Pendergraff, Isaac B. (1976, Winter). Ministry to conscientious objectors. Military Chaplains Review, pp. 38-45.
***
"Generally the issue of conscientious objection rises before one enters the service. Once a person enters the military service, however, his or her application for conscientious objector status usually creates difficulties, if not serious problems. It is military policy to refuse to grant conscientious objector status based on conscientious objection which existed but was not claimed prior to military entry. Military policy and procedure place considerable obstacles in the way of a person whose objections have developed after entering military service. Moreover, the movement toward all-volunteer armed forces has not mitigated the problem of conscientious objection within the military. A proposal was offered to abolish conscientious objection within the military due to the termination of the Selective Service System in 1973. Although the Department of the Army rejected the elimination of conscientious objector status, there is the strong presumption that a volunteer for military service would not be a conscietious objector. This presumption, however, does not give due recognition to developmental conscientous objection. Since human beings are dynamic rather than static, it is possible for a person who volunteers for military duty to develop into a conscientious objector." (p. 38)
I didn't have this underlined as one of the sections of text I was going to use, but I thought it was necessary as a background for the article and also a good discussion piece. (I've also studied more about pacifism since having done this research.)
So the issue first of all here is that there are people who disagree with what the army does, even after they have entered the army of their own free will. If people could just see what the Vienna mission was like in secrecy, what it was capable of in how it treated me, maybe they could see me as sort of like a conscientious objector to the Vienna mission. It's not an exact match, but maybe you can see what I mean.
When I entered the mission, I didn't have anything against the mission - just like the conscientious objector who wasn't one when he entered the Army, but grew to be one during his experience in the Army. My experience in the mission made me averse not to the basic things the mission stood for, but the secretive things it did and the things it did, presumably to protect itself from me. But what had I done? Had I done anything so horrendous? Please tell me? No! I had done the crime of having a father in Boeing SDI management (1) and perhaps I was more independent than the mission or my father liked (2). But what was I doing? Attending an Austrian church comprised of about 30 Austrians and run by a well-known mission, 2) welcoming a friend and her bevel of junior high German students and another mission worker helped entertain for a couple days (so he actually could have been viewed as a possible monitor for me). Are these things so awful? Are my crimes so heinous? So the thing was that their actions towards me, even before I had a chance to do anything, heinous or otherwise, was enough to make me become the Vienna mission equivalent of a conscientious objector. Except I kept it to myself for all those millions of reasons I've discussed elsewhere on this blog.
But the military chaplain had to deal with these things. How would the Vienna mission chaplain/H.R. Director have responded to my "conscientious objection." He would most definitely not have provided me any leniency at all, based on how they treated me. In any case, the military chaplian/H.R. director would NOT be writing an article in an East European mission journal about providing ministry to "conscientious objectors." Instead, he'd be co-authoring an article with the director on how to get rid of such blights on the ministry (if not humanity).
***
"The prescribed methods by which the chaplain establishes the genuineness of a claim have certain shortcomings. Military regulations require that the soldier be interviewed by a chaplain. The chaplain could form his opinion solely on the basis of one interview rather than seeking additional information...The chaplain writing this seems to me to have great integrity in wanting to even be involved this way in the process. It's very difficult for me to picture the military chaplains in the Vienna mission ever doing this kind of thing.
Additional instruments for gathering information must be used if the chaplain is to be persuasive... Thus, I recommend strategies of Rogerian Listenning, Either-Or Forced Choice, and Strength of Values. These strategies would assist the chaplain in offering evidence implicating the soldier's sincerity, his consistency, and the depty of his convictions. Moreover, the strategies are non-clinical." (p. 41)
***
"A chaplain's opinion establishing the sincerity of a soldier's claim may be rejected. If this occurs, the chaplain can then assume the role of a mediator...So the chaplain must also serve a mediator role, which would be a whole different skill he'd be called upon to use, not to mention all the conscientious objection literature he'd have to acquaint himself with. I don't suppose reserve chaplains would have to get involved with this kind of thing though, unless, of course, they were at some point not reserve but full-time chaplains. I'm sure that this is not an easy role to take, considering the chaplain is up against such a militant army. I can sure relate to that, though. But the conscientious objector was fortunate to have a mediator.
The mediator must inform those who judge the merits of a soldier's claim that freedom of choice must be preserved... It is essential that the mediator be acquainted with the literature relating to the specific objection.
...The chaplain, as a mediator, does not seek to bring the soldier and the military bureaucracy to agreement on all issues, but rather to bring the two parties to mutual acceptance of differences." (p. 41)
***
"One problem which the chaplain faces as mediator is the ethos of the military bureaucracy. The obedience principle of the military bureaucracy exerts a strong influence on mediation. The obedience principle is characterized by tthe performance of what is required or enjoyed by authority. The opposite of compliance with authority is disobedience. Both Levy and Noyd were caught between the military value of obedience and non-military values. Both chose to vollow the dictates of their own conscience." (p. 42)First off, I should note that the Levy and Noyd comments refer to illustrations at the beginning of the article about instances when military medical staff became conscience objectors and what happened to them.
So the thing is that a mediator is mediating between compliance and disobedience and the chaplain is part of the military bureaucracy where this strong exertion is felt. It's like being blind to one's own biases. Researchers face it all the time. And you think that science is unbiased and neutral? Think again! They might try, but everyone has biases. And the Army context for these chaplain mediators is a very noticeable context because it contrasts greatly from civilian life. Contrasts like that are great for helping to point out bias. It's also helpful if you're the underdog, because if you're in a powerful position, like "stupid white men" chances are you don't recognize your biases as much as the contrasting smart black women might.
Anyway, back to the subject. I noticed noticed the biases in the Vienna mission for several reasons, but for now I'll just say I noticed them because they contrasted with...
- how I understood certain biblical principles
- how I understood Eastern Europe (including the church situation and ministry there; by this one I mean they didn't fit what I knew of Eastern Europe; to be working in Eastern Europe they should have been completely different)
- the Soviet Union (in how they treated their believers - only I was the dissident)
- a spy agency
- a cult
***
"Rigid definitions of virility coupled with prompt execution of orders can cause the conscientious objector to be viewed as weak and passive." (p. 42)I could definitely relate to this. The thing is that the you obey the technicalities, but you heart and mind are not in it. You're distant and vacant, you do not commit to it and don't get emotionally involved, or only at a surface level. Don't you think that's it? That's me to a tee! and that's what the conscientious objector was like and it was me too. But he could leave and had a million other options, hopefully. Although a lot of men how volunteer for the army don't really have a lot of options, and that's why they volunteer and that's why you end out with so many lower class men (and women) in the army. Not all, of course, are lower class, but the statistics bear this out that an inordinant number are. So they think that their way out of their poverty is to join the military.
But for me, careerwise, there weren't many other choices.
***
I'll have to finish this article in the next post. 