It was set up in the first place because I wanted to have her check my eyes because of one of the biological medicines I'm on for rheumatoid arthritis. So I have to reschedule... again. I had to reschedule once already because another doctor rescheduled on me making me have to change her appointment. So now I feel badly about having to change her appointment again, but there's nothing I can really do about it. My legs just aren't up to driving 50-60 miles round trip, especially city driving.
***
This next article is:Ettershank, John P. (1983, Fall). The chaplain's allegiance to the military. Military Chaplains' Review, 12(4), 41-46.
***
This is how the article begins, and, as the text insinuates, the initial paragraph is the oath the military chaplains take in the Army, or it was at the time of publication. I assume the variation of swear vs. affirm was to give allowance for those faiths who refused to swear by anything, so affirming would be acceptable to them, that their "yea be yea" (James 5:12). So their merely affirming to something would be the same as the next person's swearing to it, which many Christians would agree is ideally how it should be anyway, but for these people that's the only way they will have it. They just don't take oaths, so the government had to make this accommodation and it recognized the fealty of their word, and that it actually was as trustworthy as an oath, so it was willing to add "(or affirm)" in there.I ________, SSAN ______, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the Unied States, as indicated above in the grade of ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend The Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; SO HELP ME GOD.
A number of us have taken that oath at least twice: once when being sworn into the Army of the United States as a reservist or National Guardsman and then later in our career when we were integrated into the Regular Army. (p. 41)
Of course, these things often don't come without much anguish either, so as to how the "(or affirm)" came to be there I am speculating some and I may be leaving out quite a history. It's possible. The U.S. military can be quite unforgiving in these kinds of things so it's possible that even this didn't come without a lot of anguish or activism. Or maybe these people had to prove themselves on the battlefield surreptitiously first somehow.
In the former USSR this issue of taking a vow was one of the major issues in the religious groups that held to no vow taking that caused them particular grief and suffering. These were smaller groups, mostly around the lower Urals and around that area, maybe just to the west and east from there. The Seventh Day Adventists were primary among these. Even though these weren't proportionally great in number, they did have a group presence and they did have a tough time and this oath issue was a major part of the problem, largely because of the universal military conscription. And the Soviets were less inclined to consider changing "swear" to "affirm" to account for their ethical and spiritual sensibilities.
But where have I gotten myself in all this banter except that my 45 minute stimulator session has already ended and I should go get breakfast? I'll be back to pick up and bring us back to Vienna in a few minutes.
I just want to say that I'm coming up with these discussions like this about the church in Eastern Europe (when it was the Warsaw Pact and Communist Eastern Europe, mind you) on the fly because it is something I knew so well just on the tip of my tongue that I could talk about it very easily and fluently and discuss the nuances and issues and differences in regions and different parts of countries and the like. I've become rusty now, so you can imagine how much I knew back then, so I wasn't just some upstart that came to Vienna as a secretary, right?
So the kind of very unexpected and startling reception I recieved the first few months, although it made me step back and sort of stopped me from being open regarding how much or what I knew (any more than they were genuinely open with me I felt), it did form a backdrop from which I could understand and interpret a lot of what happened in Vienna. So I have every reason to believe that they didn't know that I'd be doing that kind of thinking. I don't know, for example, if the other wives who were sent back to the U.S. thought of their experience as similar to how the Soviets treated believers in trying to get the believers to change their way of thinking.
But back again to Vienna and the article. The issue here, of course, is one of allegiance. When I was living in Russia in the 1990s I wanted to get a dual citizenship. I had a Vid na Zhitelsva (the Russian version of a Green Card, for those of you in the USA, otherwise, a permanent residence visa). Russia was actually okay with that and it wouldn't have been a problem to do that as far as they were concerned. But the U.S. wasn't. If I had taken a Russian citizenship, in addition to the U.S. citizenship, which I had by virtue of having been born in the U.S., and the U.S. found out about it, the U.S. would have annulled my U.S. citizenship. So I rather begrudgingly chose the U.S. citizenship, but it was not a happy choice.
So the U.S. government saw a conflict of allegiance (in general, not just in my case, because this was a general policy) in carrying both a U.S. and Russian citizenship. This wasn't (looking at that particular moment in time) true of all national citizenships, because certainly there are many countries that the U.S. allows people to have dual citizenship with and they do not apparently see a conflict of allegiance there. But with Russia they did. Of course, we know the political anamosities that historically have separated the countries to make this understandable, but I'm using this as an example. This was around 1994.
So when are allegiances unacceptable and conflictual? Christians are ambassadors for Christ and while I believe that whatever we do we should do all to the glory to God, our first allegiance has to be to God and His Church.
Also, I don't see myself as an American (despite my U.S. passport), so much as a resident of the world and citizen of heaven. This is not just a matter of politics, U.N. style, as it is a matter of being a part of world humanity.
In recent years, with the decline of my health, I've had to pull back from focus on anything more than taking care of my immediate needs. In fact, I've missed a lot of my family's milestones because I can barely keep up with my own needs. But I still feel guilty and wonder if I could have done more and how I can rig things to do more in the future, especially now that mom's gone (even if my brothers and I have rocky relations). So I may not appear to hold to this belief, but I do; I just am not able to act upon it as I once was. I hope others are filling in for me.
Before I'd become ill I'd begun to learn about some alternative and creative possibilities to pursue alternatives to what we have now. There is something called "Peace Force," which I think is a fantastic idea and has had some success, for example. A variety of means are needed for a variety of situations though. And since we live in a fallen world, it's not like we're going to necessarily solve all the problems this way, creating a nirvana or something. I'm not an idealist like this. But I do think that we need to try some alternative things that the church can be at the forefront of to make a difference and this can be a great way to show Christ in action.
But the military is going to make the chaplain take something - an allegiance or affirmation or whatever you want to call it - and there's probably no way you can get around this. So the chaplain who feels called to the Army better feel comfortable with this, because I think that this oath is like being unequally yoked:
The goals and intentions of new chaplains (the ones taking the oaths) are good, certainly, as they are concerned for the soldiers and want to have a spiritual impact on lives and maybe even institutions. So I wouldn't necessarily question that, nor the need, as certainly, there is need, although we might quibble over the exact need(s). If you go into the lions den - take an oath to join a secular organization - you'd better pray to remain whole. And search your heart that you're not testing God unnecessarily by taking the oath and making this compromise.13 Now in a like exchange—I speak as to children—open wide to us also.2 Corinthians 6:13-15
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
14 Do not be [a]bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with [b]Belial, or [c]what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
At this point the U.S. puts Christians to shame, because they are more particular than some of us are regarding who we will be yoked with (or allow our citizens to be yoked with in dual citizenship).
[I'm not saying whether I agree or not with the U.S.'s particular choices, but you must admit that it (the government) does understand that when you have an enemy you don't become unequally yoked with it and allow citizens to maintain dual citizenships. Doing so would not be in national interests. In Christian terms, we might say that it undermines our testimony. In either case, the yoked entity ends out with influence that is otherwise undesirable, at least from the standpoint of the U.S. and the Christians, continuing with the same case studies.
So, of course the U.S. government would like the Christian to vow to join its chaplaincy. In this case the Christian is compromising and the govermnent, being a secular entity, and, as such unequally yoked with it, undermines it, even if subtly.
I don't see how you can get around it, really, and to deny it, it seems to me, is to put your head in the sand. I doubt that the government could ever get away with wholesale undermining of the church, at least as I know it today in the USA, although I don't know at some point in the future what may hold. That doesn't mean that there can't be true Christianity going on in military chaplaincy efforts, because God can still use us even if we're out on a limb working in situations we are way out of wack in. So even if all those other things I just said are true that doesn't mean God can't work through chaplains, or enlisted men or volunteers on the bases or overseas ministries to bases there or whatever. So we may all be idiots but God somehow manages to find a way to work with us and He knows our hearts and He helps direct us down the path He has prepared for us. So that's God's sovereignty and His grace too. But...
Romans
5
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
6 1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
...
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Although a lot could be said about these verses, and I will let the
reader make his or her own application. If you aren't familiar with the gospel message, you can see it here in this passage. The heart of the matter is that before Jesus came we were slaves to sin. And that's how we all are before we become Christians. Then we went through a spiritual rebirth when became Christians and the steps the Christ went through in his death on the cross, burial, resurrection, etc. are our spiritual experience too. Once you become a Christian you still have to learn to walk faithfully, as this passage indicates, but we have the Holy Spirit in us to help too. If you haven't asked Christ to come into your life and forgive you and let him come and help you start a new life, this would be a good time to do it. You can just go through these verses and pray them.
So for the rest of us that are Christians (or are two obstinate to become Christians), I just wanted to point out that, picking up from the paragraph before the Romans passage, we should be careful not to fall into the "What shall we say then, shall we continue that grace may abound?" or "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace?" mentality. That is, think twice before becoming unequally yoked.
***
None of us has ever sworn or affirmed to the military per se. As our oath of allegiance states, our promise is to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America... Suffice it to say, I firmly believe we as commissioned chaplains owe allegiance to the military. (p. 41)I think some of my above comments about my feeling like a world resident (but heavenly citizen) would apply here.
It could be seen as a bit better to swear to the country instead of an armed force because it is less militaristic, and rather points to why the military might even be engaging in anything if it is engaging, and then also takes the law back to the original source. So then it is actually more forceful and the vow extends even outside the military boundary because the source is outside the military. So you're locked in and no escaping it, but it's more patriotic than militaristic. It would probably be easier (conscience-wise) for chaplains to wave the patriotic flag anyway than join a gun-toting full-dress parade. So patriotic is the way to go with chaplains, I think. Other than that, the Constitution applies to all the military branches as well, so it unites all of them together as well.
I think the chaplains in the Vienna mission also would have been the kind to believe they owed allegiance to the military. It's just a hunch I have, really, but they just struck me as the type that felt good about their connection to the military. Whether it was their access to the camp store or getting us into the former Hitler's Bird's Nest, at that time a U.S. military retreat center, for our bi-annual retreat, and just their demeanor. I think they would have agreed with this author. I am saying "they", but I actually didn't know the junior H.R. department staff as well as the director; I have no reason, however, to think he was any different than, the department director.
***
"All of our churches have adequately prepared us theologically to perform the religious services, rites, sacraments, and ordinances required by the U.S. Code." (p. 42)I just want to say that this at first reading just now (it was underlined from my first reading in the 1990s in Minneapolis) didn't seem to add anything new. But then I made the comparison with seminaries in the former East Bloc. The seminaries there were mostly the ones that were government authorized, so they had to more or less compromise, depending on what country, what denomination, etc. Some groups tried to hold underground training or one sort or another, of course, but it would have been very difficult.
But the thing was, that these groups generally did not like the government meddling in their affairs. It's not like they had a choice in the meddling, although they tried to wheedle their way around it so they'd come out with things as much in their favor as possible. But to voluntarily carry courses meeting U.S. code requirements! I must admit that I'm more than a little curious as to what they'd think. Some believers were so pro-American, though that they might not have cared. I think this was largely a byproduct of the carelessness - or worse - of Western missionaries (the ones that I didn't want anything to do with when I was living in Siberia, for example). However, to leave it only to the missionaries would be naive too. There were others also having an influence.
***
The chaplain must not only possess and apply theological teaching, but also be skilled in the military arts. (p. 42)I trust the chaplain at the Vienna mission had no intentions of applying any of those skills while with the mission.... If he is a non-weapon bearing member of the military during time of war, what is the purpose of him/her learning the military arts? Either s/he is or s/he isn't - which is it? Or is it just so s/he can "relate to" the soldiers better?
How much more unequally yoked are you going to become, Mr/s. Chaplain?
***
"We were thought of as soldiers but respected and treated as chaplains." (p. 43)I think that's mincing words. If you think of someone one way, then chances are you're going to treat him/her that way too. How do they know they were thought of as soldiers if they weren't treated as soldiers? The text answers this somewhat, but it's still pushing it, I think.
If in all honesty the author was able to succeed in being "thought of as a soldier, but respected and treated as a chaplain," then that would mean he did a reasonable job of balancing his being unequally yoked, since it would appear that his chaplaincy role and persona took the supremacy over his duties as a soldier.
I'm not saying, though, I agree with it nor that I think the measuring stick is reliable or valid or that he should even be there in the first place.
***
This next quote is under the heading "A Humanizing Force"I'm going to avail myself of one of those prerogatives right now. I don't believe we serve in a de-humanizing environment. I think the system, especially in Initial Entry Training (IET), de-personalizes individuals; this is of particular interest to TRADOC chaplains...This is socialization, of course, a subject I've dealt with at some length on this blog before. Here we have the methods and the goals both.
Once the system, through the reception station, gets trainees to look alike, the training battalion begins its work to make them act alike. Conformity here becomes the norm: close-order drill, marching, movement in formation, performance-orientated skills with pupil-coach methodology. Closely inter-twined with act-alike is the subtle approach towards thinking alike; unanimity; united in opinion.
And what is the trainees perception of the process? Hear it said: 'No one cares about me; only my attitude and my performance matter!"
This is a stressful time for the tranees. They have no appreciation of what this de-personalization process seeks to accomplish. Its purpose is to surordinate personal interest for the welfare of the group, the squad or the platoon, and to cause concern for the welfare of others. It seeks to create interdependence instead of indepencence. (p. 45-46)
One thing I must say is that this author pushes here (in sections I didn't quote) for chaplains to transform this program that the Army wants to be dehumanizing - to make everyone alike - to make instead everyone wanting to look out for the group's interests, but not necessarily everyone alike, so that individuals soldiers can keep their individuality. So he's sticking his neck out and this is Christian because it reflects how the Body of Christ is set up as all being made up of different members. It's borderling sabotoge, but it would be for the Army's interests, if they can pull it off. (This was written in 1983, so I'd have to look in historical records to find out.)
Okay, so getting back to the text and comparing it to my experience at the Vienna mission. To refresh you memory - in case you read earlier posts - new members to the mission just came straggling in one by one, so you didn't have large groups of cohorts like the military did in their boot camps, so I have to right away adjust the scenario for that.
In Vienna, there definitely was a strong interest in wanting newcomers - all newcomers as far as I knew - to have a group perspective and have that be their point of reference for the duration with the mission. The point of reference might be stronger, however, to a particular department, but there always had to be a commitment to the large group no matter who you were, even those missionaries living in Eastern Europe. So that was definite objective of socialization.
Subordination was also an objective, but I never really understood that very well because I was moved around a lot, I always did what I was told, yet I was so often in trouble. I never disobeyed a senior. Yet I knew that "they" wanted me to live with the other secretary, for example. But it wasn't as if my boss had ordered that and I had disobeyed, for example. And most of the time I felt as if what they really wanted was for me to just bear all and completely trust them for everything, but even then I didn't know what I'd gain. So I could do that and just make a fool of myself. So the authority issue as stated here was very important in the Vienna mission, but I never got it. I do know I never went in running in tears to my boss early on when I was having all the stress at work, and I think that's what I was supposed to do.
In the Vienna mission, you would never, ever have heard that no one cares about you. For one thing, it was too intimate of a situation. For another, it was too concerned about security and they couldn't risk anyone having a problem. They wanted everyone to be like a big family and be able to come to one another for help if they needed it.
Despite the caring atmosphere of the mission, the first months the new missionary is there can be difficult and, while I don't know about all the department and specialties, I think it can feel like de-personalization, depending how how much of a difficult process it is for the person. Since I've discussed this at length elsewhere I won't belabor it here, but the mission does put together (and I think on the fly puts some together once you're there too, once they see your weaknesses, etc.). The person has to make some moral decisions and takes a crash course that puts them into the underworld in which the mission operates. I guess that's more or less it.
***
I guess that's it. It took a long time to do this one too, partly because I got a crown put in in the middle of it. Since I'd been resting all weekend trying to recuperate from Friday's overdoing it and making my legs take a turn for the worse. So I just made the one appointment and dropped off a prescription at the drug store. That wiped me out just doing those two. So I'm not doing anything the rest of the day. 