388. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 6 (Dept. of the Army, pt. 3)

You know the one thing about using psychology in the Vienna mission is that anyone who left their midst dissatisfied any anyway they would make things so rough for them, like me, that they could actually make the person crazy and therefore claim that the person's testimony is unreliable.  Isn't that a very Christian-like way to act?  And it's also a very good way to avoid being accountable, too.  Quite handy, if you ask me.

I'd like to meet other people who left the mission dissatisfied and see what kind of testimony they had regarding these kinds of things.  Chances are, though, that there aren't any others, because no one else had the guts to stand up to the mission like I did, and even what I did could only just barely be called standing up to them.

***

In our text we're now on chapter 2 "Relationship of Chaplains."  I'm going to be skipping around a bit here, but the first section is from Section I. "Military", part 8. "Relationship to Commanders."

"a.... By Army Regulation, the commander is responsible for the religious life, morals, and morale within the command even as he is for the strictly military affairs (AR 165-15)." (p. 3)

The thing that struck me here is how can a secular commander be responsible for the religious life, morals, and morale?  I'm not sure how this is played out or what this means by way of daily life, but it sure doesn't sit well with me on first glance.  I guess if he hears there are Buddhists in the group (platoon or whatever) and they don't have a place to worship, then he'll pass that on to the chaplain. But I hope it doens't mean that he's going to start defining religious life, morals and morale.

***

part 10. "Relationship to Troops"

"a. ... The chaplain must never lose sight of his military position or social station within the military, but he must be equally careful to emphasize his professional and spiritual responsibility for all military personnel." (p. 4)

This is pretty much what you'd expect in a military chaplain position, a dual responsibility between the military and the pastoral, so some of the earlier statements in the handbook should probably be taken in light of this statement.  

To be honest with you, I still don't feel comfortable with the institution of military chaplain because of the compromises (I think they're compromises) that you have to make to be able to work within the military environment.  The soldiers deserve spiritual support, but I think it should be independent of the military, although that might not always work in the favor of the military so it will never happen.

***

Continuing in part 10...

"b. The chaplain makes informal visits wherever men are gathered for work or play." (p. 4)

So we saw in that one text where the author actually participated in the soldiers' exercises and became an instructor in weaponry (!)  The latter there was a bit of a shock to me, because I didn't think chaplains did that, although maybe it's just fight in wars that they don't do.  So maybe this informal visiting includes these kinds of things.  They sort of become "one of the guys."

I have a bit of a problem with that.  Of course, I don't really like the military either, though.  The thing is that as Christians we are supposed to be salt and light, which means being a little separate, but they're not, they're just getting right in.  Of course, they're not seeing what they're doing as sin, so maybe that's different.  For me that might be an issue.  For the Army chaplain they're sort of buddy-buddy with the soldiers then.

I must say that the leaders at the Vienna mission were like that too, as were the H.R. directors, although I only knew the one very well.  

***

Also in part 10...

"c. Chaplains assigned to units or installations should spend a minimum of fifty percent of their duty time each week with troops." (p. 4)

That's a lot of time.  I'm not sure how they define that time, if counseling sessions count, or morale seminars count, etc.  But that's a lot of time.  Then how much time does he have to prepare for Sunday church or midweek Bible study or a new membership class, etc.?  So if he spends 50 percent of his time with the troops, is that the 50% of his time that the Army gets for the week?  Somehow I doubt it, because I expect there are lots of bureaucratic papers to fill out because that's the federal government for you.  So his spiritual duties get short changed, or he has to sort of somehow squeeze them into the 50% of the time he's spending them with the troops, but his church would be suffering, and his church is presumably also base members.

***

Now in part 12. "Relationship to Other Chaplains."

"b. Where there are several chaplains assigned to a headquarters, there is only one staff chaplain, usually the senior in rank." (p. 4)

The rest of the chapter explains how the junior chaplains report to the senior one, etc.  I just wanted to note that sometimes there are more than one chaplain working together at one place, so that would complicate things even more.  The chaplain with the junior rank I think might have less leeway as to how to express his faith, although they must discuss things together I presume.

***

Anyway, that's it for this post and we'll move on to the next section in the next post.  I have to run to physical therapy now.

387. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 5 (Dept. of the Army, pt. 2)

We're continuing the discussion of the chaplain's handbook.  We're still in "Chapter 1: Introduction," but now we're in section "4. Functions."  There are several parts to this, sort of like in a job description at work, and they all just begin with lower case letter as in an outline format, with no titles.

***

"In carrying out his mission in the Army, the chaplain --


a. Acts as adviser and consultant to the commander and his staff in all matters which pertain to religion, morals, and morale as affected by religion of the command." (p. 1)

What kinds of things do you think the commander and his staff would need advising in?  How many people got baptised that week?  Hardly.  I mean, I doubt it.  Maybe problems could come up that involve religion, that the chaplain could help with, perhaps something like disagreements between different religious groups or individuals in the ranks.  That kind of thing would seem pretty standard. 

As to morals, it depends on what kinds of morals.  If you're going to just be teaching the kind that the Army wants (their values) then that's pretty iffy as far as religion goes.  They shouldn't be putting a religious gloss on something that the religion a chaplain stands for doesn't particularly advocate (although it might not necessarily deny them either). 

And as for morale, well, you have to deal with the whole issue of war and the particular war at hand (if there is one) and then come back and ask yourself whether or not morale is warranted... I mean Scripturally. So, hello!, just maybe poor morale is warranted if the whole business of what the Army is about is not warranted.

Most people won't except that, though, so I'd better think of something else.  Morale, of course can come from many sources (reasons), irregardless of the whether the Army is at war or whether the war is warranted or whether you think war is okay at all or not.  So I guess that's what the chaplain deals with and if the other approach does not hold water with you, then I guess we're left with a myopic approach to morale, and that's what the chaplain deals with, although I have a difficult time swallowing that hook, line and sinker.

***

"b. Provides opportunities for worship, public and private, consistent [sic], with the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the military personnel, their dependants, and authorized civilians." (p. 1)

Whoa, Nellie!  You're kidding me?  "Consistant with the religious beliefs.... of the military personnel....!" I thought it was supposed to be consistent with the chaplains denomination! What happened here.  Did I miss something?  That's what the earlier texts said, isn't it? 

This paragraph sounds pretty all-inclusive, too; It includes "beliefs, customs, and practices."  All these things have to be in sync with the practices of all these people, and nothing is mentioned of the chaplain's denomination.  So what if these people's beliefs are Presbyterian Church (USA) (generally more liberal) and you get Southern Baptist chaplain (generally conservative).  Does this mean that the Southern Baptist pastor has to now "provide opportunities for worship" consistant with the Pesbyterian Church (USA) personnel, who also, incidentally believe in infant baptism rather than believer baptism? 

That's atrocious and that chaplain's denomination would have a thing or two to say about that I might think.  Well, presumably military personnel aren't all uniform one denomination, but there could end out being a stronger chunk of one or another, just like there could of one race or another, which does happen, as I've read about. 

This section b. is really a puzzle, and to me it puts the people above the chaplain's denomination.  It looks like the Army wants most of all that the chaplain would be useful in corraling all these people so that the ones that do have religious backgrounds would continue in them practially at any cost, so that the chaplain's denomination becomes irrelevant in the equation.  At least that's how it looks in this section. 

***

"c. Provide for the proper and appropriate administration of rites, sacraments, and/or ordinances." (p. 1)

This harks back to what I just discussed.  The chaplain couldn't be asked to perform rited for religions other than his own, though, so he would have to make arrangements for others to do those.

***

"d. Provide religious education and instruction consonant with the desires of the individual concerned." (p. 1)

There's nothing much to say about this; I'm just including everything so you'd know what the Army includes in their job description.

***

"e. Provides character guidance instruction." (p. 1)

This is more where I think you get into the area where the Army might have a say in what the "character" is, as in what the end product should look like, and the chaplain is part of the values formation in the soldiers.  Of course, this could also be taken in a very general sense, but I don't think the Army would have included it here as part of just the chaplains sermons or something.  So it's a specific set apart objective for the chaplain to meet.

***

"f. Provide pastoral care such as counseling, spiritual guidance, visitation of the sick and the incarcerated, and making pastoral visits to barracks, quarters, training, and recreational areas.

g. Cooperate with religious groups and welfare agencies in civilian communities.

h. Plans and provides a pgoram of cultural and social activities consistent with the religious need of the command.

i. Satisfies religious obligations established by ecclesiastical authorities to insure maintenance of denominational endorsement. " (p. 1-2)

I don't really have anything to say about f. through h. They're just there so you'll see the breadth of what the Army expected of its chaplains.

As to i. it's incredible that after all that it finally refers to the denomination! It seems to me that there might me hugs conflicts of interest between what might be required to perform i. and what might be required to perform some of the other job tasks as stated.  The Army wants things done its way, for the interests of its people, in the manner its peole are used to, etc. and only now, mention is made that the chaplain should somehow ALSO maintain his denominational endorsement!! At this point the chaplain really had better believe in moving mountains (Mark 11:22-23) because he might need it, like big time. 

It's like the college student who had 5 classes and studied arduously for 4, but sort of forgot that she also had a final exam in the 5th one too.  So guess what?  When she got to class that day she got a big surprise, didn't she! And she more than likely failed, too.  Only in the case of the Army situation the results would be worse, because, as we learned in earlier texts, if the denominational endorsement was lost the chaplain lost his job in the Army too. 

Well, I don't think the chaplain himself would have been so negligent as the Army's list of functions make him out to be, so it is the Army itself that would be trying to get as much out of the chaplain as it could by way of these functions while at the same time the chaplain did what he had to do for his denomination. 

***

I only have one more brief quote I'd like to make from Chapter 1 of the "Chaplain" handbook"

"5. ... In accordance with AR-165, chaplains may not be assigned secular duties." (p. 2)

I don't have much to say about this, except that it seems worthwhile noting that chaplains aren't supposed to be doing secular duties, which in my mind might include a whole array of things, such as:

1. Fighting
2. Office work/Administrative (except related to chaplaincy)
3. Medical
4. Disciplinary

So the thing is that the last two can include some "counseling" that I think we'll see later on (I think I have articles that mention these things).  We'll discuss these more when they come up.

Also, the issue of "moral education" actuall treads on rather shaky ground as to whether it is "religious." The Army's (and probably the whole military establishment's) view of "moral education" is not really religious at all and is actually quite secular in nature.  So it's rather a sham to make chaplains have to be the vehicles to indoctrinate the soldiers into the Army's values.  Of course, the chaplains aren't left to their own devices in this effort, because others are also working toward this end. But, certainly, having a chaplain join the effort would add a credibility to a swath of recruits with a faith background, right?  So faith becomes a useful tool in the pursuit of war, or at least the preparation for war, whether or not there is going to be one or not. 

So the thing is that the chaplain, by teaching the Army's moral education (whether one-on-one, in large groups, or however) is saying that religion (my religion, your religion, all religions) backs these moral qualities and thinks that they are worth espousing.  He doesn't have to say that because the very fact that he is the one doing the one teaching sends that message across, and the Army likes that.  Whether or not that message is true is, I expect, unimportant, even irrelevant to the Army.  In fact, whether or not there is an indirect message at all may or may not even be important - at least important enough that they'd like to discuss it or acknowledge it. 

Meanwhile, chaplains, everywhere think that these traits are more or less okay so they teach them.  Besides, they agree to them anyway or they wouldn't be in the Army in the first place, right?  Still, they're not the Fruit of the Spirit.

It'll be interesting if we seen anything that smacks of "secular duties," in other texts.  That'll have to wait, though, because we're going to be on this one for a while....

But for now, I'm done with this chapter and I'm going to end this post.

194. Socialization File, Pt. 76 (Starr & Fondas, pt. 2)

I feel like I need to explain some of my distance from organized (Evangelical) Christianity. Also, I should probably qualify that further even to be "organized Evangelical American Christianity." I'm not sure how far geographically to spread that net, so I'll just stick with "American" until I learn otherwise (i.e., that I need to include Evangelical Christianity in other places as well).

Since this all started basically with my experience with the Vienna mission, I'm going to use that as my main reference point. However, it should be noted that while with the mission in Vienna I realized that there were also hints of things earlier that also could have been a part of the phenomena (or phenomenon, depending on whether you want to see it as one issue or multiple issues) I witnessed and experienced in Vienna. Since I haven't gotten to the Vienna part of my chronology yet I might be jumping the gun a bit here, but I think you know enough already (that's assuming, of course you've read all my prior posts which is highly unlikely) to hang your hat on, so to speak. That is, you should be able to able to follow along without too much difficulty, even if you don't know all the details.

***

The issue here, I think, is how far the net needs to be thrown by way of how things could have happened as they did in the Vienna mission (whether for me in particular or in general - in as much as I've interpreted things correctly). I'm going to be assuming at the front (and I'm not saying that this is the case, because I think there's a good chance it's not, but that I'm going to err on the side of caution, if you will) that there was not governmental connection in how the mission operated in general or in my experience of it. (By governmental, I mean things, for example that might have pertained to my dad's work, or military connections - as in the 2 U.S. military reserve chaplains comprising the h.r. department.) Besides, if we included any possible government involvement that would go into a lot more than I want to right now. Believe me, there will be enough to chew on without including that possible influence in the mix.

So, basically, you have 15 missions, all with their own culture, values, ways of doing things and connections coming together to form one mission, apart from their separate, individual stand-alone ministries. They send missionaries, money and board of director representatives to the Vienna mission so that it can function as they've intended it to.

The missionaries on the staff, besides coming from different missions, also come from different church backgrounds and, to a certain extent, different professional backgrounds as well. The church diversity included churches like Conservative Baptist, Christian & Missionary Alliance, and independent churches (which was my background). Really, there's not that much difference between these backgrounds, which made theological integration that much easier. And by far most of the missionaries were pastors/theologians/chaplains by trade, with secretaries and layout and design comprising the remainder of the group.

So where in this process would it have been possible to come up with the kind of organizational culture and value system that I witnessed in Vienna? I think the "inputs" and "facilitative" elements include some of the following:

1. the 15 missions
2. the denominational backgrounds (and some missions were denominational too)
3. the seminaries

Let me illustrate what I mean here:

1. Each of the seminaries must have educated the pastors/theologians/chaplains in such a way to make the kind of normative structure of the mission possible and/or acceptable and/or tolerable and/or preferable, etc.

2. Each of the denominational backgrounds of the missionaries on staff must have prepared the missionaries in such a way as to make the kind of normative structure of the mission possible and/or acceptable and/or tolerable and/or preferable, etc.

3. Each of the 15 missions must have come to the table in such a way as to make the kind of normative structure of the mission possible and/or acceptable and/or tolerable and/or preferable, etc.

I'm leaving no one out here because I was evidently the only one who, as far as I knew ever objected to the things I objected to, or at least no one else stuck to any reservations they might have had. So in this way everyone of these groups are culpable, at the very least, of making it possible for the mission to operate as it did, but some actors had to have made it desirable or even imperative that it operated in the function it did while I was in Vienna.

But beyond that, of all the other (non mission-related) American Evangelical Christian seminaries, denominations and churches, and missions to Eastern Europe could be seen as tangentially connected to this whole mess in as much as American Evangelical Christianity includes a lot of interconnectedness and cross-fertilization and the like. It is possible that, for the most part, they would not have had much of a causative input. BUT... I think they could have had, to one extent or another, a preventative or corrective input. But it's clear they didn't and in all my years since working with the mission in Vienna (1987-1989) I have never ever ever come across anyone who thought that preventative or corrective action was called for. So, in as much as these other players have (or had) some knowledge of the kinds of things going on in the Vienna mission, they are also accomplices of sort.

So where does this leave me? Churchless, right? Maybe you understand where I'm coming from on this now, at least understand it somewhat better than before I explained this. And if you knew who the 15 missions were and how very large some of them are, you'd see how also might spread some of the culpability out.

Your response now probably depends on whether...
1) you agree with me or not that the mission was wrong in some of the things it did and was,
2) how much you knew of the mission (specifically during the time I was there), and
3) your view of what your responsibility, if any, might be vis a vis this knowledge.

Of course, at this point you probably don't know enough to make much of a determination, but this is the kind of thinking that I've gone through in my a lot of my relations with churches since my Vienna experience. I'm too disillusioned and my experience there has tainted too much of my perspective on American Evangelical Christianity. Maybe one could say that the Vienna mission has become the epitome of American Evangelical Christianity to me. Virtually all the conditions necessary for the mission to be the way it was came from the the Evangelical Church in the USA.

(I understand that the mission's logic would have included an aspect of responsiveness to the situation in Eastern Europe, but that does not justify the route they took, and that choice - or choices - was enabled as stated above, from its USA roots. I also understand that I seem to be the only person in the USA - or possibly anywhere - who disagrees/disagreed with the mission.)

***

This next sub-section in our text (under the main heading "A Model of Entrepreneurial Socialization") is "Motivational Bases for Adaptation."

"The socializability of newcomers is directly related to their motivation to adapt to the expectations, norms, and values of incumbent organizational members. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors predispose new recruits to attend to socializing cues and adjust their conduct accordingly. Further, an individual's psychological make-up, as well as tangible incentives, influence the novice's willingness to explore, learn, and adapt to the behaviors and attitudes required in the new setting. Thus, individuals will respond differently to organizational socialization efforts, resulting in personalized responses to the new setting." (p. 70)

I think I came to Vienna with a reasonably high motivation to adapt to the mission's ways, although I don't particularly remember giving it any conscious thought beforehand. In hindsight, I might actually have given more thought to thinking about ways to get involved with the Austrian culture, with ministry in mind particular, than I did to what strategies I might take in getting used to the mission culture. I think this is because I took at face value that I was going to be a secretary and nothing more, and, while I did want to be part of the mission because I thought it was great what they were doing (equipping church leaders in Eastern Europe), but it never occurred to me that my relationships would be sort of defined for me before I arrived even. That is, the outside of work relationship with my boss and his family and with the other secretaries. I've already talked some about these people as my reference group though. My sending mission also didn't seem to have any problems with my interest in local ministry while serving as a secretary. But the Vienna mission, quite obviously, thought otherwise and evidently didn't communicate that back to my mission's home office (and probably not to the Eastern European office of my sending mission either).

Normally I am a person with high intrinsic motivation and don't need a lot of external motivation. That's as a rule, although I'm sure there probably are exceptions. I'm also a dependable worker too in this regard. That is, once I know what to do I'll get about to doing it with little oversight needed, and you can trust I'll get it done and if, per chance something happens and I might not get it done in time I'll let you know as soon as I realize there might be a problem. Some might call this Protestant work ethics, I suppose.

I think then, that if a situation arises where I don't appear to have high internal motivation, there's probably a reason for it, although I may or may not be aware of it. I think, for example, the mission predicted that when I arrived and was confronted with reading software manuals my internal motivation might kick in and I'd come running in to my boss's office in tears about how I really can and want to do so much more than read software manuals. But I didn't do that, for several reasons, some of which I've already mentioned, such as trying to figure out what was going on. But I think too that I was "green" to the job that I wasn't sure what exactly what to expect and wasn't inclined to make waves. From this perspective, I could be trying to think the best of the mission and assuming there was some good explanation (other than debasement) that could account for what I was given to do, and sooner or later I'd find out what that reason was. This might be an innocent until proven guilty stance towards the mission. But since I was rather intentionally holding back and watching and observing at the same time, a small inkling of guilty attribution might have been forming, or at least the suggestion of something going on that wasn't what it seemed to be.

The other thing I'd like to comment on in this text is the phrase "tangible incentives." My experience of the Vienna mission eventually led me to never believe any carrot or stick innuendos or suggestions. On the other hand, if someone said to me, "Next Monday you're moving to reception," then I would know that that stick meant business, or "We'd like you to go on a women's ministry trip from Jan. 15 to Jan. 25, you'll have your briefing for that trip tomorrow at 3:00" then I'd know that that carrot meant business." Otherwise, I pretty well got to ignoring anything less specific than that because I couldn't tell what was a real possibility (or how likely a one) and what wasn't such a real possibility. That ambiguity was beyond what I could deal with. Although, that being said, I think I did respond some to things I thought I would like, but in hindsight I think it was foolish of me to do so; it would have been better to not respond.

***

Within this section there are paragraphs dealing with specific variables that might affect motivation. The first one is personality.

"Personality variables may affect the motivation to become socialized. An individual's response to authority, need for control, and feedback may affect the newcomer's mode of adjustment and accommodation to the expectations of organizational members." (p. 70)

This is only a small part of the paragraph, but the other is material I've already discussed. The main issue of interest in this text regards the response to authority. I don't know where I got this from, but I think probably my adventures in preparing myself for ministry to Eastern Europe maybe over-developed my sense of self-efficacy in a way that made me not be afraid of authority for authority's sake. That is, I wasn't cowed or intimidated by authority and if I thought they were wrong being in a position of authority would not of itself be convincing enough for me to change my mind. Think of the 18-year old upstart confronting (with composure and sound reasoning) the garden shop manager in front of the merchandising manager at KMart. That is, I didn't disrespect authority, but I didn't see authority, at least human authority, as authority in any absolute sense and if they crossed the bounds of what I thought their authority gave them rights to I disrespected them as authority figures to the extent to which they overstepped those bounds. I'm still like that. I can just imagine the Vienna mission leaders (the ones who were there when I was there) saying, "Now you tell us!"

***

I don't think I have anything to say about the rest of this article, so next time we'll move on to a new one.