449. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 56 (Vickers, pt. 1)

This next article is:

Vickers, Robert. (1986, Spring). The military chaplaincy: a study in role conflict. Military Chaplains Review, 15(2), 76-90.

***

The chaplain faces both philosophical and functional role conflicts.  This dilemna is so powerful because each role is consuming. (p. 77)

I'm going to use this quote not for what it is originally meant to be talking about, but as it applies to me back when I was working at the Vienna mission.  That is, it might be helpful to break down the issues into philosophical and functional role conflicts, so let's see what that does as far as helping to understand what happened back then.

Well, for me there definitely was a role conflict or dissonance, which is why I was trying to compensate by having the outside people ministry.  So right there you know there is going to be some role conflict.  But also, I felt my knowledge and background was not used at all during my time with the mission and I think that could be considered a kind of role conflict. 

As to philosophical conflicts, I've discussed this a fair amount and even in recent posts, such as about how the mission seemed to believe that the ends justify the means, whereas I'm an idealist.  So we clearly had philosophical conflicts, and I was aware of that while I was there and being cognizant of some of these things really helped because when you're able to put your fingers on something - at least for me this is so - it really helps.  I don't know what I would have done otherwise, because I was all alone there in the middle of this.  I had no one to talk to about this stuff because I couldn't trust anyone.  So I guess I was the only idealist in a sea of people who had caved in to the "ends justifies the means" philosophy.  At least everyone else was satisfactorily socialized except me, so I assume they all got it.  So they're all probably singing, "How do you solve a problem like Meg....?"  Maybe not. (Sorry that was a reference to the song in the Sound of Music.)

***

I'm skipping a lot of the text, even though it's interesting... it doesn't really have anything I want to comment on.

A large number of writers have claimed that the chaplain either should not be prophetic, cannot be prophetic, or will not be prophetic due to circumstances beyond his control.  They say that since the state is morally autonomous and not subject to moral absolutes, it is inappropriate for anyone to attempt to be prophetic with regard to the state or its officials.  Secondly, they claim that the chaplain has become domesticated through military service, and is thus effectively silenced.  The further claim that the chaplain who is wearing the uniform of the government, paid by the state,and dependent upon senior officers for advancement cannot possibly proclaim a prophetic gospel.  In their view, it would be impossible for the chaplain to be prophetic from within the system because his primary allegiance is to the system; "faith must bow to the state." The chaplaincy is seen to much a part of the system which it serves, and therefore blind to what goes on within the system.

One writer claims that the chaplain learns very easily that if he wishes to survive in the system he must not "rock the boat." He further claims that the chaplains who rise in the system are those who compromise.  How can one possibly be prophetic and compromise at the same time?  A warning echoed by many that to become overly identified with the military officer role carries with it the danger of becoming socialized into the institution and of losing identity and value as a clergyman.

....

In the life and work of the chaplain it appears likely that either the role of the military officer or the clergy role will become the dominant one.  If the clergy role is chosen, one can count on the risk of possible isolation and rejection, even dismissal; to choose the military officer role, one can perhaps achieve career success but it may take a heavy toll on one's ministerial affectiveness.  As Jesus said, each person should therefore "count the cost." (Luke 14.28) (p. 84-85)

Don't you just hate it when someone predicts something and later it comes to be just as they said and they they come in "na-ner-na-ner-na-ner -I-was-right! I-told-you-so!" 

Well, this is a case like that.  Unequally yoked!  How many other ways do I have to tell you!  And, in similar manner, the Vienna mission shouldn't have been messing with any of that kind of stuff either!  Why on earth did they need to have an H.R. department manned totally by U.S. military chaplains?  And that's not even mentioning that one of the missions on their staff - one of the 5 original missions - took money from the CIA, so who knew whatever else there was going on that was leading to the kind of stuff I just didn't feel comfortable with and then how they treated me - and how they treated my parents extra special (which they didn't do for other guests, incidentally). 

So, yeah, count the costs, and then don't get unequally yoked.  Could you see Jesus getting unequally yoked?  I mean, sure, he'd associate with and minister to unbelievers, but He wouldn't be unequally yoked with them.  But, of course, he always had the harshest words for the religious leaders anyway, so I wonder what he'd say to the Vienna mission and the set up they had going there.  We already saw how He wouldn't fit in there.

***

Since that is all I wanted to take from that article, I'm going to do another short article:

Grenz, Clinton E. (1972, Aug.). An Army "industrial" chaplaincy model. Military Chaplains' Review, 31-34.

The term "industrial" here has a particular meaning (which I didn't know before either).  It's a way to refer to the working in bases near cities and where there are something like a factory or materiel setting.  Evidently there is an Army program called "Industrial Chaplaincy Program," that was at 125 companies at the time of the writing of article.

***

The Counseling Ministry

Managers at every level attempt to identify problems, recognize patterns and set goals through his counseling ministry, becomes a valuable asset to management due to his training and experience.  He becomes an interpreter and communicator of human and spiritual needs as well as projector of human and spiritual homes.  He becomes a part of the problem-solving team in his concern for the individual.

The Army Materiel Command chaplain faces the kinds of problems which other chaplains and ministers face: religious and moral conflicts, alcoholism and drug abuse, family financial problems, supervisor and worker conflicts, and marital frictions, FM 16-5 states: "The chaplain is available to individuals under military jurisdiction who desire confidential interviews." Within the Army Materiel Command this includes civilian and military personnel alike.

Preventive Ministry

Management is recognizing that its employees are its most valuable assets, and therefore it wants to help them.  The Army "Industrial" chaplain is equipped to offer supportive educational services to first line supervisors, middle managers and executives to improve human relations as it relates directly to counseling skills, communications, and alcohol and drug rehabilitation.  The major emphasis is to have a balanced managerial concern for human relations and productivity.

This type of ministry will result in improved understanding, attitudes, and behavioral patterns among the supervisory force.  Critiques from supervisors have indicated an unusually high degree of acceptance of this supportive service.

Redemptive Ministry

The Army "Industrial" Chaplaincy does not attempt to provide for the total religious needs of the civilian workforce.  It functions as a supplement to the local ministries of local churches.  If emphasizes breakfast study groups, non luncheons, and evening "rap" sessions, as well as weekly religious informal happenings conducted during employee luncheon breaks.

The rapport and communicative relationship that has bee established at the Sacramento Army Depot through these informal study groups has created a better understanding both horizontally between man and man and vertically between God and man.  Civilian clergyman are delighted that this kind of ministry is provided by the command through an Army chaplain. (p. 32-33)

This is actually a good chunk of the article.  The thing is that the chaplains in these Industrial Chaplain Programs really take a hit as far as their chaplains duties and role is concerned.  So they end out mostly on the counseling end of thing, some of which may include some religious aspects of course, but from the description, it sounds like a lot of it is based on things the Army wants and Army values and things like that.  So the chaplain will end out doing some of the socialization, it sounds like it, too, maybe more than in some other chaplains' positions.  Here it looks like a big chunk of what they do.

The thing is, can you take the chaplaincy piecemeal like this?  Can you say, well, here it's okay, but here they just went overboard.  Or here, well, they didn't do it right?  Is it possible that maybe the whole thing is just wrong?  And it just takes the places like this to maybe get some people to agree that there could be something off.  Of course, some people won't even see it here.

So then the other thing is that I could see the human resource staff in the Vienna mission seeing themselves sort of in this same light in the mission as described here.  So just adjust the wording a little to make it fit the mission and it's possible that that's not too far off from a description of what they did in the mission, more or less.  I'm going on a limb here, but it feels right; it just fits.

448. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 55 (Sehested, pt. 1)

I feel somewhat better this morning, so I think the Mucinex is working, for which I am very glad.  I still am going to do less than I have been though.  But I think I'll be able to run a couple quick errands at least, and maybe get by without having to go to my primary care doctor over it.  Heaven knows this co-pays add up!  But if I have to go, I will, nevertheless, so that's not a prohibitive issue, either.

I've found another very interesting article, but I'm just going to get it set up now, and I'll have to really get started on it later, when I get back from errands, because today is my weekly day to fill my meds and supplements for the weeks and I need several new refills from the drug store, and I'm even completely out of one of the supplements I take.  So I have to take care of these things. 

The article is:

Sehested, Ken. (1994, March 2). Loyalty test: the case of Chaplain Robertson. Christian Century, 111(7), 212-214.

***

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 resources bureau. (p. 212)

This chaplain was fortunate, because virtually the same thing happened to me with the Vienna mission, but did I get all the fanfare?  Hardly?  And what did I do to deserve being exiled back to the USA from from the position in Vienna, Austria that I had done deputation for and for which all my supporters were sending money to have me do?  What offense had I committed, and what records show that I had done something worthy of this treatment? 

The mission, in my case, of course, didn't want to call it discipline and didn't want to say that I had done anything amiss and would never point to anything particular that I might have done in the form of disobedience or otherwise  bad conduct to deserve ill treatment.  So in my case, as evidently in other cases before me, they preferred to use terms of mental instability rather than social normatives and how one might or might relate to them.  Maybe that's because the mission's norms were slippery and they didn't want their norms to be publicly focused on, so they had to instead focus early on on the individual's emotional state.  Very convenient, especially since the individuals are thousands of miles away from everything that is familiar to them, so the mission can more or less get away with whatever it wants, especially if it is very clever and plays its cards right.  The mission wouldn't go overboard, however, because there was no use in taking unnecessary risks, but when there comes along a special case like me, they are fully able to do whatever it takes to play their emotional cards out to the fullest.  Since it happens so rarely hardly anyone would really know what was going on even.

I don't know who you - the reader - are, and if you have read any of the previous posts, but my dad was a program manager in SDI at Boeing at the same time I was working with the mission, and I had problems even later that were clearly related to my dad and he had at least some fallback from my interest in missions in the East Bloc countries.  In addition, I had way more specialization in East European missions than most people coming in new to the mission - my B.A., (European Studies with a minor in Russian), Bible school, short term ministries, and a lot of other things I did were all in preparation, that was more than just the theological training even.  So I was in a position to question their approaches to things and I had come to my own opinions regarding missions in Eastern Europe.  So they could find fault with me because of my dad, but also because I was daring to question their ways.  But the thing was that I wasn't open about questioning their ways, other than my sticking to my guns about wanting to work with people and not being willing to just be a secretary.  They knew about that.

So basically, if they were angry at me for having done something, it would have to have been along the lines of getting too involved outside the mission.  But if they came straight out and said that they'd have a problem, because it had been agreed up front that since I was going to be a secretary and not doing a lot of travel, which was fine by me, I'd like to have more of a people ministry then with the Austrians.  And I was open with this upfront and told my sending mission and they said they didn't think it would be a problem.  And that was the deal.  And I wouldn't have come otherwise. 

But if we had a fuss about this they'd probably raise their eyebrows - and I mean the administration, including my boss and his boss, as well as H.R. - and not understand what the problem was that they think it's great that I'm having that ministry.  But then I'd continue to have these pressures while having it. 

They'd never ever admit to any of these kinds of things.  So it was always just in your head.  At least that's how they made you feel about it.

***

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... 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.

A civilian employee testified that her former boss... had taken her aside after a Sunday morning service "to tell me he had to get Chaplain Robertson out of the service..."

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)....  Robertson was cleared of a mysterious charge of fraud. (p. 213)

This is the fallout from publishing an editorial letter in the local newspaper. 

Well, here it is clear that if Chaplain's have independent opinions they are limited in how they can voice these opinions.  The missionaries with the Vienna mission were censored too.  I had my prayer letter censored.  I was told to put content in, take content out, shorten my address list.  They really wanted to make me into a cookie cutter Christian.  Or cookie cutter missionary.  But the problem was that I didn't particularly like what I saw and the more harshness I saw the less I liked what I saw because the more I thought they were taking on practices of the world. 

Now how on earth are you supposed to convince people you have something good to tell them (as in Good News) if all they see is a carbon copy of the world's ways?  Then when they use the Bible it's to pick it up and use it piece meal, the way you can get it to say anything you want it to.  I'm not talking about that way.  I mean, let's really drop the worldly ways and garb and put on the whole armor of God (Eph. 6: 11ff.).  That's what I"m talking about.  And it's something we all do together, we all need.  It's not something that someone tries to indoctrinate you with, having some secret inner knowledge or something, maybe along the lines of the gnostics or the like.  No, I'm talking about the real deal, sincere Christianity. 

And incidently, this kind of Christianity, like I saw there in Vienna, with its strange use of Scripture to counsel into mission norms, may fool some, it may fool you, but it doesn't fool God.  God knows what's going on, and he understands perfectly well.  So don't bother trying to make excuses to Him at least.  [This was directed to Mission leadership.]

***

At one point an officer from the Chief of Chaplains office in Washington, DC., 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 woul d have been courtmartialed.'... Robertson said, "If this 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)

I guess at least I got my shock sooner than he did, but I had put all those year of preparation in before getting to Vienna and I had gone through a lot to pick out the mission, too.  And I still messed up anyway.  The part there where the Chief of Chaplains says that Jesus Christ would have been court martialed if He were an Air Force chaplain.  Well, He would know better than to become one, because, like I've been saying, it's the unequally yoked issue.  So then it comes down to compromise, which is the thing in being unequally yoked, but even without that, there are little things that you might not be aware of.  It comes down to the friends you hang around with, right?  So the friends you hang around with, thats who you're going to end out being like.  There's bound to be some of them that rubs off on you.  You can't help it.

Jesus wouldn't have faired any better in the Vienna mission either, I don't think, and that's despite the fact that it was a Christian organization.  I think that this is a situation where Jesus would have turned some tables over, not for the same reason as the money changers, but because there are problems in the church.  Where to start? 

To start with, He would have failed socialization worst that I did.  Do you think He'd put up with the shenanigans the mission put me through?  I don't think so?  So just imagine.  They have this new missionary coming fresh from seminary.  He has unusual knowledge and wisdom, but he is not fitting in with the mission's norms.  He is spending a lot of time in the evenings and weekends out teaching, preaching and evangelizing, but he should be spending more time with just with the mission.  His outside ministry is becoming more and more reknowned in local circles, but the mission needs him to be only involved in the mission.  The only way they know to get his attention is to ... send him back to the USA for counseling.  So they find enough evidence (or they manufacture it) to show he might have culture shock.  So they send Him back to the USA for counseling.


The Vienna mission is just like the Air Force, because, as I've said innumerable times, the mission lived by the principle that ends justifies the means, and if you believe that the ends justifed the means, then of course you're willing to compromise.  You're willing to compromise the means in order to reach the ends, right?  Or another way to put it is that as long as the ends are good and right, the ends don't particularly matter - we can compromise all we want on those and that's okay.  That's what the mission believed.  Now you're not going to find that on a doctrinal statement or on their web site or anything.  It's just how they operated.  It was their modus operandi.  And if you see enough of how they operate, you can deduce it and figure it out based on their actions, and that's how I came up with it.  This is not the kind of thing they'd like to be thought of about themselves, but it's how they operate.

So the thing is that the Vienna mission got this yuong upstart working for them and he's out being careless preaching and not getting socialized.  So they have a couple things going here.  One is that they are concerned about security because he is not being careful in his ministry in the city and the other is that he is not coming under their control for socialization.   So think of these ends and means issues here. 

The H.R. director pulls Jesus in to talk with him about the possibility about getting some counseling back in the USA.  Jesus (having this advantage over me) knowing what they were up to, becomes angry and summons the mission leadership together in a never-before seen scenario) precedes to rebuke the leadership for their deceitfulness and their lack of faith,  for being unequally yoked and mixing church and state, and several other issues.  After this, he resigned his post with the mission.

 ***

 I think that's it for this article.