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.
