426. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 43 (Seidel, pt. 1)

It's interesting to watch the statistics of who's reading these posts, and it looks like the Americans in particular, while their readership of the Military Chaplaincy file dropped off precipitously took a sharp spike for the Vienna Backtrack (post no. 424).  This makes me think that maybe there really is something to the dumbing of the American mind that they can't take logical discourse and are more prone to 3rd grade ready level, such as personal correspondence.

Of course, there could be other reasons, as well, which I will leave to the readers' imagination, but as of this writing, it is only the Americans that this seems to pertain to.  (By the way, I'm an American too, but I consider myself an equal opportunity critiquer, and I think that my American readers may be perhaps a certain class of Americans.)

So I see that those Americans might really like me to keep on that kind of simple autobiographical mode.  Very interesting.  Then maybe I shouldn't do that.  What do you think?  Should I just give them what they want?  It could be my old boss among them (the director of the mission now).  As Evgeni Zamyatin said in "We", in discussing how to deal with the overarching control of the state, "You have to think, it helps." (Nado dumat', eto pomagaet'.)  That's what got me through my years in Vienna... barely.  Why stop now?

***

 The next text is:

Seidel, Andrew B. (1981, Summer). Developing a healthy self-image. Military Chaplains' Review, 49-59.

 ***

"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."

That's true, the gifts of the spirit are not for personal building up and to make you feel good, that's not what they are intended for.  I don't know of any passage where people in the Bible said they "felt good" for giving to others or helping others.  Often they were acknowledged or thanked for doing something, but what the givers and doers felt is not an issue evidently.  And the focus is more on meeting needs.  Individuals are given spiritual gifts to meet various needs and they use them for good.

However, the church is supposed to value each member of the Body, so that one part can't say to another part that s/he doesn't need the other (I Cor. 12:14-23), no matter how apparently insignificant the role a person plays in the church.  (I underline apparently because that's just a biased view and not God's view of the individual's role in the church.)

***

"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 accomplishmeing something we desired to do, we feel good about ourselves.  When we do not succeed, we place a negative value judgement on ourselves for failing and feel bad about 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 mission already crushed my self esteem by sending me home to the U.S. in the 5th month of my time with them.  I was reading through some of my notes from them and the contrast from the sommer of 1987 to the fall of 1987 was amazing.  They did it to me.  What else could it be?  But it wasn't how they want to make it out to be as much as they are dying to do so.  They want so much to say that I just couldn't stand the stress, as if I was trying to cooperate, but couldn't.  But that isn't so.  This is how it really was:  I was withstanding their pressures to conform and couldn't stand the stress.  There's a big difference.  I never did try to fully cooperate.

Even after the counseling in the USA, I had decided just to cooperate in the areas that wouldn't impinge on my values.  That's like me not being a cultural relativist and being okay with taking my shoes off at the door but as soon as you start impinging on my moral beliefs I won't budge.  I wouldn't budge with the mission either.  So for them to say that I just couldn't stand the stress is really misleading, because the reason I couldn't stand the stress was because I was withstanding them the their pressures.  And in a lot of ways, I was flaunting it actually, by having friends come from the States, going to the Austrian church, insisting on my own apartment, etc.  And I didn't come running to them all broken like I was supposed to by the stressors they were throwing at me either, and I wasn't telling anyone about what I was thinking about all the things they were throwing at me.  So they had no clue what I was thinking at all, except that I was cheerful and under stress, which I'd told a couple secretaries.

The Vienna mission really broke my self-concept a lot, but I knew that everything I'd done with them I'd done well and they never said otherwise.  But it was humiliating that I knew I could do a lot more than they ever had me do.  And the fact that when they finally did have me go on mission trips and I did well and they seemed to think so too that I knew that I had redeemed myself and proved to myself and them too that  I really was everything I knew all along I was and everything they treated me like I wasn't.

But, still, I returned home to the U.S. humiliated and there was no getting around that.  I was devastated and all the humillation that I'd had to live with and bury inside myself all those 2 years I was finally free to release.  But then I had to find people who would believe me, and that was a very hard thing to do it turned out.

***

"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." (p. 54)

The author is talking specifically here about physical attractiveness and intelligence, but for me I'd like to just discuss this in general.  The thing is that I've had to go against the flow both in Vienna with the mission and in Russia with the Komsomols (! that's not how they billed themselves), so I've gotten sort of used to not really caring what people think too much and just going by my own judgment and value system, which generally isn't too far off, but sometimes could use a little fine tuning for contextualization.

It's just hard now with the hurts I've been through.  I try to learn from the mistakes I make now though (Oops!  I guess I should have let my guard down there and considered what the group values were...)   I think people who have been through extremely difficult or painful situations often have some kind of re-learning to do that might take time to get comfortable with certain kinds of situations again.  I know I'm not being very clear, but I don't really want to go into examples.

***

"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)

I would like to have more interpersonal relationships, but how? Last Friday I went out with a gal from church, maybe 15 years or so my elder.  We just had dinner and went to her place for dessert, which I brought, and sat around and talked.  I got home late, just wiped out and it was too much for me so the next day I was sort of set back somewhat.  Then Sunday it turned out my migraine indeed had gotten worse, so now I have an appointment tomorrow with the neurologist about it, and I missed church Sunday.

When I first moved here I had a friend from the government agency library branch down here that was the same as the agency I was working for in the D.C. area.  We got along great and when I got sick she came to me, which was nice, but then she started trying to get me to make new friends, but she didn't understand how hard it was being sick.  I was trying to go to a Scrabble group and church and a midweek Bible study, but those were all sporadic, depending on how I felt.  So it was hard to make friends, and still is.  Eventually we just sort of drifted apart, and then I moved up to New York.

Then I came back yere and I have a couple acquaintances, but no real friends, I don't think.  There's no one I can just buddy around with, no one I can just call up and chat with (or e-mail, or whatever), no one to have coffee with.  Since I'm not well and don't have a lot of energy, I would need someone who understands that and isn't very demanding.  Even just stopping by for half an hour or an hour for coffee or tea would be nice.

***

"The desired end result is a more accurate, balanced, and healthy self-concept." (p. 58)

Seidel is determined to treat the individual's self-concept, and since he is, I guess this is a reasonable secular end-result.

I assume by accurate, he means not over or less then the truth.

And by balanced, he means considering various aspects of the person, or perhaps various perspectives.

And, finally, by healthy, he means constructive, rather than emotionally destructive.


God would definitely want "accurate", so I don't think that that's an issue.  I say that because He is interested in the truth. 

I'm not sure what God would say about "balanced", because I think that "balanced" could be used as a kind of self-rationalization for sin, so it depends on how "balanced" is used.

As to "healthy", I don't think God is so interested in that.  God is interested primarily in whether something is morally right or wrong.  But I think that if something is morally right it will more than likely be also "healthy."  I don't know all the different cases and situations for what is morally right to say for sure, but I'm pretty sure that will be the case.  That is, if a self-concept is morally right (or upright), then it will also be healthy.

Okay, so let's say we're left with an accurate / truthful and morally right /healthy self-concept as the ideal that God might want for the Christian. 

I think I had an accurate view of my knowledge and skills and this was born out by the time I left Vienna, such as during the mission trips I took.  Also, my view of myself in these areas was based on actual experiences and feedback from others prior to coming to Vienna so I had concrete reason to believe that these things about myself were true.

In contrast, when I left the mission feeling a huge failure there was not a whole lot to hang that feeling on except the way the mission treated me like moving me around so much and things like that.  Otherwise, they did nothing to negate the fact that the previous things I knew I could do I could still do and still knew.  They only humiliated me. So they didn't have evidence that I didn't know how to do things, such as type or file or travel in Eastern Europe, etc.   That is, my self-confidence was at least in part because I was dashed because I was "standing up on the inside," for example,  and the repercussions of that stance.  Being my father's daughter may have made standing up on the inside a more heinous crime than it otherwise might have been, resulting in a stronger and more multi-faceted backlash.

So the humiliated self-concept I had when I returned from Vienna was not at all accurate to the true me, but it was what the Vienna mission did to me, through the way they treated me.

***

That's it for this article.

421. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 39 (Sehested, pt. 1)

This next text is:

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

***

Lieutenant Colonel Garland Robertson is an Air Force chaplain at Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, Texas, whose military record includes a Distinguished Flying Cross, which he won by rescuing a reconnaissance team in Vietnam.  He has also commanded a nuclear missile site.  Despite these credentials, Robertson is on the brink of being discharged from the Air Force.  Stripped of all duties, he has been removed from the chapel offices and sequestered in a windowless, closet-sized room adjacent to the base runway where he spends his days writing book reviews for a chaplain's resource bureau.

Robertson is accused of 'flouting' the very authority of the president.  In January 5, 1991, letter printed in the Abilene Reporter-News, he responded to a speech by then Vice President Dan Quayle assuring U.S. troops mobilized in Saudi Arabia that "the American People are beyind you." must be clarified to indicate that the American people are not united in their decision to support a military offensive against the aggression of Saddam Hussein in Kuwait." The letter was, he thought, a modest attempt to raist the question of what is a justifiable use of deadly force.

Behing Robertson's desire for public debate on the topic lay his own experience as a pilot in Vietnam.  "I assumed that our leaders were telling us the truth" about the need to support democracy and oppose tyranny in Vietnam, Robertson in a recent interview.

Robertson resigned from active duty as a line officer in 1976 to pursue a theological degree.  He earned both an M.Div. and a doctorate in theology from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth Texas.  In 1982 he was reactivated as an Air Force chaplain..." (p.212)

That's a lot to quote, but I felt like I needed to include the background material.  The main thing I want to discuss is the second part of the first paragraph, starting with "Stripped of all duties..."
The rest is there so you know the context.

Is this something that has "symbolic meaning"?  Is Robertson supposed to understand these moves symbolicly?  Yes and no.  I was moved around a lot, from the second highest position a secretary, at least, could be in (although I didn't want to be a secretary and fought against the mission's attempts to limit me to that straight jacket).  So that's one issue.  It wasn't symbolic because he actually was stripped of his real professional responsibilities, so that's not symbolical.  However, there were also symbolical meaning to each aspect of it that Robertson and others could pick up on and tuck away in their psyche for further reference (For example, "Note: freedom of opinion is not allowed here, remember to not attempt it or you will end up like Chaplain Robertson."). 

My situation was similar, there were actual aspects of my job changes, but there were also symbolic meanings to to each move as well. Generally, I could tell if I was in their good graces or not by where I was (physically in the organization).  The ironic thing was that I don't think I particularly changed that much through this whole time, except over the two years I eventually wore down, as much as I hated it, and started attending the English-speaking church, But somehow it was their perceptions of me that changed at various times.  For example, at some point they determined I could go back to Vienna, but I don't know what the basis was for deciding I could return at that point.  I don't think I'd done anything to change or anything.  So I returned and I think they thought I was at least more socialized than when I left some 7 (!) months earlier. 

But the main things I had gained was an internal strength to be able internally to maintain my own value structure (as distinct from theirs, which I refused to even entertain, except maybe individual values that I had no problem with, making it a smorgasbord style of values and norms acceptance which would never in a million years have been acceptable to them) and externally give not a hint of my having "a secret life of Meg".  The idea was for them to think that what they saw was what they got.  It was self preservation, although, as I recognized not long ago in a post, it really was deception.  I knew what I was doing so I wasn't deceiving myself, but I was deceiving absolutely everyone else, no exceptions.  So that's lying, and I really should have gotten out of there instead of going that route.  Its's the same thing they were doing for security's sake.  So I was really no better than they were in that regard. 

But I was so horrified - scared spitless - that that was taking the forefront and also my career was on the line and I'd prepared so long and hard for this.  I just couldn't wrap my head around the possibility that could possibly be as bad as it looked, like maybe there was some kind of explanation that I didn't understand and there would be an explanation and things would work out.  And I didn't know what other options, professionally, there might be, as I'd gone through pretty much everything before deciding on that mission.  So for these kinds of reasons I found it very difficult to just leave the mission.  But it only just recently struck me that it was deceptive to live that sort of double life where I hid my true thoughts and values from the world for that time with the mission.

 ***

"He knew the letter would raise objections, but the resulting furor caught him by surprise.  As revealed in documents and testimony at his September 1993 Board of Inquiry disciplinary hearing, Air Force superiors hoped to force him out of the service... The same psychologist who provided him a clean bill of health the first time concluded, after the third exam, that Robertson exhibited a "personality disorder so severe as to interfere with the normal and customary completion of his duties." This evaluation was made without an examination, breaching the most elementary rules of conduct for the profession." (p. 213)

I never had anything like a hearing with the Vienna mission (they didn't have a grievance process nor any disciplinary process where the mission would need evidence to "convict" the errant one of anything.  I don't even know if they gave out warnings, like in a regular job.  But anyway, the one thing that does clearly compare here with my experience at the Vienna mission, is that without any kind of exam at all, based only on rumors, the military chaplain/H.R. director at the Vienna mission declared that I had culture shock.  And not only did I have culture shock, but that the degree to which I had culture shock was bad enough to send me home to the U.S. for hospitalization.  I don't know about you, but to me if I was happy in the culture, had no complaints about it, spoke the language, when to an Austrian church, etc. This doesn't sound like culture shock in the first place, let alone that bad.  And diagnosed without an exam, but someone who was just a chaplain, not even a medical professional.  This is what I call, at the very least, unprofessionalism, and at the very worst, criminal use of one's position.  Maybe if I'd just left there I'd have had enough to suit him on...

***

"A civilian employee testified that her former boss, the senior chaplain at Dyess, had taken her aside after a Sunday morning service " to ell me he had to get Chaplain Robertson out of the service.  Chaplain Elwell went on to tell me that this task must be accomplished by a certain date ... so that [Robertson] would be entitled to full retirement benefits." It seemed evident, she said, that he "had been told that part of his job was to remove Chaplain Robertson."

Robertson was removed from the chapel's preaching schedule rotation "until the completion of Desert Shield/Desert Storm" (and later in the year, removed permanently)... One by one his other pastoral duties were withdrawn... Later a full-scale inquiry by the Office of Special Investigations was investigated.  Robertson was cleared of a mysterious charge of fraud." (p. 213)

If a good chunk of my problems with the Vienna mission were actually due to my relationship with my father, then there could have been some of this involved too.  And this would have even been more sensitive than if it were just a matter of regular socialization with the mission, because none of the parties involved (e.g., U.S. government, Vienna mission leadership, military chaplains/H.R. staff would ever have wanted my treatment to be connected to that.  It would have been one thing if I had told them upfront what my dad did and they had rejected my application for the position from the getgo.  That would have been understandable and would not have needed to have involve anything other than mission policies. But that's not what happened and nothing was ever voiced by anyone that that was an issue, although there may have been hints.

For me in Vienna moving me to lower positions where I would have less interesting work, less influence and clout, very limited access to interesting information, a much more tangential role in the work, was used, and as much as it hurt, I had to learn to take everything without complaining.   Once you start complaining than that's when they have an in to start getting to you, and I wasn't going to give them that, so I was going to stand above the fray.  So I was always happy, composed and never complaining.  That's not how I felt though.  It was the ultimate poker face. 

While I never had the level of position that Robertson had, before Vienna I had worked in some prestigious organizations, so I had that background at least and knowledge based on some firsthand experience as well as even primary sources research materials.  So no matter what the Vienna mission thought of me, I still had that background and knew I was capable of more than they ever used me for.  Although towards the end they were beginning to see, I think, what I could do. 

***

"At one point an officer from the Chief of Chaplains office in Washington, D.C. paid a visit. "He indicated that compromise was essential for becoming a successful military chaplain," Robertson said. "I suggested that 'cooperation' was the more suitable word, but he quickly confirmed his intentional use of "compromise." "If Jesus had been an Air Force chaplain,"He told me, "he would have been courtmartialed." But he said that compromise is necessary in order to maintain a presence." In a letter to the secretary of the Air Force, Robertson said, "If thise senior command chaplain is correct -- that compromise is necessary to survive in the Air Force as a chaplain -- then reveal this restriction.  The Air Force maintains that chaplains are free to proclaim and practice their witness without fear of reprisal .... It is important that we not deceive persons who look to chaplains for assistance in spiritual growth and faith development." (p. 213)

 Yeah, and I would like to have known from the getgo that people with parents in nationally security-sensitive positions are not actually free persons.  In fact, I never realized the full extent of what dad did until I had to think about it in relation to it's impact on me, which was way after I'd already spent years in preparation for my career in East European missions.  It would, indeed, be nice to know these things in advance.  But these are things that no one is going to tell you, because they are not "convenient truths." That is, they don't particularly make certain powreful parties look good, or they are potential bad p.r. harbingers.  So better left unsaid, except for people like me and Robinson who get the raw end of the stick just because the powerful party didn't want to look bad, so it thought it better to neglect to bring to light (or something more active than "neglect") these life-changing truths.

As to the word "compromise," the Vienna mission might not have used that word, exactly.  I'm not sure it would have gone over with the theologians.  After all, this was a Christian mission, not a secular armed force, that we're talking about, so the missioinary-theologians would have expected more of a theologically correct reasoning than the need to compromise, even if the end result was the same.  So they'd use some Scripture, or more likely, they'd use the "we know more about the East European mission scene and the full scope of our ministry (including in-country translators and textbook delivery, finances, etc.), so you should trust us that we know what's best for the mission" approach.  It sounds good, anyway.  And because this makes sense, because you really just know theology, you trust them and compromise in some areas ends out being an end result anyway, more than likely. The thing is that if you had to trust the mission completely, blindly really, then it seems to me that compromise at some point would be hard to avoid.   It's possible, though, that I got worse treatment than others because of my father and others can't relate well to my experience.

Also, what happens here, then, with the call for chaplains to have a prophetic role in the military?  If they are to compromise, as the Chief of Chaplains states, then chaplains will rather quickly lose their saltiness and their lights will be hidden under bushels.   So what role could there possibly be for chaplains in the military (or at least the Air Force) with such a mindset?  I can't see any.  I think in such a situation it would be better to have a ministry to them external to the Air Force and just work extremely hard at raising up lay leaders among the soldiers.'

Robertson's letter was probably naive, but if he sent it in he should have done so as a citizen, not as a chaplain or officer.  That would mean stripping all of his credentials and affiliations from his name; he could have even submitted it anonymously or requested that it be published anonymously, at least, even if the newspaper knew who he was.

***

"The [Chief of Chaplains] even went to the trouble of rewriting the official statement of the mission of Air Force chaplains... Chaplains, in other words, were to function as morale officers in the service of command directives.  In a February 1993 letter to officials at the National Council of Churches, Robertson wrote: "No minister of a faith community can comfortably encourage anyone to follow the direction of the state as a way to be at peace with God.  By functioning as a morale officer, the chaplain only succeeds in encouraging soldiers to accept the preferences of the state without questions."" (p. 213)

Nothing like this ever happened to me in Vienna because written documentation meant zilch to them.  You had nothing to fall back on as support; it was just you and the leadership.  If it looked like you might be right (let's just say, hypothetically), there was not written document they chould monkey around with to fix to back their position.  They wouldn't have had to do that.  They had brute force to do whatever they wanted.  Who needs documentation in the face of that?  And anyone who disagrees with them is certifiably crazy; everybody knows that.  It's like a law of physics or something that it was impossible to disagree with them.

I like this guy.  What he is doing is taking a logic and following it to the end.  He's my kind of guy.  I did that once while I was in Bible school and working part time at Pizza Hut.  We had an interesting collective of workers... very diverse.  Well, we got in a discussion about creation vs. evoluation.  It was me and a couple of muslims (!) vs. a satanist (practicing) and another guy.  Over a couple weeks' time when we could get in the back room, maybe while we were doing prep or something, we'd pick up on this discussion and I followed them through so that if you believe in evolution than this must be true, then if that is true, then this must be true... So finally the way we were going, the path we ended out on, led to communism.  So I told the one guy finally that if you believe this then that leads directly to communism.  And then he said that indeed he was a communist.  Then we had another whole discussion about communism, because I wasn't completely ignorant about that either.  He said that perfect communism was in Cuba (where I live now I'd have to maybe run for my life if I said that too loud). 

Going from chaplains being morale officers to following the direction of the state as being a way to be at peace with God is a kind of following an idea to its end.  It's a way of showing the ugly side of a thing or an idea, showing it's true colors, getting past the fluff.  It depends on the issue as to what exactly it (following something to the end) does.  I think he uses it very well here, though.

***

"Thus far, however, Robertson has maintained private support and official recognition of his certifying agency, the Southern Baptist Convention, along with the very public support of a Southern Baptist congregation in Abilene.  "We are supporting Chaplain Robertson, and we have no intention of revoking his endorsement," said Lewis Bernett, director of military chaplaincy for the SBC, in a telephone interview." (p. 213).

My home church and my other supporters did stick with me while I was in Vienna.  Of course, they didn't have a clue what was really going on.  It did bother me that I didn't think I was using using the mission support well.  That is, when you think about it, most of the time I wasn't really doing a lot of useful work.  The first 5 months I didn't do much, then 6 weeks lost then a few months part-time in the U.S. office, then about 8 months where I did real work then about 5 months where I wasn't doing that much again, although I was full-time.  .  But I was on full mission support the whole time.  I was really disappointed, though, that when I returned home for good my home church only just expressed sympathy, and that's all.  So I didn't have any support from them when I came home.

***

"Garland is the kind of person who stands up for his convictions, and that sometimes hurts him," Burnett told the New York Times." (p.213-214)

On the other hand, some people play it too safe and are too averse to troubles and their primary goal seems to be to be comfortable and please everyone.  But here's a couple verses to make at least Christian's think:

2 Timothy 3:12

King James Version (KJV)

¹² Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

Jesus' words to the disciples:

John 16:33

King James Version (KJV)

³³ These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Jesus' prayer for the disciples:

John 17:14

King James Version (KJV)

¹⁴ I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

 Something tells me that these verses would not describe Burnett. 

But I'd like to also turn my attention to the Vienna mission.  The thing is that the Soviets were accusing Western missionaries (en masse and a few spacific ones) of being or cooperating with spy agencies (CIA or whatever).  So if there actually was any of that or possibly if there was "the appearance of evil" (I Thes. 5:22) in this regard then in as much as this was true, suffering wasn't actually for godly purposes but for something else, possibly for sin (e.g., being unequally yoked with the world).   But the mission never stood up for any convictions; it only sought to draw new missionaries into its net and make them unquestioningly trusting, and this way the mission never had to really develop a rationale for certain aspects of its work that were not open for questioning (because of security most likely, of course)

 As for myself, I would most certainly have liked to have discussed my concerns with the leadership, but I wasn't going to be the one to aproach them on it, because I knew there was an obvious (!!) power difference to begin with and these weren't things I was going to be man-handled into just changing.  So they would have had to start a serious dialog with me on the straight up where I knew that I was being taken seriously and they weren't going to just manipulate me or force me into anything.  When they never ever made any more like that then that said something too.  That wasn't how they operated and they never ever intended to treat it's workers respectfully, or at least they never ever intended to treat me that way.  I wonder what kind of theology or psychology that is.

***

There is a paragraph discussing the regulation about writing letters to the editor, which they can do as long as it's not partisan.

"But according to the Air Force's own case against Robertson, heard by the Board of Inquiry last September, the letter to the editor was 'irrelevant.' Three ellegations ("Statement of Reasons") were brought to the BOI administrative hearing.  The first was that Robertson was "disrespectful in words and actions towards his immediate superior." the second: his "leadership skills were below standard. The third: he was diagnosed as "having a personality disorder."

After hearing extensive testimony, the BOI threw out the allegations about being disrespectful and about the personality disorder.  The remaining charge of substandard leadership was sustained, along with the recommendatioin of an honorable discharge.  The charge was supported by an annual evaluation written in April 1991 noting that Robertson's "leadership style produced minimal results." This contention marked a radical reversal, however, from the previous assessment, in which Robertson was characterized as "an outstanding pastoral chaplain always eager to help others and consistently displays industriousness, conscientiousness and diligence in his ministry."  The same senior chaplain and base commander wrote and approved both reports." (p. 214)

I never had a hearing at the Vienna mission, and I've had to try to piece together and figure out what happened, which is why I did all this research.  The mission didn't want it's members to understand and scrutinize things there.  I was in the outs a good chunk of the time I was there so I had maybe more reason to want to figure things out, but since I wasn't a part of the beast I could analyze it more objectively, except when they were trying to confuse me (different people telling me different stories about what was going on or what was going to happen).  And, of course, people on the inside had access to more information, but they couldn't think independently, I don't think, because they'd pretty much given that up to enter the mission, unless my experience is that different from everyone else's that only I was expected to do that, in which case, that would have either been because of some job they wanted for me or because of my dad, or both.

***

"The allegation was further contradicted by the sworn statements of two parish council members of the Dyess AFB chapel community, one of whom testified that she felt "that [Robertson] was being censored ... If our chapel is going to be the type of chapel where our chaplains are going to be told what they can and what they cannot say when they come before the flock, then we may as well disband the chaplaincy." (p. 214)

I'm sure some pastors from the former East Bloc countries can provide tips on how to survive in such a climate. 

I experienced censorship from the Vienna mission too, in that I had to have my prayer letters vetted and I even had to pare down my list of recipients.    That was before the common ownership of computers, so it was hard to keep up with writing to everyone if I didn't have them on my prayer letter list.  If I had a computer I could just have printed out the letters on my computer and mailed the extra ones myself.  (The other ones were mailed from a place that specialized in missionary prayer letters.)  But back then it wasn't like that. 

***

"If the government discharges chaplains who refuse to compromise their religious beliefs, speech and teachings to appease military commanders, we will ... have created a religious body, under federal salary, that exists solely to support government polity and objectives.  Yes, this is government establishment of religion in its purest form." (p. 24)

Where did the Vienna mission military chaplain/H.R. staff stand on this issue?  It seems like a continuum to me, from far right establishment of religion in its purest form to far left freedom of religious practice for the chaplains.  I knew the H.R. director better than the assistant director (also a military chaplain, though),  and my sense is that he was somewhere on past the middle on the right side, maybe pretty far over on the right even, because I don't think he was the kind of person to stand up for anything.  He was more the kind of person that would support the military and help soldiers see things the military's way.  I think he really bought into the military and its ideals and values and what it did.

***

I didn't get to church today.  I got out to the car and I realized I wasn't feel very well.  It seems like it's my migraine, but I'm not sure.  I didn't notice it as long as I was sitting and just walking around here a bit was okay.  So I don't know, I'll have to see what's going on.  Hopefully it's nothing new, and just my migraine.

412. Military Chaplaincy. Pt. 30 (Friesen, pt. 1)

Some people may be wondering what on earth these Military Chaplaincy file materials would have been of interest for me in my mental pilgrimage to make sense of my life, especially the most puzzling part, the Vienna mission years. Well, the thing was that the military chaplain/H.R. director was the one who gave me the news of the mission leadership's intentions to send me back to the U.S. for culture shock counseling.  I have no idea what went on behind the scenes prior to that meeting with him, nor who initiated that idea, but by the time I had been brought into the picture everything had all been arranged, down to the bus to meet me at the airport.

Before that time I don't remember taking a whole lot of notice of him, although we did have some interactions.  He wasn't a major actor in any of them, until that meeting.  After that, of course, I noted about everything about him, I think, including other times I saw him and/or interacted with him.  I found out that he and the other H.R. staff, for example, had access to U.S. base commissaries.

Also, they became clear links to the issue of church-state issue that I didn't like, and the real possibility that they might have had had access to information about my father through their military connections.  And if that kind of thing was going on, what's to say that other things might also?  I already knew that one of their missions most likely took money from the CIA (I had the admission from the Finance VP, but hadn't yet done the FOIA request).  So that's why the military chaplaincy became so crucial.  And since I never entered the inner echelons, because I never said "yes" to the mission's values and norms (I was indeed "standing up on the inside," but they didn't know the half of it: never underestimate a secretary). 

***

The next text is:

Friesen, Eugene W. (1976, Winter). Models of consultation: a viable model for increased effectiveness l health professionals and military chaplains. Military Chaplains' Review, 23-31.

***

"A-1. Client-Centered Case Consultation

This kind of consultation is probably the most familitar type of consultation practiced by both the mental health specialist and the military chaplain.  While the primary goal of this type of consultation is to develop a plan that will be helpful to the client in question, the consultee should learn something from the encounter with the consultant that will increase his ability to handle similar concerns in the future.

In this type of soncultation the consultant must essentially assess two problems: 1) the nature of the client's difficulties and 2) what can the consultee do to help the client by manipulating the usual work environment of the client.

In the first case, the consultant will have to deal with two basic questions, namely, 1) is the nature of the client's situation such that a referral to a specialized counseling agency is needed and 2) what can the consultee do to help the client by manipulating the usual work environment of the client.

Caplan notes that in the second kind of assessment, the consultant will interest himself in the 'details of the human predicament in which the client is currently involved, not as a set of precipitants or consequences of psychopathological deviations, but as the central focus for the investigation.' (It is my hunch that some chaplains with some formal training in counseling may be tempted at this point to focus on psychopathological deviations when, ironically, the thrust of their theological training should have prepared them to focus on the details of the human predicament.)" (p. 26-27)

 Because of the nature of the text, it was virtually impossible to lift out a portion and have it make a lot of sense apart from the rest.  Even as it is it takes some focus and thinking through.  But the main issue I want to deal with is the second half of the last paragraph.  Psychopathological deviations are all the DSM-IV coded psychological conditions.  On the other hand, human predicament would be more, as I understand it, taking the individual as a person in need, maybe hurting or offended or angry about something.  But in need of some guidance.  In this approach the person wouldn't be dealt with as sick, but as needy maybe.  That's as I understand it.

The thing is that I think that the military chaplain/H.R. director took the psychopathological deviation approach with me, because if they thought I had culture shock that was the first I heard of it and no one ever really mentioned it to me before.  I was having stress and took up jogging, but half the men jogged for that very same reason.  I also took some Austrian herbs for that too, that one of the secretaries recommended.  But it wasn't like it affected my functioning.  I still did everything at work as usual and went to church and all.  So he really took the psychopathological deviation approach.  It makes you wonder why, because what was the reason for it?  How could it have really been for my good?  Was it realy necessary?  All they had to do was cut back on the things they were doing to cause the stress!  Because the cause of my stress was right there at work at the mission.  So it's clear that it was to get me to become submissive, and when they told me that two other wives of leaders had gone home for counseling like this too, that confirmed for me that that's exactly what it was.  It was not for my benefit and never ever was intended for my benefit. 

***

That's all for that article.  Since I've had some really long ones lately, I'm going to end here too, even though it's pretty short.

408. Military Diplomacy, Pt. 26 (Taylor, III, pt. 1)

This next article is:

Taylor, III, Porcher L. (1986, Fall). When moral force impedes the mission on the airland battlefield an ethical and legal dilemma for leaders? Military Chaplains' Review, 35-44.

***

This article begins with a scenario in which a crisis is forming and a certain specific specific specialist is required immediately or there will be great loss of life, but it happens to be the Sabbath and that individual observes the Sabbath.  So the ethical dilemma is established.

"By accepting the general population that "a soldier is a mirror of the society from which he comes," he goes on to make some generalizations about our society. First, individual freedom is the "most precious thing" in our society.  Our Judeo-Christian society "believes that it is wrong to kill and that nothing is worth the taking of a human life.  Second, General Cavazos Makes a sobering observation: "The negative impact of the influence of the society upon the will of the soldier to fight is evident."
...
We face a dilemma that armies have always faced within a democratic society.  The values to defend that society are often at odds with the values of the society itself." (p. 37)

 I think the leaders of the Vienna mission knew that they were pushing the envelope with what was acceptable even for right which Moral Majority crazed American Evangelicals pumped up against with the red scare hype.  Some of the security things were security to protect the believers in the East Bloc countries, but other things were to keep the supporters back home from getting too upset about the tactics used, such as for socialization (use of psychology, etc.) and possibly other things like cooperation with government and the like.  These things might not have sit so well with at least some supporters back home and so could have brought some unwanted bad p.r.

***

"Every leader has been instilled with the primacy of the mission." (p. 38)

Exactly!  That's what I've been saying all along: that the mission was so focused on the mission that practically any means was open game - the ends justifies the means, remember?  Well, maybe you didn't read any of those discussions, but I've said it more than a few times here on this blog.

So the Vienna mission had an absolutely fantastic objective in mind, no question about it, and the basic premise as to how to meet it was likewise seemingly impeccable.  But the devil's in the details, as they say, and it seems that in this case the devil really is in the details, or was when I was with the mission.  I just mean how they handled the security and the use of psychology and how they handled the socilization and things like that. 

But I also mean any possible government entanglement, which would be particularly egregious.  Do you know that that is one thing that the Soviet Union use to regularly accuse Christian missions of - of having connections with the CIA and other government agencies.  If that kind of thing was true that is a horrible testimony and it could have been even more dangerous for the people they were working with.  What were they thinking?  And I haven't even gotten to the issue of  being unequally yolked with unbelievers yet (II Cor. 6:14).

If I'm going to work for a Christian mission, I want to know that it is truly a Christian mission and not under the influence of any secular agency that's going to be influencing it's ministry, especially not surreptitiously.

So getting back to the text, the leaders of the Vienna mission all believed in the mission of the mission, and I think they thought it was primary (i.e., any other possibly competing objectives would have been secondary or tertiary), but I still didn't trust them because I still thought that there could be other missions (objectives) because of the ways they treated me and some other anomalies.

***

"The story of Sgt. York serves to underscore the need for leaders to not only possess the "traditional qualities of courage, honesty, and stamina, but a socio-psychological understanding of people" as well." (p. 40-41)

I wonder how the Vienna mission leaders and the military chaplains/H.R. staff felt by the end of my term.  It's kind of funny, because I don't think a one of them understood me.  All they knew was I was "standing up on the inside."  That's all they knew I think.  And if that's all they could figure out, then they were way short of reality and you guys are getting a way better picture of what was going on in me then they ever had any idea of.  I was thinking all these things and I told my Grandmother and she knew these things and I told my friends in Russia and I wrote them in the human rights report and I did all this research in the US while I was living in Russia, but it was to clarify my thoughts more since my problems were dragging on and on and on and on. 

So it is possible to fool even the cleverest of leaders if you really try and have motivation.  I even fooled my family. 

They need to add interrogation skills to this list I think.

I should add, though, that I can laugh at it now because I'm just beginning to see some relief from having this horrible secret come out in the open, but it was horrible.  It was a nightmare and I was all alone in it despite being surrounded by people.  When I was in counseling I was afraid to leave until I was sure I could pull off the double life.  Inside I was the same person I had been, but outside I portrayed this changed person (except I still wanted to do my Austrian stuff).  I was sweet and subdued and nice and kept my views to myself, etc., etc. I had chances to practice when I was with the local U.S. office visiting people and the like.  Eventually I had to go for it, but I really was terrified and it was horrible, really.  I just can't tell you.  But I worked everything out on my own as to how I was going to make it with the mission because I never told anyone about anything going on at the mission or in Vienna. 

I knew I had to do it on my own or I was going to spill everything and be really in a straight jacket and you'd have never ever seen me again in broad daylight.  I'd be like slobbering down my chin or something.  So that was ruled out right away.   I was with a Christian counseling place and they knew my mission and they'd never ever have believed me in a million years so they would right away have labeled me among the most desparate of cases.

***

Okay, that's it for this post. 

406. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 24 (Trower, pt. 2)

Last time was pretty bad as far as how much of the text I covered; it was just too emotionally intense for me.  I'll cover more ground today though.

We're picking up where we left off last time in the same text.

***

 "...Even today, then, counseling, perhaps more provessionally structured and theologically oriented, is still the chaplain's stock-in-trade with all of his people.

All this is not to say that the military chaplain abandons the teaching of scripture, preaching the word of the Lord, administering the sacraments of his church, or visiting the sick and imprisoned.  Rather, counseling is what he does along with these functions.  It becomes his more rabbinic style.  It may be his more "securlar" work - even when he does it from his religious posture." (p. 441)

Have you ever known a person who has made a career of the military and maybe you know him or her in outside life?  Or maybe you've seen a person or people change from pre-military to post -military days?  Can you tell that certain military presence about a person that goes with him or her even when s/he is not in the military? 

Well, do you think it would be too unusual to suggest that if military chaplains do this kind of thing as incorporated into all their ministry that it might also have gotten incorporated into ministry post military service (or, as in the case with the Vienna H.R. staff, concurrent with military service)?  Because that is exactly what I would like to suggest here, that this kind of thing was brought into the Vienna mission service by the H.R. staff, at least by the director, as I didn't have interaction so much with the other staff to be able to tell so much about him.  But for the director I think his dimeanor was like this a lot of the time, and not just with me either, I don't think.  When I saw him in social situations even with others sometimes I thought he came across to me this way.  It felt like it to me anyway.

***

"Althought chaplains are able to refer individuals to such specialists where they are available, greater numbers of people are likely to see their chaplains first." (p. 441)

What a hypocrite!  I think we'll see more about this kind of thing, if I remember right.  I never had any kind of counseling by him and it never even occurred to go to him for anything like that or to anyone else for that matter.  What would have helped?  Them cutting back on the stressors that they were putting out on purpose for some reason intentionally.  Since I didn't know what the reason was, but I didn't like the possibilities I could think of, I wasn't about to fall square into their trap and come running to them about the difficulties. 

So the thing is that the H.R. director somehow based on some kind of bogus reasoning decided I had culture shock.  But I had never ever met with him before.  I've discussed this in great detail already, but the thing is that I never complained ever about the Austrian culture.  I never had any complaints about that at all; none.  That was NOT the issue.   

In considering my much-beloved logical fallacies, which I learned about in apologetics class and have since put to other use (as well as apologetics), as needed.

It could be said that chaplain used appeal to authority because he used the research article at that point in my life, although I felt pretty confident in a few areas, it was based on a combination of personal experience, knowledge gained from individuals on the front lines, and some research which would be more like research assistant work, work in a specialized library, etc.  But I didn't have the advanced research skills to feel comfortable discussion of research articles and the like.  By the time I was collecting these articles I'd almost completed my first Master's degree and had received good training in that regard so was a lot more comfortable in that sphere.

So basically, I think what he knew of me, and that would have been second hand, was that I was feeling a lot of stress.  But he had not himself, as in this text, attempted to meet with me to discuss what I might be feeling.  The possible reason for this was that the norm in the mission was, it seemed to me (at least for the secretaries) to have a sort of counseling-patient relationship between the secretary and her boss, especially during the socialization phase.  At least that would be part of the complex relationship.  So in that context, it would be improper for the H.R. director to step in and play that role.  The thing was, though, that I don't remember ever really confiding to my boss anything.  I never really felt comfortable enough with him in that way to do that.  He was nice enough, but I never really wanted to develop a closer relationship with him, so I never wanted to confide anything to him.  I've discussed that elsewhere too.  So the stress issue would have come from the other secretaries because there were I think two other secretaries that I shared this with and they would have reported this back to their bosses as part of the process of socializing me, although one was still in the process of being socialized herself, but she was farther along than I was, having arrived earlier than I.

So the military chaplain/H.R. Director, on the basis of rumors that I was under stress (for some reason or the other) and on the say so of the research article that he brought to the meeting with me decided I had culture shock.  With nothing else to go on, would you say that that is enough to want to send someone home for culture shock counseling? 

Since all the stressors were coming from the mission (and not the culture as they would have everyone believe), and I was going along with everything, and this was totally unexpected (there was absolutely no indication prior to this that this was coming, honestly; I had no idea they were going to do this at all and there was no reason to think this was warranted and there was no indication from anyone else at any point ever at the mission confirming that they thought I might have had culture shock, and that includes the people who knew me but didn't work close to me).

***

"He is never asked to abandon his religious convictions, those matters that are the focus of his specialty.  He may only need to ask himself whether a religious intervention is appropriate and whether his religious view takes into account respect for his 'client's' convictions." (p. 442)

This actually, when you think of it, isn't all that much different from a secular counsellors's perspective, because they also "take into account respect for his client's convictions." Many counsellors will encourage faith practices even if they themselves aren't religious or are of another religion.  So it's not that much different.  Is the chaplain counseling as a clear aspect of his religious duties - maybe on site of the chapel - or is it maybe in a more secular setting?  In the Vienna mission it felt more secular, except that a scripture verse was used and they sent me to a Christian counseling center.  How ironic that such a cloak of humanity should enshroud their treatment of me leading up to that time.  Incidentally, the stressors from the mission prior to going to the USA eased up, for the most part at least.  I'll get into that later though.

***

"Every military person experiences an orientation phase, called 'boot camp,' 'recruitment trainig,' 'basic training,' indoctrination.  For most men and women it is a limited time (four to eight weeks) of considerable stress and sudden changes in their sense of identity.  It is a period in which physical and psychological limits are pushed out to their maximal borders of containment.  Individuals are expected to adapt to highly structured routines.  Group performances are rewarded; personal efforts are approved only insofar as they contribute to the success of the team." (p. 446)

That sounds worse than "socialization," but that's the military's equivalent to socialization.  My socialization didn't go well and it could be considered that because my socialization/bootcamp didn't go well I was sent to the brigs (counseling in the USA).  Of course, that's a very unethical - if not illegal - use of counseling, but I wasn't the first person sent home to the U.S. for counseling so presumably however I was sent home at least 2 others were sent home for similar reasons, only they responded better than I did, evidently because they were in the USA for a much shorter time as I heard it told.  The thing is, though, that the Vienna mission didn't have that many options available to them as to what to do if a person wasn't doing well in "boot camp".  Having the person stick around with the possibility of him/her affecting other members would be totally out of the question, of course.  And if they sent him/her home they had to have a guise/front or reason or reason for doing so, no?  So counseling could provide a reason and also possibly help in the socialization process itself.  And insurance would cover it, to boot!  Such a deal!  It was too good to be true!

The thing was that when people go into the military they pretty much know what to expect and they have every opportunity to find out, especially these days with the Internet.  Even so, it can still be difficult to wrap your mind around the reality of what it's going to be like and you think that for sure you can do it and then when it comes down to it it's a lot harder than you think.  But in the case of the Vienna mission you really had no way of knowing because they didn't want anyone to know what goes on inside other than the public P.R. image.  Beyond that you had to just sort of piece things together from stories from different places and even missions and make an educated guess.  Even I who should have, I think, had a little better idea, didn't (have a better idea) of what it was like. 

Of course, in my case, it was a bad fit in the first place because if they were going to be testing me on being a team player which meant me being an all sold out secretary I should never ever have taken the position in the first place.  But my mission gave me other information leading me to believe that it would be okay to work with Austrians, and I thought I was a team player.  But they didn't like that I withheld my thoughts from them.  Because I did that that made me less than a full team player, I think.  But they're not God and I wasn't going to give them the place of God in my life.  Once you opened up everything then they could play God in your life.  It wasn't going to happen and it didn't.  Sorry, Charlie.  I'm a team player, but you're something short of God.

***

That's it for this text.  Have a nice day.

405. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 23 (Trower, pt. 1)

Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there, if there are any mothers reading this (in countries celebrating Mother's Day today).

This next text is a chapter in an edited book:

Trower, Ross H. (1993). Military. In R. J. Wicks, R. D. Parson, & C. Capps (Eds.), Clinical Handbook of Pastoral Counseling, v. 1 (pp. 440-451). New York, NY: Integration Books.

***

""Counseling" for the military chaplain may well be his chief ministerial function -- at least from the perspective of his commanding officer as well as from the descriptive of what it is that the chaplain does... His place on the "team" (a critical concept in the military denoting both the structure and the dynamics of its societal units) is likely to be as a counselor (Hutcheson, 1975)." (p. 440)

In post 390, (in the official Army handbook, by the way) the army does acknowledge that not all chaplains are equally gifted at counseling, but still required of each this task.  So they can't get off the hook, I guess, just because it doesn't come easily.

But here this text raises counseling the the forefront, which I haven't seen so much in the texts looked at so far.  Maybe we'll see it in other texts, though.  If this is the case, though, the military chaplains/H.R. staff at the Vienna mission would have been largely there for this reason perhaps then - to provide a psychological perspective on people and the organization and departments, etc.  Maybe they had more knowledge and training than I thought, but if so, than that makes them more deceptive than I thought, even, because they were so off base it was a nightmare.

If they really had a lot of knowledge - say nearing that of a full-time counselor, who would have a master's degree, then that would mean that they were really playing with my mind in suggestive psychology, trying to make me believe I had certain ailments or the like, because culture shock was just so off base it was like a decoy duck and basically served a similar purpose.  I can tell you I had inordinate mission-induced stress (which they wouldn't admit to any more than the USSR would admit to Chernobyl causing Anatoly Grishchenko's leukemia (he was one of the early ones who flew over it to contain the radiation by throwing debrit on it from above and he was treated in Seattle where he died and I got to know his wife).  Granted the USSR didn't intentionally cause Grischenko's leukemia, whereas the mission did intentionally cause my stress, so that's an unfair comparison and in this case actually reflects poorly on the Soviet Union, strangely enough. 

So the thing is that the Vienna mission under no circumstances could have me believing that I was under mission induced stress.  So they called it culture shock.  And you want to know the really strange thing? When I finally did return to Vienna I picked up exactly where I'd left off attending the Austrian church, etc. and I did just fine there.  The mission's stressors were more subtle, but I'd learned that I had to keep everythng to myself so there was a sort of entente, if you will, but it was pretty fragile and based on them not testing me in areas I still would not agree too.  My values had not changed any, you see.  So if they ever really tested me on anything I'd be toast, but on the other hand, I was humiliated in little ways that made me feel that I was always on the edge, not really secure or safe in the mission.  I'm really gettting ahead of myself though, and that's for the autobiographical narrative.  It's really painful to think about these things. 

Anyway, what I was going to say was that I came back to Vienna and picked up where I was with the Austrian church and everything and the Vienna mission's stressors weren't near what they had been before - they were much more subtle, though.  The kind of thing like in a normal office job where you either get the corner office or you don't, only there are other things that can have meanings like that.  I never ever did get diagnosed with culture shock. In fact, I tried to find all kinds of things besides anything to do with the present - the mission or Austria to talk about and no one ever tried to push for it so I think I was a puzzle to everyone but it was clear that I was high on anxiety.  I never ever talked in counseling about the mission or Austria though.  Ever, the whole time.  So I talked about the stress from before arriving, childhood stuff, you know.  But I wasn't going to fall for this.  I worked everything out all by myself as to how I was going to deal with the mission and how I was going to lead a double life.  No counselor told me to do that.  Who would tell me to do that? 

I think maybe I'm going to end for now.  This is enough revelation for one post.

403. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 21 (Barstad, pt. 1; Christian Century)

I went out this afternoon and got my hair cut.  It was sort of a big deal for me since I've had so many ailments I never get out and it's hard enough for me just to keep up with my basic things (health, finances, housework, etc.), so I hadn't had my hair done in quite a while.  The place I was going before was sort of far, although they were good enough, but I decided to find a place closer.  So I went to the mall near me.  The mall is upscale so the place I went was on the expensive side but she did a good job, so that was nice.  It's hard for me to walk much though with my legs so bad from the lumbar problems and I had to tell them to not have the water too hot because of the migraine.  I'm fortunate that using the brush and scrubbing don't bother the migraine because they didn't seem very sensitive to that, whereas the other place I went to were a lot more sensitive to my health issues as needed.  I think most people with migraine are sensitive to tactile things.

Now I just have to find time to have the car air conditioner fixed... again.  About a year ago when I had a major tune up they fixed the air conditioner and now it's not working again.  I think it's a lemon that way and the people who sold the car to me probably had had problems with it too, I think.  Since I live in a hot climate and with my health I have to have the air conditioner working. 

It's really hard for me to figure out how to fit these things into my schedule though.  It's such a major issue because I'm just not well and can't do much in a day.

***

 This next text is:

Barstad, Stuart E. (1986, Spring). The church and the ideology of national security. Military Chaplains' Review. 15(2), 12-30.

"Out of this tension between the Church and the state, three types of relationships have emerged.  In the first, the Church is dominated by the state; in the second, the state is dominated by the Church; and in the third, therre is an accepted and legal separation of the Church and state.  As an American Lutheran, the tradition out of which I come is that of the separation of the Church and state.  However,, in 1787 when the United States Constitution was framed, the prevailing arrangement in Europe was the domination of the Church by the state.  Nowhere had the principle of mutual independence of religion and government been adoped as the basis of the church-state relationship.  The ideals of the 18th century enlightenment, and the heterogenous religious situation in the emerging sate, combined to produce the first amendment to our Constitution which declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereov.  It is in this context that the Church's relationship to American national security must be discussed." (p. 13-14)

I'm not sure where to begin with this, so I'll start by discussing where I'm coming from on this subject, although I've already hinted elsewhere a bit at about this.  Other than wanting to understand the context of Europe and Eastern Europe in particular, I wasn't political before arriving in Vienna.  I wasn't motivated by the red scare and I didn't have a lot of respect for those who seemed especially drawn by that.  (My particular interest in that part of the world started because part of my ethnic heritage is Ukrainian.)

I wasn't particularly comfortable with a lot of church and politics mixing, but a class in Bible school on current issues in Protestantism had a unit on the Moral Majority and the professor was against the church and state mixing like that.  So I think that had an influence on me later on.  When I was living in Russia I actually joined Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and I was a member for several years of that organization and I still think they're a good organization, but I just can't keep up with everything so I couldn't keep the membership.  But I still agree with their work, at least what I knew of it when I was a member and reading everything festiduously.  My opinion, basically, is that the state waters down the Church and the Church doesn't let the state do it's work (serve everyone equally in a heterogeneous society).

Back to the text.  It was clear that the Vienna mission did NOT believe in the separation of church and state because it had the two chaplains there and also we had our annual retreat at Hitler's Crow's Nest, which was - at that time - owned by the US military as a conference center.  It was one of the chaplains that had gotten us in there.  It seems that if the mission had believed in the separation of church and state they would not have agreed to that location.  Also, if they had believed in the separation of church and state then I don't think my father's position would have been such an issue because they wouldn't have had the ties with government to have known about my father in the first place, but also they would have been more interested in God's work anyway and would have seen to it that there would have been a way for me to serve if they thought I was truly called of God to the ministry.

I'm not sure I want to go into this any more because I do have a file on this subject too.

***

Okay, that's all I want to take from that article, because the rest is just a treatise in support of having a military and security system and I don't really want to go into that.  So the next article, a shorty, is:

Air Force chaplain loses case. (1994, Dec. 7). Christian Century, 111(35), 1153-1154

***

"Garland Robertson, a Southern Baptist chaplain with the U.S. Air Force who publicly criticized the morality of the 1991 war in the Persian Gulf, has been forced to retire from the armed services. Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall rejected Robertson's appeal of a reprimand handed down by a military tribunal that found that the chaplain improperly took part in political activities and flouted the authority of the U.S. president.  The chaplain's retirement is effective next month.

Robertson. a lieutenant colonel and decorated Vietnam War combat pilot, left the Air Force in 1976 to pursue theological studies and returned to the military as a chaplain... wrote a letter to the editor in which he questioned the necessity of using force against the Iraqis.

Robertson's public dissent from the war policy prompted numerous clashes with his superiors and his being forces to undergo a series of psychological evaluations.  In September 1993 an Air Force Board of Inquiry recommended that the chaplain be honorably discharged from the service but denied his pension and other benefits.  It was that ruling that Robertson appealed from Widnall.

"I thought we [chaplains] were here to represent the faith traditions," Robertson told Ecumentical News International, "and I thought we were contributing to that goal.  But the real issue that's brought out is that the chaplain is here to serve the [military] institution.  And that's sad." (p. 1153-1154)

It was hard not to quote the whole article (it wasn't all that long).  I'm sure glad I got enlightened about the Vienna mission quicker than this chaplain did about the militairy chaplaincy.  At least he got some medals and a pension out of it, I guess. 

But did you notice that they made him go through counseling just because he wrote an editorial?  Can you just believe that?  Is that something you'd think maybe the Soviet Union would be more likely to do?  Well, the Vienna mission did that kind of thing too, remember?  I've only mentioned it a million times, or close to it.  If it looks like you're not going to be socialized in the Vienna mission and you're a woman then they might send you for counseling to help you make it over the hump so you'll decide to get socialized a little quicker maybe.  And the other day I was thinking about it being women only, that it's women, the "weaker" sex, but I wasn't quite weak enough and I came out stronger from it and learned from it to hide my true feelings and thoughts.  Some men just don't really understand the weaker sex, I guess.  Or maybe we're not really weaker after all.  At least not all of us.  Or maybe it depends on the crieria you use.

Anyway, this chaplain was a guy, but it's the military and the vast majority in the military are men.  Among Southern Baptist chaplains I think the ratio of men to women is even greater in favor of men.

The way this chaplain was treated is the type of thing that the two military chaplains/H.R. staff might have learned from and taken with them to the Vienna mission.  I don't know for sure that that happened, but it's very possible that they could have known about these kinds of things from their military experience.

It's absolutely horrible to think that that chaplain was crazy just because he disagreed with something.  He may have used poor judgement in doing what he did though.  My first librarian job was with a federal library in Washington, D.C. but it was contract (like half the city is).  There is a law called the Hatch Act that limits political activities of federal employees.  So I wasn't supposed to go to protests or things like that.  Bummer.  I wasn't a federal employee, since I was contract but we went by the it anyway.

So what the army did by having the chaplain go to counseling is to discredit him, I think, so that none of the people in the Air Force would take his words seriously.  The Air Force felt it had to act decisively against him to quelch any possible following, and so that's what it did.  At least that's how I read it.  So counseling was used not for health reasons but for individual disciplinary and social control reasons.

That's not completely unlike what happened in my case.  However, in my case other steps had to be taken for the social control to try to tighten the noose in that area, and the counseling was intended to be disciplinary and instructional.

***

That's all for tonight.  I'm tired.

397. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 15 (Davis, pt. 1)

I shouldn't be doing this because it's late, but I want to try to get another post in.  I still have to work more on portioning out meds for the week too, though.

We're starting a new article.  Hopefully this one will be more interesting than the last one:

Davis, Donald R. (1977, Summer). Rational counseling. Military Chaplains' Review, PAM 165-114, 49-58.

My comments written on the top of the paper from when I first found the article:

"oversimplistic"

&

"If I had done everything in this paper would [the Vienna mission] have changed by my attempts?"

&

"Where is God in this process?"

Remember that we read that in the chaplains' handbook that it wasn't taken for granted that all chaplains were equally gifted at counseling? Well this might be an interesting look at one approach to chaplains' counseling techniques.

***

"Rational-emotive therapy (RET) is an approach that emphasizes a person's responsibility for creating his own emotions and consequent actions... The 'ABC theory' of emotions is the basic oncept ot knowing what causes a person to feel and act the way he does...'A' is the event or circumstances that one observes, 'B' is what one tells himself about that event. This is the inner belief, thought, attitude, or viewpoint that one has about the event we call 'A.' 'C' is the emotional feeling that one has created within himself by the thoughts he had at 'B.' It is not possible to change one's emotional feelings (barring the use of alcohol or other drugs) until he becomes aware of and changes that belief that is causing the feeling.

'An emotion is a physical reaction to a mental stimulus.'" (p. 50)

So this, presumably is a type of counseling that chaplains might have used with the soldiers, as needed, of course.  It's a very secular approach, as my question above highlights.  I don't know that the H.R. director's would have used it with any of us blatantly, but they may have had such things in the back of their mind in trying to figure any of us out as needed.  It's possible.

***

"The next logical step is for the counselor to lead the client to an awareness of his inner beliefs.  When they are known, then test them to see if they are rational or irrational.  Rational beliefs cause positive or neutral emotions and irrational beliefs cause negative feelings and actions." (p. 51)

I don't know that I completely agree with that.  We do live in a fallen world, after all, and not everything is all roses and sunshine.  But if a person is constantly knocking him/herself then that's another matter, sure, there's no need for that.  Even though we're all sinners, even Jesus didn't berate the "woman caught in sin" but looked up from "drawing" in the sand after all her accusers had disappeared and told her to go and sin no more.  So God knows we're frail, made from dust and to dust we shall return. 

Do irrational beliefs, to the exclusion of rational beliefs, cause negative feelings and actions?  I think that a person can have a realistic rational belief (about self) that causes negative feelings (if not actions).  For example, I might have reason to believe about myself that I am selfish based on past experience.  I might not be proud of it, but I believe it because certain situations that have happened.  (Now, it may turn out that I'm not completely selfish, but this is at least true in certain situations.)  There are different ways I can react to this, of course, including, as a Christian, asking God's forgiveness (and anyone else's forgiveness if I've wronged anyone) and see to overcome this weakness with God's help.  I could maybe even make a special effort to try to overcome it, keep a journal, etc.  So it doesn't mean I have to be resigned to it, but it also doesn't mean it's irrational, because it might be rational.  That is, it's true and accurate, but that doesn't mean it has to stay that way; it's not set in cement.

***

"Dr. Albert Ellis (1962) identified eleven irrational ideas that are the ideational ideas bases of emotional  aberrations.  Dr. Paul Hauck has added a twelfth irrational idea that he has observed in his clients...

To acquaint the reader with these 'irrational ideas,' here are twelve given by Ellis in a pamphlet: 

1. It is a dire necessity for an adult to be loved by everyone for everything he does.
2. Certain acts are awful or wicked, and people who perform such acts should be severely punished.
3. It is horrible when things are not the way one would like them to be.
4. Human misery is externally caused and is forced on one by outside people and events.
5. If something is dangerous or fearsome one should be terribly upset about it.
6. It is easier to avoid than to face life's difficulties and self-responsibilities.
7. One needs something other, stronger, or greater then oneself on which to rely.
8. One should be thoroughly competent, intelligent, and achieving in all possible respects.
9. Because something once affected one's life, it should indefinitely affect it.
10. One must have certain and perfect control over things.
11. Happiness can be achieved by inertia and inaction.
12. One has virtually no control over his emotions and he cannot help feeling the way he does." (p. 52-53)

Next to number 7 I wrote "Yeah - God!".   On the top of the list I wrote "Where do these originate iour society?"  I'm at a point in my life where I would like for number 11 to be true, or at least if pain relief could be achieved by inertia and inaction I'd be happy with that too.   As to number 9, as soon as I can finish this blog I hope I'll be done with the Vienna mission once and for all.  I'm sick of that thing, man.  You don't know.  But I'm going to write about it till I'm all written out, and the rest of my story too.  I'm sorry my dad was in star wars but I gave my life everything I could for my dream for what I thought I was called to and all that mattered was dad's work. 

As to number 8, if you live my life, you can't afford to mess up, you have to be perfect.  All these things I've dealt with today are things where I've messed up on , why? because I'm sick - really sick, spinal issues, migrain, etc. and I can't keep up on things and the move and everything and these contractors are unethical and somehow I missed a bill so now it's extra work at this point to take care of it and I just don't have it in me.  I have to be perfect, because there's no second chance and I don't have anyone to help me.  So I have to be perfect, competent, knowledgeable about everything, etc., etc. I do the best I can, but it usually isn't good enough and my brothers will tell you I'm lazy, and I'll just tell them to stick it in their ear. 

***

"Almost all irrational self-verbalizations include the evaluative words 'should' and 'ought'; the words of catastrophe 'it's awful!,' 'It's terrible!' and 'I can't stand it!'; or overgeneralizations such as 'I will never be able to do it,' and 'I am a bad person.' " (p. 54)

 Those are like excuses for not changing, enablers for remainig miserable.  I hate it when people tell me to be more positive, because I've even had psychiatrists (in pain management) tell me I have a realistic understanding of things, and I think I do and that's how I bill myself, as a realist.  I don't go off all depressed or the like, I mean not doing things, not taking care of myself, not being social (as much as I ever am), etc. I'm just sort of steady doing what I can.  I'm not well enough to jump up and down and do cartwheels or anything.  So don't expect that kind of thing from me. 

***

"What is rational depends on the goals of purposes on embrases.  This concept makes rationality an individualistic thing.  What is rational for one person may not be rational for another person because he has different values and goals.  To help a person be rational it is necessary to help him clearly state his long-range and short-range goals.  I normally do this in the first or second counseling session." (p. 56)

My first impression in reading this was that I could not see the Vienna mission going for this kind of things at all.  Then as I read on I thought that maybe a little.  The personal goals would mainly be an issue if someone had goals that might affect their professional career within the mission or perhaps as part of the socialization process.  But for the most part the mission wasn't going to be wanting much by want of different goals and values in its members, so it would have encouraged that individualism.  But then, like I said already, the mission didn't formally do psychological counseling anyway, at least not as far as I knew it didn't.

***

Okay, that's it for this article, and it's way later than I'd hoped, so I have to run.

392. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 10 (Dept. of the Army, pt. 7)

I was going to write this post last night, but my migraine was too bad. That's so frustrating.  That really is a case when the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.  All I can say is that I do my best. 

***

The next quote is still from Chapter 4, "The Installation Chaplain," but now is from Section III, "The Operating Program."

68. "Programing and Budgeting"

"a. General
(1) The chaplain program operates within the framework of the army program system (AR 1-11-FY, AR11-45, AR 11-46, AR 37-1).  The post or installation is normally the unit for which program goals are established....
(2) The chaplain activity is further subdivided into the following activity accounts: religious serves; religious education; pastoral activities; and character instruction." (p. 22-23)

(1) goes on to describe where the installation chaplain falls in the usual accounts, under "Operation and Maintenance Facilities," along with "the special services activities" and "the command information activities."

I was primarily just focusing on (2) as to the breakdown, at least fiscally, of the chaplain's duties.  So, fiscally at least, it looks like they have 3 chaplain/denominational/items and 1 Army item.  Of course, you'd want to see the fiscal breakdown of it too - how much money was allocated to each.  It's nice that they have three and one, but they could still have a very lop-sided budget in the Army's favor.  We don't know this, though, one way or the other, so we have to withhold a judgement here and just say that it's interesting or even just potentially interesting.

***

On to Chapter 5 "The Chaplain in Special Assignments," Section I. "Personnel Center."

"74. The Reception Center (AR 612-10)

A reception center is a place where newly inducted personnel and recruits are examined, classified, equipped, immunized, and assigned.  The reception center is often the first contact which men coming directly from civilian life have with the Army.  Normally, an inductee will not remain in the reception center longer than three or four days.  The chaplain's program at a reception center usually includes...


a. Orientation and Interview...


b. Religious Services...


c. Counseling.  Sometime, [sic] men passing through a reception center have problems attendant upon their separation from home.  The chaplain will be on the lookout for such men and go out of his way to furnish gidance.  The chaplain will make it clear that they are welcome to come to him and will counsel them as best he can in the short time he has with them concerning the ultimate adjustment of their situation.


d. Pastoral Care of Cadre..." (p. 27; the words not italicized here were italicized in the original)

I included the titles of all four major areas of responsibility just so you'd have an idea of the scope of what the chaplain did there. (I don't know if this is still accurate for now, but I'm just interested in the lated 1980s anyway.)

This really is a great text, the counseling part in particular, because it comes very close to what I was dealing with in Vienna. So this homesickness (which is basicly what the chaplain was supposed to look for, right?) starts to nudge in the direction of culture shock, and if the reception center is in Germany (where the U.S. had a lot of bases during the Cold War) then you maybe could even call it culture shock.  So it's very possible that the chaplain/H.R. director (and his assistant, also a reserve chaplain) had served in this capacity as a chaplain or if not in this capacity exactly maybe in one similar to it.  I think I might be getting warm here.

The thing is that in the Army they can use more or less coercion to get someone to change - it's maybe a case of "killing me softly" where those qualities that are unsatisfactory to the Army have to go, and the chaplain is part of the conspiracy to get this done, although the unsuspecting newbie might naively instinctively trust him, falling for his honey-sweet trap.  But no matter how you look at it, the chaplain is still part of the establishment and still supports the same kinds of qualities the rest of the establishment does.

That's rather an overly mean view of the chaplain for this text, but the other texts we've looked at do show the chaplain doing all these character guidance instruction for the Army.

Here, the new recruit is actually trapped because he did sign the papers to commit him to a term of so many years, however many he signed up for.  So the chaplain is helping him make it over the first hump if he's having a problem.

But if the Vienna mission chaplains thought they could use this kind of thing on me they were way off base because I didn't want to return home at all.  I wasn't homesick by a long shot.  This was so off base for me.  I did not feel a separation from home.  In fact even as a child I don't remember having a problem going to camp and being homesick.  And I'd been in Europe already twice before for five months or more not that long prior and never felt anything like what paragraph c. describes.  So if the Vienna mission chaplains looked at me as they did as these Personnel Center entrants they made a big mistake.  And in making that mistake they lost me for good.

But the thing is that if they did have experience with that kind of thing, how could they make that big of a mistake with me?  How could they get it so wrong?  Or did they do it on purpose?  So either they really messed up and they didn't know what they were doing, as in they made a horribly bad professional error, or they did it on purpose - they knew they were wrong, that I didn't have culture shock, but that's what they told me.  But why would they make all those arrangements and do what they did?

***

Section IV. "The Training Center"

89. "Training Responsibilities"
...
"c. Character guidance is prescribed for all basic trainees.  The chaplain should be well prepared and present his material effectively.  The chaplain's instruction in character guidance should be a high point in the training program." (p. 33)

One of the main problems, if not THE main problem, I had with the mission in Vienna was how it looked to me like it was using the world's ways or tools.  Well, in the military chaplaincy you have a situation where they are unequally yoked, and I think discussion comes up about this in some of the articles later, if I remember correctly.  So the chaplains themselves also struggle with it, but nevertheless they have to live with it one way or another because that's the nature of their work.  And it appears that the Vienna mission brought in people with that kind of background too and just maybe a few bad apples spoiled the bunch,  and maybe there were some on the Board too.

So, really, when it comes down to it, the Vienna mission had to surreptitiously teach things that military chaplains had the luxury, if you will, of being able to teach openly.  But these were not things that were denominational, but rather Army-instigated.  Only in the Vienna mission, the Army wasn't required to instigate these kinds of things.  They just voluntarily mandated them all on their own: character guidance for the sake of mission security.  Only they might not come out and say that in so many words.

***

 We're done with this chapter, so I'll end here.