lot, but I knew that everything I'd done with them I'd done well and they never said otherwise. But it was humiliating that I knew I could do a lot more than they ever had me do. And the fact that when they finally did have me go on mission trips and I did well and they seemed to think so too that I knew that I had redeemed myself and proved to myself and them too that I really was everything I knew all along I was and everything they treated me like I wasn't.
But, still, I returned home to the U.S. humiliated and there was no getting around that. I was devastated and all the humillation that I'd had to live with and bury inside myself all those 2 years I was finally free to release. But then I had to find people who would believe me, and that was a very hard thing to do it turned out.
***
"For most people it does not matter whether these values are right or wrong. What does matter is that the majority of people hold these values." (p. 54)The author is talking specifically here about physical attractiveness and intelligence, but for me I'd like to just discuss this in general. The thing is that I've had to go against the flow both in Vienna with the mission and in Russia with the Komsomols (! that's not how they billed themselves), so I've gotten sort of used to not really caring what people think too much and just going by my own judgment and value system, which generally isn't too far off, but sometimes could use a little fine tuning for contextualization.
It's just hard now with the hurts I've been through. I try to learn from the mistakes I make now though (Oops! I guess I should have let my guard down there and considered what the group values were...) I think people who have been through extremely difficult or painful situations often have some kind of re-learning to do that might take time to get comfortable with certain kinds of situations again. I know I'm not being very clear, but I don't really want to go into examples.
***
"Because a person's self-image is constructed primarily from interpersonal relationships (particularly with his parents), his self-image may be modified through the same process." (p. 57)I would like to have more interpersonal relationships, but how? Last Friday I went out with a gal from church, maybe 15 years or so my elder. We just had dinner and went to her place for dessert, which I brought, and sat around and talked. I got home late, just wiped out and it was too much for me so the next day I was sort of set back somewhat. Then Sunday it turned out my migraine indeed had gotten worse, so now I have an appointment tomorrow with the neurologist about it, and I missed church Sunday.
When I first moved here I had a friend from the government agency library branch down here that was the same as the agency I was working for in the D.C. area. We got along great and when I got sick she came to me, which was nice, but then she started trying to get me to make new friends, but she didn't understand how hard it was being sick. I was trying to go to a Scrabble group and church and a midweek Bible study, but those were all sporadic, depending on how I felt. So it was hard to make friends, and still is. Eventually we just sort of drifted apart, and then I moved up to New York.
Then I came back yere and I have a couple acquaintances, but no real friends, I don't think. There's no one I can just buddy around with, no one I can just call up and chat with (or e-mail, or whatever), no one to have coffee with. Since I'm not well and don't have a lot of energy, I would need someone who understands that and isn't very demanding. Even just stopping by for half an hour or an hour for coffee or tea would be nice.
***
"The desired end result is a more accurate, balanced, and healthy self-concept." (p. 58)Seidel is determined to treat the individual's self-concept, and since he is, I guess this is a reasonable secular end-result.
I assume by accurate, he means not over or less then the truth.
And by balanced, he means considering various aspects of the person, or perhaps various perspectives.
And, finally, by healthy, he means constructive, rather than emotionally destructive.
God would definitely want "accurate", so I don't think that that's an issue. I say that because He is interested in the truth.
I'm not sure what God would say about "balanced", because I think that "balanced" could be used as a kind of self-rationalization for sin, so it depends on how "balanced" is used.
As to "healthy", I don't think God is so interested in that. God is interested primarily in whether something is morally right or wrong. But I think that if something is morally right it will more than likely be also "healthy." I don't know all the different cases and situations for what is morally right to say for sure, but I'm pretty sure that will be the case. That is, if a self-concept is morally right (or upright), then it will also be healthy.
Okay, so let's say we're left with an accurate / truthful and morally right /healthy self-concept as the ideal that God might want for the Christian.
I think I had an accurate view of my knowledge and skills and this was born out by the time I left Vienna, such as during the mission trips I took. Also, my view of myself in these areas was based on actual experiences and feedback from others prior to coming to Vienna so I had concrete reason to believe that these things about myself were true.
In contrast, when I left the mission feeling a huge failure there was not a whole lot to hang that feeling on except the way the mission treated me like moving me around so much and things like that. Otherwise, they did nothing to negate the fact that the previous things I knew I could do I could still do and still knew. They only humiliated me. So they didn't have evidence that I didn't know how to do things, such as type or file or travel in Eastern Europe, etc. That is, my self-confidence was at least in part because I was dashed because I was "standing up on the inside," for example, and the repercussions of that stance. Being my father's daughter may have made standing up on the inside a more heinous crime than it otherwise might have been, resulting in a stronger and more multi-faceted backlash.
So the humiliated self-concept I had when I returned from Vienna was not at all accurate to the true me, but it was what the Vienna mission did to me, through the way they treated me.
***
That's it for this article.
Monday, May 21, 2012
425. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 42 (Kohl, pt.1)
I went to physical therapy today and I did about as expected with the new downturn in my health (again!). It does seem to be the migrain. So I have an appointment with the neurologist on Wednesday. The physical therapist agreed that it seemed like that to her too. It's affecting my pain level too though, such as from fibromyalgia. So I'm wrapped in heat right now. It's slowed me down a bit.
It's really frustrating, because there's no way I could hope to go out West in July (to see family) if I'm going to keep having these kinds of health issues at every turn. I just can't deal with it and I don't have anyone to help me if I have problems while I'm away. So then I'm sort of stuck here. If I'm staying here, though, then maybe I could finish a couple things on the condo. It's really frustrating though. But there's not much I can do about it (my health limitations), because I'm doing the best I can, really.
Kohl, John P. (1980, Winter). It's more than griping -- thoughts on counseling dissatisfied soldiers. Military Chaplains' Review, 13-21.
In the Vienna mission virtually everyone had high morale because that was part of socialization and if you didn't have high morale than it would soon be found out and soeone would be on top of it to "express concern" to find out what's going on. I think that's why I slipped under the radar till the very end - because I apparently had high morale (no matter what happened, no matter what they threw at me). Really, you might think I was supremely stupid and didn't understand at all what was going on the way I was so cheerful no matter what they did to me. But that was my external self, my yes-man playing alone. After being sent to the States and then returning to Vienna I was scared to disagree with them, but I did internally anyway.
I have a feeling that most people, once they were really part of the organization, just decided to not think too much about these kinds of things that might become problematic.
That's it for that article.
It's really frustrating, because there's no way I could hope to go out West in July (to see family) if I'm going to keep having these kinds of health issues at every turn. I just can't deal with it and I don't have anyone to help me if I have problems while I'm away. So then I'm sort of stuck here. If I'm staying here, though, then maybe I could finish a couple things on the condo. It's really frustrating though. But there's not much I can do about it (my health limitations), because I'm doing the best I can, really.
***
The next article is:Kohl, John P. (1980, Winter). It's more than griping -- thoughts on counseling dissatisfied soldiers. Military Chaplains' Review, 13-21.
***
"The Human Relations Movement, and its philosophy that satisfied workers will be more productive workers, dominated much of the management literature from the 1920's until the 1950's. It is interesting to note that these concepts continue to dominate the thinking of many managers in industry, the government and the military. As a result, all too often human relations training is seen as a cure-all for whatever ails a unit." (p. 15)I have no idea what philosophy the human resources department in the Vienna mission operated under, but it didn't appear to me that satisfied workers was anything that they cared one iota about. The thing that they care about was workers that towed the line and passed the socialization test of being completely trusting of the mission (no holds barred, etc.). In the spirit of the Soviet Union, deviants were declared mentally touched or else were driven there. This, to me, has nothing in the least to do with employee satisfaction.
***
"Studies have shown that dissatisfaction often leads to increased absences, turnover and other difficulties. A unit with high morale is often a unit with high reenlistment rates and fewer people going on sick call. So continue to do PET, and continue to show supervisors how to pay attention to people's needs. But avoid the fallacious belief that high morale units are necessarily more productive units." (p. 15)I expect that the military has so many checks and balances, so many levels of oversight that productivity will happen even without excessively high morale, because it's enforced, if nothing else.
In the Vienna mission virtually everyone had high morale because that was part of socialization and if you didn't have high morale than it would soon be found out and soeone would be on top of it to "express concern" to find out what's going on. I think that's why I slipped under the radar till the very end - because I apparently had high morale (no matter what happened, no matter what they threw at me). Really, you might think I was supremely stupid and didn't understand at all what was going on the way I was so cheerful no matter what they did to me. But that was my external self, my yes-man playing alone. After being sent to the States and then returning to Vienna I was scared to disagree with them, but I did internally anyway.
I have a feeling that most people, once they were really part of the organization, just decided to not think too much about these kinds of things that might become problematic.
***
"Much of the behavior modification literature of recent years has stressed the importance of using extrinsic rewards as a way of motivating workers." (p. 18)They really didn't use this on my much. Sometimes I was told various stories of this or that possible opportunity down the line, but I never knew if it was a real or phantom possibility, so I never really knew if I should hang my hat on it or not. I ended out going the "not" route and just mainly ignoring these rumors. So if we ignore these things as pipe dreams, then all I got was the stick (vs. the carrot). So I more or less figured out what to run from, and I sort of guestimated as to what I was supposed to run to, but I wasn't interested, after all the sticks they threw my way. I guess they didn't know about the "preferability of using extrinsic rewards as a way of motivating workers."
***
That's it for that article.
424. Vienna Backtrack: Correspondence
Since I recieved correspondence I'd sent my parents while I was with the Vienna mission (and a few others and pictures, etc.), I'd like to include some of those letters here. Some of them were written in the earliest days that I was with the mission, which I've already covered in my autobiographical narrative, so I'll present individual letters along with discussions of the letter at hand from time to time interspersed with the regular posts discussing the file articles.
Here is the first one.
Dear Mom & Dad
I'm terribly sorry that I haven't written you sooner. It's been difficult because the girl I'm supposed to be staying with (a 2-year termer) is very difficult to get a quiet moment with to be able to sit down and write. She's the one from Alaska that phoned about rooming together. Anyways, I've been able to spend some time with individuals and families to get to know them, what some of the struggles are, etc. For example, the issue of babysitting - assuming it's a single girls' ministry or dividing attention between Austrian life/ministry and [the Vienna mission]. It's nice to be able to find some of these things out now before I'm personally confronted with them. Then, too, I hope it'll help me be sensitive to others in these areas.
I've found an apartment about 20 min. walk from [the Vienna mission] office. It's a large studio apt., furnished, with lots of nice cupboard & storage space and a Christian owner. The utilities are still hooked up from the last renter ([a Vienna mission] bachelor), which saves on that expense, and there is no lease. So I could still look for a one bedroom apt. Also, it's on a hill (100 steps!!) facing the west, which cuts down on the heating cost and leaves a nice view of the Viennese forest on the hill it faces. Not bad, huh? The owner, Eliziabeth, is in Germany now so I'm waiting for her to get back before moving in. At least I'll have a place for the junior high group to stay at.
You're not going to believe what I just did (well, ok, so maybe you will). I bought this nice airmail stationery (actually, it's just the standard) so that postage would be cheaper. But I didn't realized that the top sheet was not airmail paper. (D-uh) So this is (what you are holding in your hands) something that is not airmail paper!
Anyways, I've been to the [Vienna mission] offices several times and [my sending mission] office serveral times. And today I went to sit in on some of the orientation of the summer workers, which is actually somewhere else yet. Tomorrow I'll go back there and then in the afternoon [my boss's boss's secretary] will start training me in my secretarial position. I had dinner at her and her roommate's apartment this evening and I think we'll work together really well.
I'm going to be secretary to the managing director. So I'll be involved with a lot of the highly sensitive aspects of the ministry. People often don't know from one dept. to the next certain sensitive facets of the ministry. On Mondays & Fridays I'll be filling in as receptionist till they get someone permanant for that.
I'm seeing a bit of a problem in locating a German church. There aren't very many here to begin with, and then I guess sometimes there are a lot of North Americans (like myself) in the church. Last Sunday I was supposed to meet [another missionary] & go to his church, which is evidently the nearest one. But I waited to meet him at the wrong corner. Oops! I ended out going to the International Chapel, which meets in the afternoon. I didn't like it.
I still have to "anmeld" (register with the police) then apply for a visa, and then sign up for the Austrian health plan. I have the form to anmeld, so I'll probably take care of that Thurs. a.m. (It's open Tues. & Thurs. a.m. at this particular place.)
More later.
Lots of love,
[Meg]
I arrived in Vienna June 23, so this letter is written about a week after my arrival.
First of all, you'll note that the mission continued to make my desire to live alone an issue, but continuing to have me rooming with a roommate at all, but also with the same one they had plied me with while I was still in the USA, despite my having requested to live alone. When I arived and continued the request they did comply, but I had to be adamant and insistent, which is, of course, more stressful and also involves more moving around.
It sounds like they had told me that I was going to be working with great secrets. Whether or not that was to be true is another matter. Later on I learned to not trust these kinds of things they'd say. They could just as easily be testing me as anything else. But I wouldn't have known that yet, not at this early stage.
It's ironic that I didn't like the Vienna International Chapel and by the end of my time in Vienna I'd be attending there. The person I was at this early stage could not have fathomed what the person I'd have become by the end of my two years with the mission.
This letter is so peppy and upbead, it's just incredible. If I only knew what awated me.
Here is the first one.
***
29 Juni 1987 Tel.: 44-10-974Dear Mom & Dad
I'm terribly sorry that I haven't written you sooner. It's been difficult because the girl I'm supposed to be staying with (a 2-year termer) is very difficult to get a quiet moment with to be able to sit down and write. She's the one from Alaska that phoned about rooming together. Anyways, I've been able to spend some time with individuals and families to get to know them, what some of the struggles are, etc. For example, the issue of babysitting - assuming it's a single girls' ministry or dividing attention between Austrian life/ministry and [the Vienna mission]. It's nice to be able to find some of these things out now before I'm personally confronted with them. Then, too, I hope it'll help me be sensitive to others in these areas.
I've found an apartment about 20 min. walk from [the Vienna mission] office. It's a large studio apt., furnished, with lots of nice cupboard & storage space and a Christian owner. The utilities are still hooked up from the last renter ([a Vienna mission] bachelor), which saves on that expense, and there is no lease. So I could still look for a one bedroom apt. Also, it's on a hill (100 steps!!) facing the west, which cuts down on the heating cost and leaves a nice view of the Viennese forest on the hill it faces. Not bad, huh? The owner, Eliziabeth, is in Germany now so I'm waiting for her to get back before moving in. At least I'll have a place for the junior high group to stay at.
You're not going to believe what I just did (well, ok, so maybe you will). I bought this nice airmail stationery (actually, it's just the standard) so that postage would be cheaper. But I didn't realized that the top sheet was not airmail paper. (D-uh) So this is (what you are holding in your hands) something that is not airmail paper!
Anyways, I've been to the [Vienna mission] offices several times and [my sending mission] office serveral times. And today I went to sit in on some of the orientation of the summer workers, which is actually somewhere else yet. Tomorrow I'll go back there and then in the afternoon [my boss's boss's secretary] will start training me in my secretarial position. I had dinner at her and her roommate's apartment this evening and I think we'll work together really well.
I'm going to be secretary to the managing director. So I'll be involved with a lot of the highly sensitive aspects of the ministry. People often don't know from one dept. to the next certain sensitive facets of the ministry. On Mondays & Fridays I'll be filling in as receptionist till they get someone permanant for that.
I'm seeing a bit of a problem in locating a German church. There aren't very many here to begin with, and then I guess sometimes there are a lot of North Americans (like myself) in the church. Last Sunday I was supposed to meet [another missionary] & go to his church, which is evidently the nearest one. But I waited to meet him at the wrong corner. Oops! I ended out going to the International Chapel, which meets in the afternoon. I didn't like it.
I still have to "anmeld" (register with the police) then apply for a visa, and then sign up for the Austrian health plan. I have the form to anmeld, so I'll probably take care of that Thurs. a.m. (It's open Tues. & Thurs. a.m. at this particular place.)
More later.
Lots of love,
[Meg]
***
I arrived in Vienna June 23, so this letter is written about a week after my arrival.
First of all, you'll note that the mission continued to make my desire to live alone an issue, but continuing to have me rooming with a roommate at all, but also with the same one they had plied me with while I was still in the USA, despite my having requested to live alone. When I arived and continued the request they did comply, but I had to be adamant and insistent, which is, of course, more stressful and also involves more moving around.
It sounds like they had told me that I was going to be working with great secrets. Whether or not that was to be true is another matter. Later on I learned to not trust these kinds of things they'd say. They could just as easily be testing me as anything else. But I wouldn't have known that yet, not at this early stage.
It's ironic that I didn't like the Vienna International Chapel and by the end of my time in Vienna I'd be attending there. The person I was at this early stage could not have fathomed what the person I'd have become by the end of my two years with the mission.
This letter is so peppy and upbead, it's just incredible. If I only knew what awated me.
423. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 41 (Smith, pt. 1)
I got up early this morning (without an alarm!), maybe because I got to bed early last night (11:30!) because I was feeling crummy. I want to go to my primary care doctor as a walk-in today. She might not be able to do anything, but maybe she can say if she thinks its related to one of my conditions. I think it might be my migraine, but I'm not really sure.
More things like this, though, and any hopes I might have of visiting family out west seems less and less advisable.
Smith, Wilford E. (1977, Summer). Church and state in America in the twenty-first century A.D. Military Chaplaincy Review, 28-40.
Who told them they were stooges? Did God say they were stooges? Did God say that they would be absolved of all responsibility for their actions in such a situation? I don't think so. Whatever gave them that idea? Somehow to me, personally, it sounds rather suspiciously like something that Satan would say:
More things like this, though, and any hopes I might have of visiting family out west seems less and less advisable.
***
This next article is:Smith, Wilford E. (1977, Summer). Church and state in America in the twenty-first century A.D. Military Chaplaincy Review, 28-40.
***
This next quote falls in the context of Milton Konvitz's arguments (from the book Religious Liberty and Conscience, Viking Press, 1969) demonstrating how conscience trumps everything else, including all kinds of external institutions, in moral force, and to disregard conscience in favor of an external force is to "forfeit dignity.""The Nuremberg trials establish the principle in international law that the defense acted pursuant to orders of the government or a superior officer does not absolve a defendant from responsibility." (p. 31)Now you can hardly deny that that, at least in many cases, those who participated in Nazi war crimes might have faced more difficult consequences for lack of cooperation with the Nazi Wehrmacht than the Vienna missionaries would have experienced for not cooperating with the mission leadership, although when the threat of making you go crazy was a very real possibility that might have been approaching Nazi terror. But there had to even have been leaders who were willing to make such (usually tacit) threats. And, I submit, that just like in the Nuremburg trials, and just like in a million other places where human rights is an issue, the enactors still bear responsibility for their actions, and you cannot put all the blame on the decreers and the planners. Those who "simply obey orders" like so many stooges (as if they could just set aside any personal responsibility and conscience), are not really stooges.
Who told them they were stooges? Did God say they were stooges? Did God say that they would be absolved of all responsibility for their actions in such a situation? I don't think so. Whatever gave them that idea? Somehow to me, personally, it sounds rather suspiciously like something that Satan would say:
Genesis 3:4-5
King James Version (KJV)
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
I don't agree with Konvitz, though. I guess I see his point that the formal church can be wrong, although our church leaders should be there as guides for us. They aren't infallible though, and also need to be held accountable. And we all, as Christians, need to be accountable to Scripture and to God, as well as to one another. God did create in us a conscience and we can educate it to be in tune with His will, and we as Christians have the Holy Spirit within us, so on these bases, to a certain extent we can look inward to make moral decisions, but that's not and shouldn't be, the only resource we have. I'm talking as Christians here. Missionaries working in the Vienna mission learned to rely on this a lot, though, because working in East Bloc countries meant you couldn't talk to a lot of people about your moral concerns.
And as to how I was treated and possibly how others might have been treated, even if it wasn't quite on the scale of my treatment, the individuals at the mission are all going to be held responsible for their part in it. And if they remained silent when they could have spoken up or if they were just "an innocent bystander" but could have done something, they might even still be held responsible. My life was really ruined because of how they treated me, although other things happened later, but I was broken in spirit from them and really a changed person because of them.
And the socialization process that makes people sort of take a blind leap of faith trusting all to the mission (i.e., not holding back) without it being reciprocal, you're going to be answerable fot that at some point too. That is, is God going to agree with the Vienna mission administration that you should leave your free thinking and freedom of conscience at the door? Might Good hold you responsible for things you participated in with the mission, even if you didn't understand them (because you agreed to check your free judgment in at the door and let the administration do all the heavy thinking for you)?
I don't care how prestigious the mission was, that is wrong. They can call me crazy till the cows come home, but I kept my values the whole time I was there and they couldn't get me to say what was wrong is right.
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
I don't agree with Konvitz, though. I guess I see his point that the formal church can be wrong, although our church leaders should be there as guides for us. They aren't infallible though, and also need to be held accountable. And we all, as Christians, need to be accountable to Scripture and to God, as well as to one another. God did create in us a conscience and we can educate it to be in tune with His will, and we as Christians have the Holy Spirit within us, so on these bases, to a certain extent we can look inward to make moral decisions, but that's not and shouldn't be, the only resource we have. I'm talking as Christians here. Missionaries working in the Vienna mission learned to rely on this a lot, though, because working in East Bloc countries meant you couldn't talk to a lot of people about your moral concerns.
And as to how I was treated and possibly how others might have been treated, even if it wasn't quite on the scale of my treatment, the individuals at the mission are all going to be held responsible for their part in it. And if they remained silent when they could have spoken up or if they were just "an innocent bystander" but could have done something, they might even still be held responsible. My life was really ruined because of how they treated me, although other things happened later, but I was broken in spirit from them and really a changed person because of them.
And the socialization process that makes people sort of take a blind leap of faith trusting all to the mission (i.e., not holding back) without it being reciprocal, you're going to be answerable fot that at some point too. That is, is God going to agree with the Vienna mission administration that you should leave your free thinking and freedom of conscience at the door? Might Good hold you responsible for things you participated in with the mission, even if you didn't understand them (because you agreed to check your free judgment in at the door and let the administration do all the heavy thinking for you)?
***
"If the time comes when the government takes over religion, it will be because churches have invited it into the tent, so to speak, by accepting piecemeal grants and subsities (and their inevitable controls)." (p. 40)Can I paraphrase this? (The author is talking about the USA.)
If the time comes when the government takes over Christian missions, it will be because missions have invited it into the tent, so to speak, by accepting piecemeal grants and subsities (and their inevitable controls).Now did I get your attention? One of the member mission, arguably the most powerful mission in then East European missions was taking money from the CIA, although I don't know that my sending mission or the Vienna mission was. But how about having military reserve chaplains staff your human resources department? (That is, the whole department being consisted solely of chaplains.) And relatedly, having our annual conference at a U.S. military conference center (Hitler's Crow's Nest)?
I don't care how prestigious the mission was, that is wrong. They can call me crazy till the cows come home, but I kept my values the whole time I was there and they couldn't get me to say what was wrong is right.
***
That's it for this article.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
422. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 40 (Summers, Jr., pt. 1)
I'm really not feeling well. As long as I'm stationary I'm okay, but as soon as I start moving around, and the longer I move around, the worse it gets. I'm not even sure quite how to explain it. I think it's somehow connected with the migraine though. I guess we'll deal with it tomorow at physical therapy if I'm still having it.
Summers, Jr., Harry G. (1990, Spring). The chaplain as moral touchstone. Military Chaplains' Review, 3-8.
This should be an interesting article for me for where I am now in 2012, or at my post Russia (1991-1997) years. Here goes
I've said before that I never really considered myself political and even though my B.A. was in European Studies and I studied the history, I was more interested in the social history than the political and military history, for example. I did study then and later on about politics in Eastern Europe, just because that was an issue I was going to have to deal with and I wanted to also understand their lives and that was a big part of their lives. And although I was told, for example that there were KGB spies among the Soviet emigres in the city where I went to Bible school, and where I helped at an emigre center. But I never bothered to ask who they were and I never got into the red scare thing regarding ministry in Eastern Europe. As far as I was concerned it's one thing to be careful and it's another to go in panic mode like those people who built bomb shelters in the backyard during the red scare in the 50s or something. That's what it felt like with the missionaries who were so panicky about the red scare. It's like, "Okay, keep your cool, yes, they're communists and you need to be careful, but you really don't need the bomb shelter."
Anyway, that was Vienna. After Russia I felt I had a whole truckload of material to pretty well prove that I had had political problems because of my dad's work and I was leaning more and more over on the far left towards pacifism. Then I wanted to work more for the underdog and tried to work that round. It took me awhile to find my way, but finally it looked like I was going to be able to do that as a librarian... until I got sick. I was doing research on social movements, though and grassroot community development, but all of this I felt like some of these doors I wasn't going to have open doors ever because it was political. You don't know how many jobs I've applied for here in the USA since returning here in 1997 - hundreds. I have to see if I can add them up on all my floppies when I get to this part of my autobiography. See, that's the thing, as a librarian at least I got work (I worked as a library assistant after leaving Vienna/before going to Russia. Or I could have taught English for a Russian school in the US. But I might as well have stayed in Russia then.
So the thing is between returning from Russia to the States and getting sick I was pretty political. But really, here is my view of Christians and politics:
I agree with Tinder that the Christian's relationship with worldly social institutions is ambivalent, Scripturally speaking. As a Christian, my citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20).
So all these things are true. But we could also say the we are given a lot of instruction about what to eat spiritually (I Cor. 3:1-3), but does that mean that I shouldn't eat at all? And the Apostle Paul tells Timothy that physical exercise isn't as important as spiritual exercise (I Tim. 4:8).
So the thing is, I think that we need to keep things in perspective. The spiritual realm always takes precedence for the Christian. Or it should. But that doesn't mean that the other things are completely neglected; it just means that they're of lesser importance than spiritual things.
Now I have a special consideration for the Church as a collective. I don't think the Church (the Body of Christ - not the stones and mortar, I don't care about those, or about the paper constitution or whatever) should be political. I'm not going to go into a whole long drawn out theological thesis on this, but basically, I believe the church is about saving people and building up people in the image of christ, building the body so that it is a functioning whole and working by faith in and by the power of God and the Holy Spirit. The church, of course, freely uses the gifts God gives, whether inside or outside the church. I think that's a good start.
However, I think that the Vienna mission probably would have agreed with this statement. Just in that They were political as relates to Eastern Europe. Remember the anti-Communist handout we had during my candidates' course? We only had that kind of thing for the USSR, and it was in particular the comparison between how effective their economic system was vs. the U.S. economy! That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I am going to choose one over the other; However, I can think of a lot of other better reasons than that. But that is the first clue, not that I think of it, that they think in terms of ends justifies the means. That is, the USA Gross National Product, for example was better than that of the USSR so that means that Capitalism must be better. Or, but another way: The ends (better GNP) justifies the means (capitalism). That's exactly the kind of thinking the Vienna mission used to justify their security methods (probably half of which I never knew, because I wasn't trusted enough to be privvy to them.)
***
This next article is:Summers, Jr., Harry G. (1990, Spring). The chaplain as moral touchstone. Military Chaplains' Review, 3-8.
***
"Can We Be Good Without God?" That was the question posed by University of Massachusetts political science professor Glenn Tinder in his provocative essay in the December 1989 issue of the Atlantic Monthly. An excerpt from his new book, The Political Meaning of Christianity (Louisiana State University Press), Professor Tinder argues that "the notion that we can be related to God and not to the world - that we can practice a spirituality that is not political - is in conflict with the Christian [and the Judeo and the Islamic] understanding of God."I included a link there to the article if you want to read it for yourself, but I thought the last page was especially closer to what I might want to discuss. However, I don't want to branch out too much, because he has a lot of good stuff there and I could really go on for a while on it. But I'm not sure it would be necessarily relevant to my situation with the Vienna mission.
"And if spirituality is properly political," he goes on to say, " the converse is also true, however distant it may be from prevailing assumptions: politics is properly spiritual..." (p. 3)
I've said before that I never really considered myself political and even though my B.A. was in European Studies and I studied the history, I was more interested in the social history than the political and military history, for example. I did study then and later on about politics in Eastern Europe, just because that was an issue I was going to have to deal with and I wanted to also understand their lives and that was a big part of their lives. And although I was told, for example that there were KGB spies among the Soviet emigres in the city where I went to Bible school, and where I helped at an emigre center. But I never bothered to ask who they were and I never got into the red scare thing regarding ministry in Eastern Europe. As far as I was concerned it's one thing to be careful and it's another to go in panic mode like those people who built bomb shelters in the backyard during the red scare in the 50s or something. That's what it felt like with the missionaries who were so panicky about the red scare. It's like, "Okay, keep your cool, yes, they're communists and you need to be careful, but you really don't need the bomb shelter."
Anyway, that was Vienna. After Russia I felt I had a whole truckload of material to pretty well prove that I had had political problems because of my dad's work and I was leaning more and more over on the far left towards pacifism. Then I wanted to work more for the underdog and tried to work that round. It took me awhile to find my way, but finally it looked like I was going to be able to do that as a librarian... until I got sick. I was doing research on social movements, though and grassroot community development, but all of this I felt like some of these doors I wasn't going to have open doors ever because it was political. You don't know how many jobs I've applied for here in the USA since returning here in 1997 - hundreds. I have to see if I can add them up on all my floppies when I get to this part of my autobiography. See, that's the thing, as a librarian at least I got work (I worked as a library assistant after leaving Vienna/before going to Russia. Or I could have taught English for a Russian school in the US. But I might as well have stayed in Russia then.
So the thing is between returning from Russia to the States and getting sick I was pretty political. But really, here is my view of Christians and politics:
I agree with Tinder that the Christian's relationship with worldly social institutions is ambivalent, Scripturally speaking. As a Christian, my citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20).
So all these things are true. But we could also say the we are given a lot of instruction about what to eat spiritually (I Cor. 3:1-3), but does that mean that I shouldn't eat at all? And the Apostle Paul tells Timothy that physical exercise isn't as important as spiritual exercise (I Tim. 4:8).
So the thing is, I think that we need to keep things in perspective. The spiritual realm always takes precedence for the Christian. Or it should. But that doesn't mean that the other things are completely neglected; it just means that they're of lesser importance than spiritual things.
Now I have a special consideration for the Church as a collective. I don't think the Church (the Body of Christ - not the stones and mortar, I don't care about those, or about the paper constitution or whatever) should be political. I'm not going to go into a whole long drawn out theological thesis on this, but basically, I believe the church is about saving people and building up people in the image of christ, building the body so that it is a functioning whole and working by faith in and by the power of God and the Holy Spirit. The church, of course, freely uses the gifts God gives, whether inside or outside the church. I think that's a good start.
***
"And if spirituality is properly political," [Tinder] goes on to say, "the converse if also true, however distant it may be from prevailing assumptions: politics is properly spiritual." (p. 3)I already answered the first half of the equation, but as to the second, I don't think politics should be spiritual because, in a country like the USA (and this was written here for this audience), you have such an ideologically/religiously diverse citizenship that you'll just end out alienating some groups by doing that and I do think that governments should be government for all (and I'm not speaking necessarily as a Christian here, but as a humanitarian, a concerned citizen). If politics is properly spiritual you could be heading down the state church road too, depending on how strong a single church or coalition of churches might be.
However, I think that the Vienna mission probably would have agreed with this statement. Just in that They were political as relates to Eastern Europe. Remember the anti-Communist handout we had during my candidates' course? We only had that kind of thing for the USSR, and it was in particular the comparison between how effective their economic system was vs. the U.S. economy! That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I am going to choose one over the other; However, I can think of a lot of other better reasons than that. But that is the first clue, not that I think of it, that they think in terms of ends justifies the means. That is, the USA Gross National Product, for example was better than that of the USSR so that means that Capitalism must be better. Or, but another way: The ends (better GNP) justifies the means (capitalism). That's exactly the kind of thinking the Vienna mission used to justify their security methods (probably half of which I never knew, because I wasn't trusted enough to be privvy to them.)
***
The rest of the article doesn't have anything that I'd like to comment on, so I'm going end there.
421. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 39 (Sehested, pt. 1)
This next text is:
Sehested, Ken. (1994, March 2). The case of of Chaplain Robertson: loyalty test. Christian Century, 111(7), 212-214.
The rest is there so you know the context.
Is this something that has "symbolic meaning"? Is Robertson supposed to understand these moves symbolicly? Yes and no. I was moved around a lot, from the second highest position a secretary, at least, could be in (although I didn't want to be a secretary and fought against the mission's attempts to limit me to that straight jacket). So that's one issue. It wasn't symbolic because he actually was stripped of his real professional responsibilities, so that's not symbolical. However, there were also symbolical meaning to each aspect of it that Robertson and others could pick up on and tuck away in their psyche for further reference (For example, "Note: freedom of opinion is not allowed here, remember to not attempt it or you will end up like Chaplain Robertson.").
My situation was similar, there were actual aspects of my job changes, but there were also symbolic meanings to to each move as well. Generally, I could tell if I was in their good graces or not by where I was (physically in the organization). The ironic thing was that I don't think I particularly changed that much through this whole time, except over the two years I eventually wore down, as much as I hated it, and started attending the English-speaking church, But somehow it was their perceptions of me that changed at various times. For example, at some point they determined I could go back to Vienna, but I don't know what the basis was for deciding I could return at that point. I don't think I'd done anything to change or anything. So I returned and I think they thought I was at least more socialized than when I left some 7 (!) months earlier.
But the main things I had gained was an internal strength to be able internally to maintain my own value structure (as distinct from theirs, which I refused to even entertain, except maybe individual values that I had no problem with, making it a smorgasbord style of values and norms acceptance which would never in a million years have been acceptable to them) and externally give not a hint of my having "a secret life of Meg". The idea was for them to think that what they saw was what they got. It was self preservation, although, as I recognized not long ago in a post, it really was deception. I knew what I was doing so I wasn't deceiving myself, but I was deceiving absolutely everyone else, no exceptions. So that's lying, and I really should have gotten out of there instead of going that route. Its's the same thing they were doing for security's sake. So I was really no better than they were in that regard.
But I was so horrified - scared spitless - that that was taking the forefront and also my career was on the line and I'd prepared so long and hard for this. I just couldn't wrap my head around the possibility that could possibly be as bad as it looked, like maybe there was some kind of explanation that I didn't understand and there would be an explanation and things would work out. And I didn't know what other options, professionally, there might be, as I'd gone through pretty much everything before deciding on that mission. So for these kinds of reasons I found it very difficult to just leave the mission. But it only just recently struck me that it was deceptive to live that sort of double life where I hid my true thoughts and values from the world for that time with the mission.
For me in Vienna moving me to lower positions where I would have less interesting work, less influence and clout, very limited access to interesting information, a much more tangential role in the work, was used, and as much as it hurt, I had to learn to take everything without complaining. Once you start complaining than that's when they have an in to start getting to you, and I wasn't going to give them that, so I was going to stand above the fray. So I was always happy, composed and never complaining. That's not how I felt though. It was the ultimate poker face.
While I never had the level of position that Robertson had, before Vienna I had worked in some prestigious organizations, so I had that background at least and knowledge based on some firsthand experience as well as even primary sources research materials. So no matter what the Vienna mission thought of me, I still had that background and knew I was capable of more than they ever used me for. Although towards the end they were beginning to see, I think, what I could do.
As to the word "compromise," the Vienna mission might not have used that word, exactly. I'm not sure it would have gone over with the theologians. After all, this was a Christian mission, not a secular armed force, that we're talking about, so the missioinary-theologians would have expected more of a theologically correct reasoning than the need to compromise, even if the end result was the same. So they'd use some Scripture, or more likely, they'd use the "we know more about the East European mission scene and the full scope of our ministry (including in-country translators and textbook delivery, finances, etc.), so you should trust us that we know what's best for the mission" approach. It sounds good, anyway. And because this makes sense, because you really just know theology, you trust them and compromise in some areas ends out being an end result anyway, more than likely. The thing is that if you had to trust the mission completely, blindly really, then it seems to me that compromise at some point would be hard to avoid. It's possible, though, that I got worse treatment than others because of my father and others can't relate well to my experience.
Also, what happens here, then, with the call for chaplains to have a prophetic role in the military? If they are to compromise, as the Chief of Chaplains states, then chaplains will rather quickly lose their saltiness and their lights will be hidden under bushels. So what role could there possibly be for chaplains in the military (or at least the Air Force) with such a mindset? I can't see any. I think in such a situation it would be better to have a ministry to them external to the Air Force and just work extremely hard at raising up lay leaders among the soldiers.'
Robertson's letter was probably naive, but if he sent it in he should have done so as a citizen, not as a chaplain or officer. That would mean stripping all of his credentials and affiliations from his name; he could have even submitted it anonymously or requested that it be published anonymously, at least, even if the newspaper knew who he was.
I like this guy. What he is doing is taking a logic and following it to the end. He's my kind of guy. I did that once while I was in Bible school and working part time at Pizza Hut. We had an interesting collective of workers... very diverse. Well, we got in a discussion about creation vs. evoluation. It was me and a couple of muslims (!) vs. a satanist (practicing) and another guy. Over a couple weeks' time when we could get in the back room, maybe while we were doing prep or something, we'd pick up on this discussion and I followed them through so that if you believe in evolution than this must be true, then if that is true, then this must be true... So finally the way we were going, the path we ended out on, led to communism. So I told the one guy finally that if you believe this then that leads directly to communism. And then he said that indeed he was a communist. Then we had another whole discussion about communism, because I wasn't completely ignorant about that either. He said that perfect communism was in Cuba (where I live now I'd have to maybe run for my life if I said that too loud).
Going from chaplains being morale officers to following the direction of the state as being a way to be at peace with God is a kind of following an idea to its end. It's a way of showing the ugly side of a thing or an idea, showing it's true colors, getting past the fluff. It depends on the issue as to what exactly it (following something to the end) does. I think he uses it very well here, though.
Jesus' words to the disciples:
Jesus' prayer for the disciples:
Something tells me that these verses would not describe Burnett.
But I'd like to also turn my attention to the Vienna mission. The thing is that the Soviets were accusing Western missionaries (en masse and a few spacific ones) of being or cooperating with spy agencies (CIA or whatever). So if there actually was any of that or possibly if there was "the appearance of evil" (I Thes. 5:22) in this regard then in as much as this was true, suffering wasn't actually for godly purposes but for something else, possibly for sin (e.g., being unequally yoked with the world). But the mission never stood up for any convictions; it only sought to draw new missionaries into its net and make them unquestioningly trusting, and this way the mission never had to really develop a rationale for certain aspects of its work that were not open for questioning (because of security most likely, of course)
As for myself, I would most certainly have liked to have discussed my concerns with the leadership, but I wasn't going to be the one to aproach them on it, because I knew there was an obvious (!!) power difference to begin with and these weren't things I was going to be man-handled into just changing. So they would have had to start a serious dialog with me on the straight up where I knew that I was being taken seriously and they weren't going to just manipulate me or force me into anything. When they never ever made any more like that then that said something too. That wasn't how they operated and they never ever intended to treat it's workers respectfully, or at least they never ever intended to treat me that way. I wonder what kind of theology or psychology that is.
I experienced censorship from the Vienna mission too, in that I had to have my prayer letters vetted and I even had to pare down my list of recipients. That was before the common ownership of computers, so it was hard to keep up with writing to everyone if I didn't have them on my prayer letter list. If I had a computer I could just have printed out the letters on my computer and mailed the extra ones myself. (The other ones were mailed from a place that specialized in missionary prayer letters.) But back then it wasn't like that.
I didn't get to church today. I got out to the car and I realized I wasn't feel very well. It seems like it's my migraine, but I'm not sure. I didn't notice it as long as I was sitting and just walking around here a bit was okay. So I don't know, I'll have to see what's going on. Hopefully it's nothing new, and just my migraine.
Sehested, Ken. (1994, March 2). The case of of Chaplain Robertson: loyalty test. Christian Century, 111(7), 212-214.
***
Lieutenant Colonel Garland Robertson is an Air Force chaplain at Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, Texas, whose military record includes a Distinguished Flying Cross, which he won by rescuing a reconnaissance team in Vietnam. He has also commanded a nuclear missile site. Despite these credentials, Robertson is on the brink of being discharged from the Air Force. Stripped of all duties, he has been removed from the chapel offices and sequestered in a windowless, closet-sized room adjacent to the base runway where he spends his days writing book reviews for a chaplain's resource bureau.That's a lot to quote, but I felt like I needed to include the background material. The main thing I want to discuss is the second part of the first paragraph, starting with "Stripped of all duties..."
Robertson is accused of 'flouting' the very authority of the president. In January 5, 1991, letter printed in the Abilene Reporter-News, he responded to a speech by then Vice President Dan Quayle assuring U.S. troops mobilized in Saudi Arabia that "the American People are beyind you." must be clarified to indicate that the American people are not united in their decision to support a military offensive against the aggression of Saddam Hussein in Kuwait." The letter was, he thought, a modest attempt to raist the question of what is a justifiable use of deadly force.
Behing Robertson's desire for public debate on the topic lay his own experience as a pilot in Vietnam. "I assumed that our leaders were telling us the truth" about the need to support democracy and oppose tyranny in Vietnam, Robertson in a recent interview.
Robertson resigned from active duty as a line officer in 1976 to pursue a theological degree. He earned both an M.Div. and a doctorate in theology from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth Texas. In 1982 he was reactivated as an Air Force chaplain..." (p.212)
The rest is there so you know the context.
Is this something that has "symbolic meaning"? Is Robertson supposed to understand these moves symbolicly? Yes and no. I was moved around a lot, from the second highest position a secretary, at least, could be in (although I didn't want to be a secretary and fought against the mission's attempts to limit me to that straight jacket). So that's one issue. It wasn't symbolic because he actually was stripped of his real professional responsibilities, so that's not symbolical. However, there were also symbolical meaning to each aspect of it that Robertson and others could pick up on and tuck away in their psyche for further reference (For example, "Note: freedom of opinion is not allowed here, remember to not attempt it or you will end up like Chaplain Robertson.").
My situation was similar, there were actual aspects of my job changes, but there were also symbolic meanings to to each move as well. Generally, I could tell if I was in their good graces or not by where I was (physically in the organization). The ironic thing was that I don't think I particularly changed that much through this whole time, except over the two years I eventually wore down, as much as I hated it, and started attending the English-speaking church, But somehow it was their perceptions of me that changed at various times. For example, at some point they determined I could go back to Vienna, but I don't know what the basis was for deciding I could return at that point. I don't think I'd done anything to change or anything. So I returned and I think they thought I was at least more socialized than when I left some 7 (!) months earlier.
But the main things I had gained was an internal strength to be able internally to maintain my own value structure (as distinct from theirs, which I refused to even entertain, except maybe individual values that I had no problem with, making it a smorgasbord style of values and norms acceptance which would never in a million years have been acceptable to them) and externally give not a hint of my having "a secret life of Meg". The idea was for them to think that what they saw was what they got. It was self preservation, although, as I recognized not long ago in a post, it really was deception. I knew what I was doing so I wasn't deceiving myself, but I was deceiving absolutely everyone else, no exceptions. So that's lying, and I really should have gotten out of there instead of going that route. Its's the same thing they were doing for security's sake. So I was really no better than they were in that regard.
But I was so horrified - scared spitless - that that was taking the forefront and also my career was on the line and I'd prepared so long and hard for this. I just couldn't wrap my head around the possibility that could possibly be as bad as it looked, like maybe there was some kind of explanation that I didn't understand and there would be an explanation and things would work out. And I didn't know what other options, professionally, there might be, as I'd gone through pretty much everything before deciding on that mission. So for these kinds of reasons I found it very difficult to just leave the mission. But it only just recently struck me that it was deceptive to live that sort of double life where I hid my true thoughts and values from the world for that time with the mission.
***
"He knew the letter would raise objections, but the resulting furor caught him by surprise. As revealed in documents and testimony at his September 1993 Board of Inquiry disciplinary hearing, Air Force superiors hoped to force him out of the service... The same psychologist who provided him a clean bill of health the first time concluded, after the third exam, that Robertson exhibited a "personality disorder so severe as to interfere with the normal and customary completion of his duties." This evaluation was made without an examination, breaching the most elementary rules of conduct for the profession." (p. 213)I never had anything like a hearing with the Vienna mission (they didn't have a grievance process nor any disciplinary process where the mission would need evidence to "convict" the errant one of anything. I don't even know if they gave out warnings, like in a regular job. But anyway, the one thing that does clearly compare here with my experience at the Vienna mission, is that without any kind of exam at all, based only on rumors, the military chaplain/H.R. director at the Vienna mission declared that I had culture shock. And not only did I have culture shock, but that the degree to which I had culture shock was bad enough to send me home to the U.S. for hospitalization. I don't know about you, but to me if I was happy in the culture, had no complaints about it, spoke the language, when to an Austrian church, etc. This doesn't sound like culture shock in the first place, let alone that bad. And diagnosed without an exam, but someone who was just a chaplain, not even a medical professional. This is what I call, at the very least, unprofessionalism, and at the very worst, criminal use of one's position. Maybe if I'd just left there I'd have had enough to suit him on...
***
If a good chunk of my problems with the Vienna mission were actually due to my relationship with my father, then there could have been some of this involved too. And this would have even been more sensitive than if it were just a matter of regular socialization with the mission, because none of the parties involved (e.g., U.S. government, Vienna mission leadership, military chaplains/H.R. staff would ever have wanted my treatment to be connected to that. It would have been one thing if I had told them upfront what my dad did and they had rejected my application for the position from the getgo. That would have been understandable and would not have needed to have involve anything other than mission policies. But that's not what happened and nothing was ever voiced by anyone that that was an issue, although there may have been hints."A civilian employee testified that her former boss, the senior chaplain at Dyess, had taken her aside after a Sunday morning service " to ell me he had to get Chaplain Robertson out of the service. Chaplain Elwell went on to tell me that this task must be accomplished by a certain date ... so that [Robertson] would be entitled to full retirement benefits." It seemed evident, she said, that he "had been told that part of his job was to remove Chaplain Robertson."Robertson was removed from the chapel's preaching schedule rotation "until the completion of Desert Shield/Desert Storm" (and later in the year, removed permanently)... One by one his other pastoral duties were withdrawn... Later a full-scale inquiry by the Office of Special Investigations was investigated. Robertson was cleared of a mysterious charge of fraud." (p. 213)
For me in Vienna moving me to lower positions where I would have less interesting work, less influence and clout, very limited access to interesting information, a much more tangential role in the work, was used, and as much as it hurt, I had to learn to take everything without complaining. Once you start complaining than that's when they have an in to start getting to you, and I wasn't going to give them that, so I was going to stand above the fray. So I was always happy, composed and never complaining. That's not how I felt though. It was the ultimate poker face.
While I never had the level of position that Robertson had, before Vienna I had worked in some prestigious organizations, so I had that background at least and knowledge based on some firsthand experience as well as even primary sources research materials. So no matter what the Vienna mission thought of me, I still had that background and knew I was capable of more than they ever used me for. Although towards the end they were beginning to see, I think, what I could do.
***
"At one point an officer from the Chief of Chaplains office in Washington, D.C. paid a visit. "He indicated that compromise was essential for becoming a successful military chaplain," Robertson said. "I suggested that 'cooperation' was the more suitable word, but he quickly confirmed his intentional use of "compromise." "If Jesus had been an Air Force chaplain,"He told me, "he would have been courtmartialed." But he said that compromise is necessary in order to maintain a presence." In a letter to the secretary of the Air Force, Robertson said, "If thise senior command chaplain is correct -- that compromise is necessary to survive in the Air Force as a chaplain -- then reveal this restriction. The Air Force maintains that chaplains are free to proclaim and practice their witness without fear of reprisal .... It is important that we not deceive persons who look to chaplains for assistance in spiritual growth and faith development." (p. 213)Yeah, and I would like to have known from the getgo that people with parents in nationally security-sensitive positions are not actually free persons. In fact, I never realized the full extent of what dad did until I had to think about it in relation to it's impact on me, which was way after I'd already spent years in preparation for my career in East European missions. It would, indeed, be nice to know these things in advance. But these are things that no one is going to tell you, because they are not "convenient truths." That is, they don't particularly make certain powreful parties look good, or they are potential bad p.r. harbingers. So better left unsaid, except for people like me and Robinson who get the raw end of the stick just because the powerful party didn't want to look bad, so it thought it better to neglect to bring to light (or something more active than "neglect") these life-changing truths.
As to the word "compromise," the Vienna mission might not have used that word, exactly. I'm not sure it would have gone over with the theologians. After all, this was a Christian mission, not a secular armed force, that we're talking about, so the missioinary-theologians would have expected more of a theologically correct reasoning than the need to compromise, even if the end result was the same. So they'd use some Scripture, or more likely, they'd use the "we know more about the East European mission scene and the full scope of our ministry (including in-country translators and textbook delivery, finances, etc.), so you should trust us that we know what's best for the mission" approach. It sounds good, anyway. And because this makes sense, because you really just know theology, you trust them and compromise in some areas ends out being an end result anyway, more than likely. The thing is that if you had to trust the mission completely, blindly really, then it seems to me that compromise at some point would be hard to avoid. It's possible, though, that I got worse treatment than others because of my father and others can't relate well to my experience.
Also, what happens here, then, with the call for chaplains to have a prophetic role in the military? If they are to compromise, as the Chief of Chaplains states, then chaplains will rather quickly lose their saltiness and their lights will be hidden under bushels. So what role could there possibly be for chaplains in the military (or at least the Air Force) with such a mindset? I can't see any. I think in such a situation it would be better to have a ministry to them external to the Air Force and just work extremely hard at raising up lay leaders among the soldiers.'
Robertson's letter was probably naive, but if he sent it in he should have done so as a citizen, not as a chaplain or officer. That would mean stripping all of his credentials and affiliations from his name; he could have even submitted it anonymously or requested that it be published anonymously, at least, even if the newspaper knew who he was.
***
"The [Chief of Chaplains] even went to the trouble of rewriting the official statement of the mission of Air Force chaplains... Chaplains, in other words, were to function as morale officers in the service of command directives. In a February 1993 letter to officials at the National Council of Churches, Robertson wrote: "No minister of a faith community can comfortably encourage anyone to follow the direction of the state as a way to be at peace with God. By functioning as a morale officer, the chaplain only succeeds in encouraging soldiers to accept the preferences of the state without questions."" (p. 213)Nothing like this ever happened to me in Vienna because written documentation meant zilch to them. You had nothing to fall back on as support; it was just you and the leadership. If it looked like you might be right (let's just say, hypothetically), there was not written document they chould monkey around with to fix to back their position. They wouldn't have had to do that. They had brute force to do whatever they wanted. Who needs documentation in the face of that? And anyone who disagrees with them is certifiably crazy; everybody knows that. It's like a law of physics or something that it was impossible to disagree with them.
I like this guy. What he is doing is taking a logic and following it to the end. He's my kind of guy. I did that once while I was in Bible school and working part time at Pizza Hut. We had an interesting collective of workers... very diverse. Well, we got in a discussion about creation vs. evoluation. It was me and a couple of muslims (!) vs. a satanist (practicing) and another guy. Over a couple weeks' time when we could get in the back room, maybe while we were doing prep or something, we'd pick up on this discussion and I followed them through so that if you believe in evolution than this must be true, then if that is true, then this must be true... So finally the way we were going, the path we ended out on, led to communism. So I told the one guy finally that if you believe this then that leads directly to communism. And then he said that indeed he was a communist. Then we had another whole discussion about communism, because I wasn't completely ignorant about that either. He said that perfect communism was in Cuba (where I live now I'd have to maybe run for my life if I said that too loud).
Going from chaplains being morale officers to following the direction of the state as being a way to be at peace with God is a kind of following an idea to its end. It's a way of showing the ugly side of a thing or an idea, showing it's true colors, getting past the fluff. It depends on the issue as to what exactly it (following something to the end) does. I think he uses it very well here, though.
***
"Thus far, however, Robertson has maintained private support and official recognition of his certifying agency, the Southern Baptist Convention, along with the very public support of a Southern Baptist congregation in Abilene. "We are supporting Chaplain Robertson, and we have no intention of revoking his endorsement," said Lewis Bernett, director of military chaplaincy for the SBC, in a telephone interview." (p. 213).My home church and my other supporters did stick with me while I was in Vienna. Of course, they didn't have a clue what was really going on. It did bother me that I didn't think I was using using the mission support well. That is, when you think about it, most of the time I wasn't really doing a lot of useful work. The first 5 months I didn't do much, then 6 weeks lost then a few months part-time in the U.S. office, then about 8 months where I did real work then about 5 months where I wasn't doing that much again, although I was full-time. . But I was on full mission support the whole time. I was really disappointed, though, that when I returned home for good my home church only just expressed sympathy, and that's all. So I didn't have any support from them when I came home.
***
"Garland is the kind of person who stands up for his convictions, and that sometimes hurts him," Burnett told the New York Times." (p.213-214)On the other hand, some people play it too safe and are too averse to troubles and their primary goal seems to be to be comfortable and please everyone. But here's a couple verses to make at least Christian's think:
2 Timothy 3:12
King James Version (KJV)
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
Jesus' words to the disciples:
John 16:33
King James Version (KJV)
33 These
things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the
world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome
the world.
Jesus' prayer for the disciples:
John 17:14
King James Version (KJV)
14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Something tells me that these verses would not describe Burnett.
But I'd like to also turn my attention to the Vienna mission. The thing is that the Soviets were accusing Western missionaries (en masse and a few spacific ones) of being or cooperating with spy agencies (CIA or whatever). So if there actually was any of that or possibly if there was "the appearance of evil" (I Thes. 5:22) in this regard then in as much as this was true, suffering wasn't actually for godly purposes but for something else, possibly for sin (e.g., being unequally yoked with the world). But the mission never stood up for any convictions; it only sought to draw new missionaries into its net and make them unquestioningly trusting, and this way the mission never had to really develop a rationale for certain aspects of its work that were not open for questioning (because of security most likely, of course)
As for myself, I would most certainly have liked to have discussed my concerns with the leadership, but I wasn't going to be the one to aproach them on it, because I knew there was an obvious (!!) power difference to begin with and these weren't things I was going to be man-handled into just changing. So they would have had to start a serious dialog with me on the straight up where I knew that I was being taken seriously and they weren't going to just manipulate me or force me into anything. When they never ever made any more like that then that said something too. That wasn't how they operated and they never ever intended to treat it's workers respectfully, or at least they never ever intended to treat me that way. I wonder what kind of theology or psychology that is.
***
There is a paragraph discussing the regulation about writing letters to the editor, which they can do as long as it's not partisan."But according to the Air Force's own case against Robertson, heard by the Board of Inquiry last September, the letter to the editor was 'irrelevant.' Three ellegations ("Statement of Reasons") were brought to the BOI administrative hearing. The first was that Robertson was "disrespectful in words and actions towards his immediate superior." the second: his "leadership skills were below standard. The third: he was diagnosed as "having a personality disorder."I never had a hearing at the Vienna mission, and I've had to try to piece together and figure out what happened, which is why I did all this research. The mission didn't want it's members to understand and scrutinize things there. I was in the outs a good chunk of the time I was there so I had maybe more reason to want to figure things out, but since I wasn't a part of the beast I could analyze it more objectively, except when they were trying to confuse me (different people telling me different stories about what was going on or what was going to happen). And, of course, people on the inside had access to more information, but they couldn't think independently, I don't think, because they'd pretty much given that up to enter the mission, unless my experience is that different from everyone else's that only I was expected to do that, in which case, that would have either been because of some job they wanted for me or because of my dad, or both.
After hearing extensive testimony, the BOI threw out the allegations about being disrespectful and about the personality disorder. The remaining charge of substandard leadership was sustained, along with the recommendatioin of an honorable discharge. The charge was supported by an annual evaluation written in April 1991 noting that Robertson's "leadership style produced minimal results." This contention marked a radical reversal, however, from the previous assessment, in which Robertson was characterized as "an outstanding pastoral chaplain always eager to help others and consistently displays industriousness, conscientiousness and diligence in his ministry." The same senior chaplain and base commander wrote and approved both reports." (p. 214)
***
"The allegation was further contradicted by the sworn statements of two parish council members of the Dyess AFB chapel community, one of whom testified that she felt "that [Robertson] was being censored ... If our chapel is going to be the type of chapel where our chaplains are going to be told what they can and what they cannot say when they come before the flock, then we may as well disband the chaplaincy." (p. 214)I'm sure some pastors from the former East Bloc countries can provide tips on how to survive in such a climate.
I experienced censorship from the Vienna mission too, in that I had to have my prayer letters vetted and I even had to pare down my list of recipients. That was before the common ownership of computers, so it was hard to keep up with writing to everyone if I didn't have them on my prayer letter list. If I had a computer I could just have printed out the letters on my computer and mailed the extra ones myself. (The other ones were mailed from a place that specialized in missionary prayer letters.) But back then it wasn't like that.
***
"If the government discharges chaplains who refuse to compromise their religious beliefs, speech and teachings to appease military commanders, we will ... have created a religious body, under federal salary, that exists solely to support government polity and objectives. Yes, this is government establishment of religion in its purest form." (p. 24)Where did the Vienna mission military chaplain/H.R. staff stand on this issue? It seems like a continuum to me, from far right establishment of religion in its purest form to far left freedom of religious practice for the chaplains. I knew the H.R. director better than the assistant director (also a military chaplain, though), and my sense is that he was somewhere on past the middle on the right side, maybe pretty far over on the right even, because I don't think he was the kind of person to stand up for anything. He was more the kind of person that would support the military and help soldiers see things the military's way. I think he really bought into the military and its ideals and values and what it did.
***
I didn't get to church today. I got out to the car and I realized I wasn't feel very well. It seems like it's my migraine, but I'm not sure. I didn't notice it as long as I was sitting and just walking around here a bit was okay. So I don't know, I'll have to see what's going on. Hopefully it's nothing new, and just my migraine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)