But we all have our limitations, and I've always been able to somehow make the best within the limitations I have. But that doesn't mean there isn't an adjustment period. So every time there is a change there might be a bit of adjustment, depending on the situation. Maybe you can relate to what I'm saying. It's just that I've been through it in some pretty extreme situations, from Vienna isolated where I had to figure things out on my own (as I thought, anyway), to Siberia, to dealing with family where I thought my father was part of my problems but would never admit it and I couldn't trust him completely. To employment problems that have left some family members to this day as pegging me as lazy or just dealing with living alone in a strange city with all these health issues and trying to rise above it.
It's really hard, I admit. I don't really want people to feel sorry for me, but sometimes it would be nice for mom or a good friend, for example, to put their arms around me and let me have a good cry. I'm only human after all! But I'm the epitome of the strong person that just forges ahead in the face of all sorts of adversity. And by the way, I don't need anyone, especially if I sense at all that there might be any ulterior motives or hidden agenda in a potential assistant. Or sometimes it's just that they naively try to associate me with a position, for example, such as, "I'm so glad you finally made it to the land of Capitalism and came to your senses about the wickedness of Communism."
Whoa, Nellie! This is referring, of course to my rescuing from Russia (I originally moved there when it was the USSR still) in 1997, in which my father played a part. The thing is that 1) I never did like Communism. and 2) I never did like Capitalism. So please do not ever try to associate me with either one of these. (Without going into reams of boringly repetitive materials from earlier posts, I think Communism errantly assumes humans are fundamently good and will of their own free will share everything. Balderdash. On the other hand Capitalism is sheer greed and anyone who has any understanding of sin knows that the love of money is the root of all evil. So how can Capitalism be good, especially from a Christian standpoint?
Just don't try to ask me, then what kind of economic system I do believe in, because I do not claim to be an economist. I'll leave it up to the economists to try to come up with something that more closely resembles scriptural Christianity. Of course, some might say that the early church practiced early socialism or comunism or something of that nature. If they had the new nature and the Holy Spirit living in them, then that deals with the issue of humans not willingly sharing prossessions with each others. The problem is, however, that, unfortunately, Christians still can sin, so even this is going to be problematic.
The other issue was that the missions I went to Vienna with were more or less openly right wing. While I was in Russia I joined Americans United for the Separation for Church and State which seems to be represented more by liberal than conservative churches (as well as other religions), although they deal with issues across the board. But Conservative and Fundamental Christian churches tend not to like them and the very concept of separation of church and state. For example, conservative churches tend to want prayer - Evangelical prayer, to be specific, or the Evangelical version of the Lord's Prayer - in schools. I think I would have been persona non gratis at the Vienna mission on the basis of my membership in this organization alone, had they known. I would have been the enemy or at the very least not someone they would chose to divulge anything more than the route to the W.C. to, which in Austria, was usually right near the entryway, anyway.
What am I trying to say? I guess it's just that one of the things I've had to deal with in my transitions is that when people have helped me it seems they inevitibly have preconceived ideas about me when they do help me. But those ideas often misrepresent me. In the USSR they were not in my best interests no matter how you look at it, although I was able to turn some things around and make some good come of it eventually. Other times when people helped me I didn't understand; it seemed like I was being set up for something that missed the mark of where I was and what I'd become. It's like people were thinking of me as I was years prior and not in the then and now. I inevitably ended out tearing myself free of these shackles, as I ended out feeling them as, and I was very much misunderstood and not a lot of good came of it. It smelled to me like it was related to dad because there were themes like there had been themes for years since the whole debacle leading up to my move to Russia. But no one believed me any more.
This was way after Vienna, so I'm getting ahead of myself. When I left Russia, I knew I had to change my profession. I changed profession after I left Vienna, so that I got a Master's degree in Adult Education and teaching certification in teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. I tried to get into a doctoral program in sociology with a focus in peace studies, but I wasn't accepted (presumably because I didn't have a sociology background).
Then I was accepted into a doctorate program in Adult Education, but I was interested in social justice issues, and I didn't realize that adult education in the US was so business and corporate-oriented and even ESL and literacy is so top-down focused and concerned only with making learners conform to society rather than create and have an impact, be a force for good in society, etc. So I couldn't stand it. That's not what I'm about. And I got stuck with a professor that I had a feeling he might make me look bad with sexual inuendos. A couple other doctoral students told me about rumors going around. The thing was that I put out a post on the list serve that I wanted adult education for community development and there wasn't a program. He'd been brought on staff the year before I came as a student, but nothing had been done yet. So I didn't want my reputation ruined by him either, and I was being told by these two professors that I would be a professor and I was looking around at the schools and I was gagging, thinking, where do I want to be a professor? and I jumped ship. I wanted to direct a community program and/or do applied research (participatory, community-based, evaluation, needs assessment, etc.)
After that I had to take time out to get treated for Hepatits C which I most likely contracted in Russia in 1992 in a blood transfusion. (Ironically, I'd gotten tested for AIDS on a trip to the USA after the operation in which the transfusion was administered, but I hadn't heard of Hepatitus C to get tested for it.]
Then I was accepted at another doctoral program I felt very excited about, but it was in Canada, and I didn't get a grant of fellowship there and I couldn't work there, because I was not Canadian. I mapped out a nearby U.S. city and I thought I did pretty thorough study of the districts, current nonprofits and activities, the demographics, etc., etc. I put together a plan and whatnot, but I just couldn't get funding for it. I even found a building and had professionals come out and run estimates as to how much it would cost to fix it up, make it handicap excessible, etc. I was really excited about it. I know I could do it. If my health were up, it would have been a fantastic thing to get started with inheritance monies and just prove to people, because people never believe what I can do, until I go out and prove it to the world. So that's why I'm a loner and I like to do things on my own, because no one seems to believe in me, I guess. And if people believe in me, they ignore my conscience. But my conscience, is who I am. How can you just ignore a person's conscience? In Vienna they did it? They did it without a care in the world. My dad even did it. The Komsomols did it, but that's a no brainer. The professors at my doctoral staff even seemed to do it.
Conscience. Is it something that you can just take and try to make over to your image? (like the Vienna mission) Is it something you can try to humiliate? (like the Komsols) Or is it something to just ignore and deny exists? (as dad seems to have done, not wanting to admit I changed)
All I wanted was ministry to a people I felt called to reach with the gospel. That was my initial conscience.
***
I wasn't going to do that... it just evolved. That's one way to look at my life from 1987-2000.Returning to the discussion of our texts... in my haste to just jump back in, I overlooked the fact that I hadn't finished with the Military Chaplaincy file yet. So I'd better finish that one and then we'll go back to the Discipline & Justice File.
This article is:
Seidel, Andrew B. (1981, Summer). Developing a healthy self-image. Military Chaplains' Review, 49-59.
***
"Given the biblical antagonism against selfishness in all its forms, it is not surprising that christian [sic] psychologists and theologians began to react to the unfortunate equation of a good self-image with self-love. Paul C. Vitz in his book Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship, writes:So the issue, remember is not just the teaching and what I think of it, but how it relates to my experience in Vienna. In my experience and memory of them, the leadership - my boss, the secretaries who were mentoring me (my boss', boss' secretary in particular) and the infamous H.R. director who was the reserve U.S. military chaplain - could sort of pull these kinds of things out of a had and tweak them or focus on particular aspects according to the situation at hand and as they thought, it seemed to me at least, in their best interests.
... Certainly Jesus Christ neither lived nor advocated a life that would qualify by today's standards as 'self-actualized.' For the Christian the self is the problem, not the potential paradise." (p. 49)
And when they went in counseling mode it was hardest for me to trust them because I was always certain it was a lure. The emotional aspect of things was a lure, because they were not going to deal with things point blank. I mean, they weren't going to deal with the kinds of things that were bothering me, at least, in a direct manner. I think I I broached my issues directly to them they'd somehow come up with a cannon that would shoot me straight back home, and believe me, I would NOT pass go or collect $200. I'd be out of there so fast I wouldn't know what hit me.
The mission leaders, H.R. director included, would probably have agreed with this quote, although I knew that while I was with the mission there was one woman staffer that wasn't full time on the woman's ministry team, but did a lot of trips with them and she didn't agree with some of the staff that had nice homes in the suburbs. Some of them, and I only saw a few, actually, were pretty well appointed I must say for missionaries. So she really thought that missionaries shouldn't live so high on the hog, and she was somewhat disgruntled about that.
That's not exactly the same thing, but I think it might be related to what this passage is saying. So there may have been some variance of conviction regarding how exactly this passage might be applied in daily life.
As for myself, well, it's no great secret that my "self-actualization" was at level "0" by the time I left Vienna, so maybe I was at the perfect place for God to work in me. Maybe that's a good way to look at it, that I hadn't seen before, and maybe I need to actually thank the mission for breaking me to make me more vulnerable for God's work.
I'm not sure if what transpired after I left Vienna, though, might be understood as God's leading necessarily. But that is getting ahead of myself, isn't it?
At any rate, I don't think that at time in my stay in Vienna can you say I had self love. I never really was caught up in myself, I don't think. Even outside the mission, when I was going to the Austrian church, I worked under the auspices of the church's leadership. But in the Austrian mission I just met nonsense after nonsense so there wasn't much for me to follow. I'm not into a lot of games. So I don't put up with that kind of stuff. You either want me or you don't.
***
"It is self-acceptance, not self-exaltation of self-depreciation (nor indeed self-love) that is commanded in scripture. Self-acceptance is taught in scripture because an adequate self-concept is necessary to function successfully in life. Any pastor or chaplain who has been involved in counseling has noted that those who struggle with strong feelings of inferiority have a difficult time living a satisfying life. The same may be said for those who are conceited. Both have a very difficult time relating to other people. Speaking of the need for an adequate self-concept, Lawrence J. Crabb has said, ".. people must accept themselves as adequate in a truly significant role if they are to honestly regard themselves as worthwhile and so to enjoy the fullfillment of being a real person, he must be able to help him develop a realistic, accurate, and adequate self-image." (p. 51)
This passage follows a paragraph discussing Romans 12:3 " For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you." So the context specifically is not to consider our role or position in the church as greater than you should. The journal article is taking the liberties to expand the application of this verse beyond the original intentions. I don't want to completely preclude that use of the verse, but I must admit that it is wanton use of it without any mention of the original limitations. Things like that tend to put my guard up. You really can say anything with Scripture if you want to.
Now let me show it in context so you can really see what the verse is saying:
Romans
3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. 4 For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your[a] faith; 7 if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; 8 if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead,[b] do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.
So the author is making it to be anthropology (the theology of man) whereas I think it's really eccleseology (the theology of the church). Romans 3:3-8 is a microcosm, one of several places in Scripture, showing us what the church should be like. And the church just happens to be made up of people, so of course it has to describe the people that make up the church.
But the author of this text takes out one verse and chooses to make that one verse be anthropological - actually, not even that, he makes it psychological, so it's not even a religious study, but a secular study. So he uses a religuous basis, a weak one only tangentially drawn out of context and uses it to support his secular thesis.
At least the vast majority of the Vienna missionaries didn't do that, except for.... you guessed it... the U.S. military reserve chaplains. My contention is it's because they were raised on drivel like this. They had spent too much time in the military and instead of being salt and light they themselves had been affected by the military and came away less salty and shiny than when they went in.
Consistent with everything I just said, the author ignores why Paul admonished the Romans to not think of themselves more highly than they ought, etc., by ignoring the very next verse, which says that we all have different gifts and members and we need each other. We're not an island! Now this is what I'm talking about. It's simple, and get past all the psycho babble and gobbledy-gook and if you're going to use Scripture, get down and roll up your sleeves and really do it, not to just pull out one verse and take it out of context!!
***
"What is Our Self-Image?
The self-image is a collage of images, feelings, and value judgments pertaining to oneself. (p. 51)
I guess I just put this reference sake. I know my self-image is all over the place and that's why I feel like it's hard for people to relate to me; because I've had too many unusual experiences between Vienna and Russia and a few others thrown in and it really feels lonely, believe me. I miss Grandmother, because she was the one that I really could talk to, but I think dad was going to sway her about my problems in the USA because she wasn't going to believe me about those for long in opposition to what he would tell her. It's very lonely. If it weren't for the health care I might well be better off in Russia. I might have friends, at least teacher friends, if not among Christians. The Orthodox might accept me; same with the Quakers. One of these days I should try to make it down to the Quaker meeting here. It's close to where I used to live though, at my old condo, so it's like 20 miles (42 km) away.
***
A person's self-concept is also the product of his own evaluation of his experiences. All of us react to our experiences by making value judgments about them. When we succeed in accomplishing something something we desired to do, we feel good about ourselves. When we do not succeed, we place a negative value judgment on ourselves for failing and feel bad about ourselves. If we usually accomplish what we desire, we tend to have a positive self-image. A number of failures to meet our own goals would tend to produce a negative self-image. It is, however, extremely difficult to talk about value judgments as being strictly individual because our goals and values are so heavily influenced by other people. (p. 52)
The part about being influenced by other people has been a real stickler with me. I've tended to chose the people I might let influence me and if I think people are way off and don't understand something, such as family back home not understanding what's happened in Vienna, then I sort of cardone off a part of me, or I might become silent or just drift off or look for work where I might be able to reach my goals, and the like. So my family has on one hand been through the most of anyone with me, but on the other hand, they misunderstand me up the wazoo. If I felt like they wanted to understand I might be willing to open up, but I feel like they'd just deride me, especially since the only ones left now are my brothers.
I think the way other people's judgments influence me the most now is by the fact that now I have ended out at a time in my life alone. I can't contribute that completely to these judgments, because my moving around had a very large amount to do with it too, but I think friends sort of lost faith in me and began to misunderstand me more and more as I moved around more and more so that it became harder and harder to keep friends. So that was a kind of judgment perhaps.
Otherwise, I have tended to have been a person of strong conviction and I've often run against the crowd in difficult situations or poked my head into difficult situations and being sure of my values haven't necessarily wanted to change with the values of the new group or setting. Sometimes I've ended out tweaking my values a bit as I've thought through things.
So, in the end, I think that I'm not the type that's directly very vulnerable to direct influence in the area of values.
The author is probably thinking of things like being influenced by parental upbringing and at church and the like. Well certainly as a child I was influenced by my parents and also at church and then in my formal schooling. So those things I would say did have affect on my values.
***
Even later in life a person's self-image is significantly affected by others' responses to him. Particularly in a highly competitive professions such as the military... A low efficiency report or missed promotion can be devastating to the self-image." (p. 53)Of course, no matter what I thought about whether I could work with the mission or not, by the time the end of my two year commitment had come my self-image was on the floor. Missed promotion? I had been demoted and sent back to the US and tossed around like a hot potato and you'd think I was spy or something. Even though I didn't show it on the outside, I was a shambles on the inside and it all came to light once I returned home to the USA after my term with the mission was up.
***
In these realms I pretty much had it going for me. Well, I wasn't a genius, but I'm relatively intelligent, and I'm pretty good looking. I don't think I ever got overly caught up in the physical attractiveness, because, for example, when I learned many European women don't shave their legs I was all for it, and no or minimalist makeup was fine with me. So I was an easy care person and not one to spend hours in the mirror gawking trying to get everything perfect or trying to run down the boys or anything. But on the other hand, I was naive, when I should have been a little more cautious. I didn't really think about the psychology of men and what they might be thinking or how I need to deal with them even if I hadn't been otherwise thinking about men until the issue came up. So my problem was naivety mostly, I think, and maybe not being able to stand up for myself; being timid against men."Physical attractiveness is a major source of human worth. After describing the powerful influences of physical attractiveness on children, Dobson states: "Most of the major choises made by adults are influenced one way or another by the attribute of beauty."Intelligence is another quality highly values by our society... For most people it does not matter whether these values are right or wrong. What does matter is that the majority of people hold these values. One therefore can feel worthy and significant only if he conforms to these values." (p. 54)
I think that's partly because men in my family all had the upper hand. So even if someone taught me to "just say no" (well for sex or something I did manage to say no, but before that I mean), I had no close precedent for that. In fact just a couple years ago I asked mom if she ever disagreed with dad and she couldn't think of one time even!! So how on earth was I ever going to learn to stand up to men based on the examples of the men in my family. Well, as an teenager it was mom and dad, because I was the oldest, so my brothers were still just learning from dad and they were 2 and 4 years younger than me.
As to intelligence, well I have 2 master's degrees now, a couple graduate certificates and I've presented at several professional conferences and published articles, so I must have some intelligence. I need some intelligence to get my points across in this blog, and I couldn't do it without intelligence. But I don't think intelligence alone is enough, either. I think there also needs to be a certain insight, maybe wisdom, hopefully spirit-led perception and ability to communicate it.
I must tell you though, lest you think I risk thinking of myself more highly than I ought, that I feel like this is sort of my last harrah. I feel like I have to do this, but I don't know what else I can do. You have to understand that my health isn't good, so I'm at home too much of the time and I'm unreliable for much of anything. I'm just telling you as it is, really.
***
The weaknesses that cannot be changed are best acknowledged for what they are without excess significance being allowed to transform them into fatal flaws. Most people seem to want to work and worry about correcting their weaknesses. A much better solution is to concentrate upon the development of strengths. James Dobson calls this 'compensation' and says; 'compensation is your child's best weapon against inferiority.' compensation works for adults too." (p. 56)I don't like the psychological lingo here and I'm not prone to particularly like the approach but there is some similarity, I think, to my approach, that I have used just through natural (I think) reflexes or how my personality works or something.
Basically the issue is that there is a weakness that is hindering you from doing something. I think the weakness can be within the individual/a part of the individual or contextual or otherwise external to the individual, but the effect is basically the same, right?
My approach is to try to figure out how to make lemonade or how to rethink the situation to make the best of it, maybe come up with a better solution, etc.
Even now with my health limitations it works because I revise my interests and activities around what I am able to do. So you have to take a creative, problem-solving perspective. You have to be somewhat flexible and willing to accept a certain amount of change, which might be difficult for some people, I think.
It's been easier for me, though, because it's just me. It's lonely, though, so I'm not sure I'd recommend that. But if you have supportive family and/or friends they should be willing to work with you in that.
***
Because a person's self-image is constructed primarily from interpersonal relationships (particularly with his parents), his self-image may be modified through the same process. (p. 57)Well, there's no doubt my parents had an incredible impact on my self-image growing up. Not only did we just have the usual family times, but our family did more than the usual family together, including a lot of camping and the like. But the adult years are where we hit rocky roads and it's just because of the problem between my interests and dad's work. And then my brother who lived there near them gets all hot under the collar about how dad was so upset trying to get me out of Russia and everything, but he doesn't understand everything else and how I had troubles getting jobs here and it wasn't until I became a librarian that I could get a job and all those problems were still fall out related to dad. I'm not sure exactly how it works, though, so don't ask me to explain it, but all I know was I knew when I left Russia that I had to change professions and in fact I didn't start getting good career jobs until I changed professions.
Dad loved me and maybe he was conflicted over me. It hurt when he said he didn't believe me any more. (After I dropped out of my doctoral studies, when I was being treated for hepatitis C and was in the hospital having had a very bad reaction to the Interferon.) Then that was it. Then I couldn't talk to him for sure about anything. I'd lost him. I think when I dropped out of my doctoral studies he was off the hook, whereas before that things could still point back to him as my problems stemming from him. But once I dropped out of my doctorate that was the point he felt he could free himself of this burden and he said he didn't believe me anymore. That's how I understand it.
(I'm not sure if that last paragraph is clear so I'll try restating part of it. Maybe Dad didn't like it that my problems in Russia were pointing to him, meaning that it was because of him that I was invited over there and the problem was bad enough that I still had problems leaving in 1997, over 6 years later. When I was making the appeal to try to get out of Russia it was to try to make it to a study program. So when I dropped out of the doctoral program, which actually was not the original one even, dad decided to drop this bomb that he didn't believe me, which would sort of clear him of any responsibility.)
***
I can't quote this whole paragraph, because one line is cut off in the copy I made, but the author discusses how interpersonal relationships that become facilitative are characterized by feedback and feedback loops the evaluation and re-evaluation going on."The desired end result is a more accurate, balanced, healthy, self-concept." (p. 58)This may be what my parents wanted to inculcate into me, and did a reasonably good job, I think. But I have absolutely no reason to believe that the H.R. director at the Vienna mission desired this for me. What exactly he wanted, I'm not sure, but the things I would hazzard guesses on are far from this description.
What he was practicing was pseudo psychology in the service of security.
***
I guess that's all for now. This has really taken a long time.