412. Military Chaplaincy. Pt. 30 (Friesen, pt. 1)

Some people may be wondering what on earth these Military Chaplaincy file materials would have been of interest for me in my mental pilgrimage to make sense of my life, especially the most puzzling part, the Vienna mission years. Well, the thing was that the military chaplain/H.R. director was the one who gave me the news of the mission leadership's intentions to send me back to the U.S. for culture shock counseling.  I have no idea what went on behind the scenes prior to that meeting with him, nor who initiated that idea, but by the time I had been brought into the picture everything had all been arranged, down to the bus to meet me at the airport.

Before that time I don't remember taking a whole lot of notice of him, although we did have some interactions.  He wasn't a major actor in any of them, until that meeting.  After that, of course, I noted about everything about him, I think, including other times I saw him and/or interacted with him.  I found out that he and the other H.R. staff, for example, had access to U.S. base commissaries.

Also, they became clear links to the issue of church-state issue that I didn't like, and the real possibility that they might have had had access to information about my father through their military connections.  And if that kind of thing was going on, what's to say that other things might also?  I already knew that one of their missions most likely took money from the CIA (I had the admission from the Finance VP, but hadn't yet done the FOIA request).  So that's why the military chaplaincy became so crucial.  And since I never entered the inner echelons, because I never said "yes" to the mission's values and norms (I was indeed "standing up on the inside," but they didn't know the half of it: never underestimate a secretary). 

***

The next text is:

Friesen, Eugene W. (1976, Winter). Models of consultation: a viable model for increased effectiveness l health professionals and military chaplains. Military Chaplains' Review, 23-31.

***

"A-1. Client-Centered Case Consultation

This kind of consultation is probably the most familitar type of consultation practiced by both the mental health specialist and the military chaplain.  While the primary goal of this type of consultation is to develop a plan that will be helpful to the client in question, the consultee should learn something from the encounter with the consultant that will increase his ability to handle similar concerns in the future.

In this type of soncultation the consultant must essentially assess two problems: 1) the nature of the client's difficulties and 2) what can the consultee do to help the client by manipulating the usual work environment of the client.

In the first case, the consultant will have to deal with two basic questions, namely, 1) is the nature of the client's situation such that a referral to a specialized counseling agency is needed and 2) what can the consultee do to help the client by manipulating the usual work environment of the client.

Caplan notes that in the second kind of assessment, the consultant will interest himself in the 'details of the human predicament in which the client is currently involved, not as a set of precipitants or consequences of psychopathological deviations, but as the central focus for the investigation.' (It is my hunch that some chaplains with some formal training in counseling may be tempted at this point to focus on psychopathological deviations when, ironically, the thrust of their theological training should have prepared them to focus on the details of the human predicament.)" (p. 26-27)

 Because of the nature of the text, it was virtually impossible to lift out a portion and have it make a lot of sense apart from the rest.  Even as it is it takes some focus and thinking through.  But the main issue I want to deal with is the second half of the last paragraph.  Psychopathological deviations are all the DSM-IV coded psychological conditions.  On the other hand, human predicament would be more, as I understand it, taking the individual as a person in need, maybe hurting or offended or angry about something.  But in need of some guidance.  In this approach the person wouldn't be dealt with as sick, but as needy maybe.  That's as I understand it.

The thing is that I think that the military chaplain/H.R. director took the psychopathological deviation approach with me, because if they thought I had culture shock that was the first I heard of it and no one ever really mentioned it to me before.  I was having stress and took up jogging, but half the men jogged for that very same reason.  I also took some Austrian herbs for that too, that one of the secretaries recommended.  But it wasn't like it affected my functioning.  I still did everything at work as usual and went to church and all.  So he really took the psychopathological deviation approach.  It makes you wonder why, because what was the reason for it?  How could it have really been for my good?  Was it realy necessary?  All they had to do was cut back on the things they were doing to cause the stress!  Because the cause of my stress was right there at work at the mission.  So it's clear that it was to get me to become submissive, and when they told me that two other wives of leaders had gone home for counseling like this too, that confirmed for me that that's exactly what it was.  It was not for my benefit and never ever was intended for my benefit. 

***

That's all for that article.  Since I've had some really long ones lately, I'm going to end here too, even though it's pretty short.