411. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 29 ( Davidson (b), pt. 1)

This is the fist time I've commented on 2 articles by the same person in a file, but I think that chaplains are maybe a more limited finite number of specialists, especially when you figure the number of them who are prone to write articles, I suppose and the number who might wrote articles in areas I was interested in. 

This artield is:

Davidson, Donald L. (1986, Fall). Christian ethics and the military profession. Military Chaplains' Review, 8-25.

The tables in the back of the article comparing differences are interesting too and a great addition for this kind of thing.

***

"What has military professional ethics to do with Christian ethics and philosophical ethics? Often, because of differences in language and structure, these disciplines seem to represent three distinct and unrelated fields.  The differences are real, but they are not as incompatible as at first they may appear." (p. 8)

 I'm not exactly sure what this means, but it sounds as if he thinks that the differences between Christians and these other ethics is at least small enough to be something one can work and live with.  I'm not sure why he includes philosophical ethics in here, because philosophical ethics has been a part of church ethics (for the good or bad) at least since the 3rd century A.D., which is why you have Christian traditions that tend to either follow more idealist (Augustinian) or realistic (Thomas Aquinas) and then there were others of different traditions as well, but those are the two biggies, and they follow down to today, for example in Kierkegaard and Niebuhr (at least more recently, if not exactly right now today).  And these Christian philosophers could have brought in philosophy via the idealist or realist lense, or at least secular idealists and realists might have had a hook to hand their hat on via these Christian apologists.  So it'll be interesting to see what he does with philosophical ethics. Military ethics is clear and that would be what we need to see the real comparison with.

***

Figure 1

Ethics

A systematic reflection upon human actions, institutions, and [can't read one word] ...

• To determine how groups or individuals ought to act.
• To identify what things are right or wrong, good or bad.
• To evaluate more rasons and arguments given to justify actions.

Religious ethicists frequently will add a reference to the character and actions of God in relation to humanity.  Military ethics is "applied" ethics.  That is, the military generally adapts ethical definitions, values, and norms from its parent society to the special context of the military profession." (p. 9)

So the author uses the philosophical as the basis and the Christian and military as special cases?  I guess we'll see. 

***

"Military ethics may modify society's ethics because of its war mission.  The Army, for example, is not a democratic institution.  However, if the military diverges too much in its ethics, it can become estranged from the society it is to protect." (p. 10)

I don't see how it can help but have some influence "on the society it is to protect."  Some examples: The lives of the soldiers and their families will forever be affected, and that might include some extended families too so that even when they go back into society they will be changed people and they will carry the military spirit with them wherever they go.  And if they are injured in combat or come home with post traumatic stress syndrome they will affece people in a new and different way again.

Then of course, the bases affect the communities in which they live, whether in the USA or abroad, and I lived about 1/2 a mile from a base in Seoul, S. Korea and it was not long after at another base in Korea a U.S. military vehicle hit and killed to 14-year old girls.  Of course, th bases have economic affects on local communities and when bases are closed it can be quite traumatic for the community left behind. 

Then there's the Military Industrial Complex, which my father was a part of, and which feeds the military with its advanced military.  Of course, there are a myriad other companies that provide supplies and services for the military, like Halliburton's KBR.  And don't forget the HUGE toy industry which absolutely (along with mass media) sets the embers, stokes the flame and then feeds it with toys and electronic games of all kinds of imaginable war configuration imaginable, some so realistic it could probably spawn another post traumatic stress syndrome attack in a World War II veteran if any are still alive.

Sure, thee are aspects of life and certain echelons of life where you might not be so touched by military ethics as you would be in other areas or segments of society, but overall, I have a hard time believing that we're at great risk for the military ethic, no matter how much it diverges, becoming estranged from the society it is to protect.  Even Guantanamo, with its extended keeping of people that didn't belong there and its use of torture didn't estrange it from "the society it is to protect."

Let's face it, not only is the society in humongous trouble of being dead ethics wise, but the church too!  Anybody reading this who went to Sunday School as a child, even if they don't go to church now will know that Christians are supposed to be salt to the earth and lights to the world (Matt. 5:13-16).  And this passage also says that we can't be salt to the earth if we lose our saltiness.  What good is salt without it's saltiness?  And we shouldn't hide our lights under a bushel (e.g. a barrel).  What good is a light if no one can see it? 

So the thing is that I don't think the church is primarily about politics; it's ministry is really about bringing people into the Church, the Body of Christ, and building them up as Christians and growing the local Church into a healthy functioning part of bigger body, the Church around the world.  But we can take moral and ethical stands too.  The thing is, though, that we should understand that Satan is the Prince of the Power of the air (Eph. 2:2), so we should know that it is not unusual that a worldly (not Christian) government system should act in a not Christian way.  It's not like we should necessarily expect them to live according to Christian principles and Scripture.  They don't have the Holy Spirit and a new nature (along with the old sinful one, coexisting), so we are not right, I think to expect them to act as Christians.

That being said, however, there probably are/were Christians among them and if they did anything against God or Scripture or another person they will have to face God for it one day and the church where they attended or where they were/are a member should have been more attentive to these things. (Churches don't like to rock the boat, especially, I think if the person is a strong financial supporter of the church.  If you find a Scripture support for that ethic let me know.)

Also, however, Romans 2:14-16 indicates that there are those who don't know the law, I think mainly commentators say it refers to heathen who really have never heard the gospel, such as tribal people, but maybe even in our cities.  And among these people are some who because of the conscience God created us with instinctively do the right things.  And verse 16 makes it sound like some of these people could be saved.  I've even read stories about missionaries coming into tribes and when they share the story of Jesus for the first time the people will tell them that that's who they've been waiting for or worshiping, but they didn't kow the name or were waiting for someone to tell them about Him. 

But there are people who have rejected Christ too and somehow it seems like they act better than Christians, although that's so not how it's supposed to be.  It's a shame on the church that this is so, that we have failed so much in our faith that others outshine us - I mean, they seem to live more Christlike than we do.  Of course, we don't know the heart, and God does, and the fact that the person has rejected Christ does count for something as relates to standing with God, but out light and salt before men might be all but nonexistent.

I guess I diverged a little there.

***

 Figure 3 is of Structure of Ethics and has 3 branches: Metaethics, Normative Ethics, and Moral Policy.  I won't include the whole thing here, unless I end out decided I absolutely have to later on.

"Examples of fundamental values that have greatly influenced ethical systems in the past include pleasure (hedonism..), power (Nietzche), self (egosim), the state (nationalism), character or moral virtue (Aristotle), and God. Individuals or groups may hold more than one of these, but frequently one may become dominant and the source for evaluating the other values." (p. 11)

 I'm not really going to comment on this.  It's just here to follow his train of thought.

***

Figure 4

Typical formalist

Ethical rules

Respect human life.
Prevent injury to others.
Help others in need.
Tell the truth.
Keep promises and commitments.
Treat others fairly (justice).
Respect property of others.

In the 1960s Joseph Fletcher and others, reacting to the "legalism" of some formalists, emphasized the importance of the connect to ethical decisions. Fletcher's approach, called "situationalism, recuded all rules to one, the rule of love.  Right action, is doing the loving thing in the situation.  The context is an important continuation in ethical decisions.  This method, however, is incomplete, but may be the primary motive, as in the Great Commandments child like Jesus; or it may serve as a summary (higher order) principle similar to Kant's categorical imperative or Jesus' Golden Rule.  Love, however, is a very general concept.  By eliminating lower order [unclear word] (as Fletcher does, situation ethics provides very little guidance in ethical relations.  To be consistent, the situationalist still must use other principles (e.g., 'ends' or 'obligations') for judging which actions are right or loving.

The fact that Davidson took so much time and space on this approach to ethics makes me think that this is one approach to ethics that, despite it's weaknesses, he thinks is a serious contender in the mix.  At least it's hard to argue that love contradicts Christianity. 

The problem with it that I have, and that he doesn't exactly mention (although perhaps it would fit in his catchall sort of caveat towards the end) is the situationalism nature of this brand of ethics.  To me situational is a close cousin to relative, although situational at least has a hook to hang our hat on.  Here's what I mean.

Situational ethics:  I'll do anything as long as it's loving.

Cultural relativity: All cultures are relative.  They're all just different; there's not right or wrong as far as cultures go. They have to judged by they're own yard sticks, not by some external extracultural ideal.

I'll reserve further judgement for now.  I don't want to get ahead of things.

***

"Christian Metaethics

In summary, these three concepts form the methaethical fouhndations for Christian ethics: (1) God is the supreme value-center, the source of ethical knowledge, or rightness and godness; (2) Christian ethics always consists of a triadic relationship which includes God, self, and others; and (3) God's commandments provide required conditions for meaningful community existence.  These three features are evident in the covenantal nature and ethical content of the Ten Commandments.  They are also integral to that which Jesus, Paul and an unknown Jewish rabbi in the New Testament called the Greatest Commandments:

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.  This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.  All the Law and the prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew 22:37-39 (p. 16)

These are broad ethical guidelines that probably just about every Christian could rally around.

***

Military Methaethics [sic]

The potential exists for great differences between military ethics and Christian ethics because of significant divergence in metaethical foundations.. The highest value for the Christian is God and to Him is due the believer's ultimate loyalty.  For the military, however, the highest 'official' value is the state, as established in the Constitution, administered by the President, and legislated by the Congress." (p. 16-17)

I already discussed recently in another post about how the miliary makes the chaplain take, as part of his oath of duty, promise to make service to the country primacy of place in his life. So now it'll be interesting to see how he might wheedle his way out of that one. You make that oath and then there have got to be times of conflict because the boss is going to want you to make good on your promise. You can't necessarily expect to try to just close your eyes and pretend it will go away or something. And the military has you a good part of 24/7. That's what I wasn't going give the mission when they looked too worldly and very potentially mixed up in things I didn't approve in and I wasn't going to stand by and pretend I did approve of them, so I would rather have not known about them and stay on the periphery, as much as it hurt. I came to be part of a mission, not a political establishment. If I wanted to be part of a political establishment, I would have accepted the offer to study at the Monterey Institute for International Studies instead of going to Bible school, which I instead opted for.

***

"Fortunately for military personnel and our nation, there has been a coherence between development of the American character and the Christian tradition... As these developments reflect, there is a general compatibility between duties to God and duties to the nation; but this could change... It is important, therefore, for Christian military professionals to work for consistency between national ethics, military ethics, and Christian ethics despite these metaethical differences." (p. 17)

This doesn't really tell me anything at all. It's hard to know what do comment on because of the sweeping generalities here. 

***

This next section is a watershed one.

"What approach does Christian ethics take [ineligible word] it use an 'ends' or 'obligations' procedure?

The majority of Christian ethicists would probably agree with the following observation by George Forell: Christianity assesses that in all important ethical decisions the motive is the significant feature... In this sense Christian ethics is formalistic rather than teleological.' Beach and Niebuhr consider Christian ethics a formalist system: 'It is more concerned with the question: What is right? whan with the question: What is man's chief good? It does not begin by setting ideals before men but by reminding them of their duties."...

... These teleological scriptures generally fall within what we described earlier as an ethic of virtue.  Also it is clear from these passages that the goal is not personal self-realization, but becoming what God wants, of being like Christ (Galatians 2:20; Romans 12:1-2).

Though teleological elements are present in Scripture, the Bible rejects egoism.  The central issue in Jesus' temptation (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13) was whether he should use his unique powers for personal gain and in the pursuit of self-interest.

Scripture also seems to reject a utilitarian approach to ethics.  I [illegible word] found no passages in which the ends justify the means; that is, when the rightness of an action was determined solely by the consequences of that action.  As Beach and Niebuhr suggest, the primary ethical approach reflected in Scripture is formalism." (p. 18-19)

So the real clincher here for me, especially, is that last paragraph, which supports what I've been saying about the Vienna mission and how what I've been calling pragmatism (a special form of pragmatism, but also called other things, like utilitarianism, I just have wanted to be consistent and call it the same thing all the time), has, accodrding to Davidson, no biblical support, which is exactly what I've been saying from day 1!  And there were like some 40 theologians there at the mission who either hadn't realized the utilitarian (pragmatic) aspect of the mission or didn't know ethics well enough or were so sucked into the mission that they were beyond being a "prophet" to the mission (or a whistleblower in a more dramatic form).  And I was "just" a secretary and I saw it with my eyes closed.  Even while I was there I knew it; this was one of the things I knew while I was there, that I was cognizant of in my second secretive self that I wouldn't let anyone see because they scared the bajeebers out of me.  So here you have it, and it didn't come from me: utilitarianism, pragmatism, whatever you want to call it, it's the ends justifies the means type of thinking is NOT biblical.  And the Vienna mission lived by that principle.  And that was part of their underworld of the security and maybe the compromise with working with groups they ought not to have worked with.  And by the way, I don't suppose the military chaplains/H.R. staff might have read this article; it came out about 6 months or so before I came to join the mission in Vienna.

As for the other stuff, I can't imagine the military being too excited about a bunch of their soldiers becoming Christ like.  The table of biblical norms in the back include the fruit of the spirit, which I've discussed before here as including such things as meekness and humility, which I'd be surprised if the military would fully appreciate.

***

"Military Normative Ethics

Because of its nature and mission, the military is a rule-ordered society... These characteristics incline the military toward a formalist or 'duty' approach to ethics where right and wrong and good and bad are defined by governing documents and the hierarchy and then pushed down through the system.  The soldier's duty is to obey lawful and ethical orders and standards.  The military's need for unit teamwork, cohesion, and esprit requires common rules, like those of a covenant, which promote duties of the members to each other.  Military ethics shares  with Christian ethics disposition toward an 'obligation' or formalistic ethic.

The military, however, it also a mission or task oriented society...Thus, although by nature and structure the military is a formalist organization, its method of operating may promote utilitarian calculation which could lead to a disregard for important ethical principles and standards." (p. 20-21)

In this discussion the author is trying to look at these different ethical traditions and how they might work in the military context specifically.  The military normative ethics is specific to the military setting, so that comes with the bargain.  The others are brought in as possible contributions to the context, particularly for Christians trying to function in the military setting.  So these would be ethical traditions not indigenous per se to the military setting, but attempting to make some kind of a happy marriage there, or at least a reasonable co-existence. 

The chaplain is fortunate to be in a formal position of ethical counselor to his captain, and we've seen that this is in the chaplain handbook, for example, so it's a formal policy that this is so, although some captains might utilize it more than others.  So with this advantage it's possible that this could be an opening for Christian ethics in the military, but then you have the issue of Church and State separation and you have all kinds of religions and non-religions (atheists, agnostics, etc.) in the army, so this might not be something you'd want to exploit unfairly. 

So then you're left with the individual trying to make his way in the army figuring out how to be regarding ethical issues.  The average soldier, especially without higher education, probably will just go with the flow and not otherwise think about it.  So then it's the chaplain's job to introduce ethical issues to them, as appropriate. 

I think that it's possible to meld the two or find a way to walk a tight rope between them or pick and choose in a way that seems to work for everyone.  The thing is that we all pick up things from the world, only we don't realize it because we're blind to our own biases.  These biases from the civilian world could easily be just as bad if not worse than those of the soldier in the military.  So I'm inclined here to think that this is a case where we need to make sure there isn't a beam in our own eye before looking for the speck in the soldier's (Matt. 7:2-4)

***

"Conclusion

As a result, at least in part, of their common heritage in Judeo-Christian ethics, American military ethics and Christian ethics are greatly compatible.  Both consider ethical principles and virtues to [ineligible word] the moral imperative, rather than simply preferences or customes...

The point where Christian ethics and military ethics have the greatest potential for conflict is in the metaethical category of fundamental values.  Indeed, profound divergence in this area could lead to very different principles and practices for Christians and soldiers. The value-center of Christians can only be the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ.  The highest 'official' value in the military professional ethics is the state.  If the demands of these to value-centers [ilegible word] the Christian soldier faces an ethical dilemma.  In the end, the Christian whether soldier or civilian, must choose to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)" (p. 21)

Commenting on the first paragraph, I'd just like to say that the values are different and if individuals follow those different values will end out as quite different types of people ans so I think that to say that the military values don't conflict with Christianity's, in principle that might be so, but the fact that they're all different enough makes me hesitate.  You're not going to find a church with those values; a cult, maybe, but not a church.  To give you an idea of what I mean, the Military Ethical Values table includes such things as selfles service, courage (physical & moral), dedication, discipline, etc.) as well as the code of conduct, which includes, for example, this statement: "5. If captured, I will remain loyal to my country, not aid enemy."

The second paragraph refers to the fact that the military demands primacy of place from the soldier and officer.  This, as Davidson rightly acknowledges, is a likely place where problems could lie.  The thing is that if the military is the end all, then if there is a conflict between the miltary's ethics and Christian ethics, then the military's ethics will always win out and the soldier will always obey them, at least from an ethical standpoint.  (There could be other reasons than ethics for disobedience.)  So this is very sweet for the military, of course. 

But for the Christian it is problematic, to say the least.  In fact, to do this is to start on the slippery slope to becoming what we call a carnal Christian.  It doesn't really take much to become carnal and it's one step and then another step and then another and before you know it there you are, you've completely lost your saltiness and your light is under a bushel and if anyone looked at you they'd have no idea you were a Christian at all.  That's the way it goes.

So it's a problem for Christians.  But not all Christians see it that way.  But then, too, they might see a lot of other Christians around them, maybe in the military, maybe civilian, who also have taken little steps and they're not quote the saltiness and light maybe they should be, so he thinks after all that this is normal and that "everyone does it," so he agrees to let the Army have supremacy over God.  And if you're in the Vienna mission, you do the same thing, because ou see that all these other missionaries and theologians have done the same thing before you, so you see that it must be okay and they must know something you don't, so you trust them and let the mission have supremacy in your life, and God second place.  God has to have second place because you have to agree to reserve all judgements against the mission.  So they alone are above critique, sort of like God. 

***

That's it for this article.

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. 

401. Miliary Chaplaincy, Pt. 19 (Johnson, pt. 2)

And jumping righ into the Johnson text...

"... I think we can safely say that officers tend to be more pragmatic than theoretical.  Or as General Sam Koster said as Superintendent of the United States Military Academy, following his involvement in the My Lai incident, "... we are interested in the doer, not the thinker." (p. 8)

So basically they wanted to shut off what they thought of as extraneous deliberating about issues.  They wanted just their leaders to be able to look at the maps or models or whatever consider the terrain, the tactic options, the psychology of the enemy and run with it.  Period.  What else might there be?  Well, besides international law, which they also apparently overlooked along with ethics (e.g., civilian rights, anyone?)

Okay, so I have nothing to add to the My Lai massacre scrutiny other than renewed horror for the people who died there (along with other such civilian who died in Afghanastan more recently, for example), but what I'm wanting to bring out here is the sort of way of thinking and if there is any glimmer of it that might have affecting the way of thinking in the Vienna mission.  I think that in a way it did.

In the Vienna mission, of course the work was not military in nature but about spiritual warfare in nature in a sense.  The Vienna mission was fighting against the atheistic interests of the regimes where the mission worked, albeit in a subterfuge sort of way, by attempting to undermine the atheistic dictatorship (of the few, oligarchy - presidium). A lot of commentators, if not most, credit religious groups (usually the focus is on indigenous groups, I believe, though), with having a significant role in the fall of Communism in the former East Bloc.  I just thought I might bring that to your attention, as well as maybe the mission that I'd worked for earlier that received money from the CIA for their short wave radio work into the USSR. 

But the mission was composed primarily of theologians (Th.M. and higher) which would, it seems to me, lead one to think that they would, in contrast to the officers mentioned in the text, tend to be more theoretical than pragmatic.  I'm sure this must have been so in general.  But it appears that when it came to socialization and security and the mission forced everyone to be more like the generals. 

I think it was like that part of ones life was compartmentalized.  These rules just applied to security, but security issues were more or less a constant concern, although there were different rules for different contexts and you had to know how to act when and it absolutely had to look natural like it was yours and not put upon you.  For one thing, that would look suspicious. 

So everyone across the board had to deal with that, I think, but because everyone's situation was different what would be expected of a person would be different from the next person, although I think there were probably close similarities for people in similar positions.

Therefore, as soon as the full-time worker was confronted with the security socialization, the person would have to choose to put aside theoretical thinking (using the words of the text) and be pragmatic and just accept the mission's demands on him/her without judgment.  I couldn't do that.

The thing with me is that putting things in my way that look like things to make me break down are insulting so that just made me dig in my heals.  That was so insulting to my intelligence I can't tell you.  They treated me like an idiot.  Then when they basically threated me with "this is what we can do to you, so you'd better straighten up or you're really going to be a mess," which is how I read their sending me home to the U.S. and why I was scared to death of them after that.  How could I submit to them after they did that to me?  So the only other alternative I could think of was to hide my true thoughts, which one thing they wanted me to be able to do anyway, just not in the way I used it.

***

"What do you make of this statement by Senator Grassley on whistle-blowing: "Waste occurs by no accident.  The federal system rewards it, and those who seek to stop it are flattened." (p. 14)

That's not to different from the Vienna mission.  Christian missions teach the Bible.  Seminaries teach future church leaders.  If these people and organizations are living compromised lives in a systemic way, as a way of life, don't you think there's going to be an impact?  The students eventually are going to be able to see and learn from these actions and it's going to affect the others, so you'll have them affected by the way the missionaries cut corners.

Why not just go all out and try to live a true life of faith?  I have a hard time picturing the apostles living lives of deception for the gospel's sake.   I've spoken on this so many times that I'm not going to go into a full discussion of it here.  But the thing is that in the Vienna mission flattened is putting it mildly if we're talking about the Vienna mission, because they would be more inclined to use psychology like the Soviets did on Chriistians.  I'm talking about the late 1980s, because I have no idea what they're like now. And if you think it's just me I do know there were other people besides myself and that the socialization process was like that too. As far as I knew psychology was the main tool they used, although social pressure was another to try to gain conformity.

***

"I realize you can make a case for amore relativistic view of war.  Admiral Lord John Fisher once exclaimed: "The humanizing of War! You might as well talk of humanizing of Hell! And General Maxwell Taylor, in his article, "A Do-It-Yourself Professional Code for the Military," says that an officer shouldn't be greatly concerned about what is a just or unjust war." (p. 15)

 This feels pretty much like how the Vienna mission felt about how they performed their ministry.  The thing about relativism here for me is that I had already by this point thought through my view of culture and decided that I wasn't a cultural relativist, except in the sort of traditional things that didn't otherwise conflict with my values (like taking your shoes off at the front door, etc.).  On the other hand, I didn't believe that American culture was necessarily best, per se.  I believed that the Bible was the gold standard by which culture should be judged and outside of that there was room for personal preference or personal conscience even (in which the Bible says that going against one's conscience in such situations is sin Rom. 14, esp. verse 23).

So I came to Vienna primed already with a strong view on cultural relativism (I really, honestly was prepared in all these things because I had taken my preparations for missions seriously, despite how humiliatingly I was treated there in Vienna - and the USA with the mission).  But it seems now in hindsight that the Vienna mission maybe really did have a relativistic view of the logistics of East European ministry (or maybe just ministry in closed countries).  Maybe they thought that was an area open for conscience.  But the thing is that conscience isn't that wide open; it is subject to the principles of Scripture. (We don't really call them "laws" like in the Old Testament.)  It's not a free for all, go out and do whatever you want type of a situation.  Conscience is based on the principles in Scripture (and the theologians at the Vienna mission should have known those better than I did) and then where those left off, had gaps or the like, then there was room for freedom of conscience. 

So that means that the ministry logistics should NOT have operated under relativistic terms, unless all the undergirding Scriptural basics had first been met, and my contention is that they had not been, primarily because of the wholesale sell out to a life style of deception to where it ingrained every aspect of who they were.  Not to mention how other things like use of psychology then came under the service of the protection of this security system. 

***

Continuing with this discussion about General Maxwell Taylor...

"He sees no need for the military professional to have any outside help, including the field of ethics. For him, the "self-evident truth" is this: "that which favors mission success is right or good and that which works to the contrary is wrong or bad." Based on that formula, if we win the war, therre is no problem. If we lose, then Taylor says, "following the precedent of Nuremburg" you can expect to be charged with "crime and aggression." (p. 15)

So basically this is to say that "might makes right," right?  Sounds a bit like the old schoolyard bully, doesn't it?  Well, in this regard, it could be the mission and me, now couldn't it?  Of course the mission is somewhere in the vicinity of a million times stronger than me, especially now that I'm weak and disabled, although at this stage in my life I have the advantage of more experience and schooling than I did all those years ago.  Still, it hardly makes a match to tens of theologians, now does it?  And who knows how much money and how much public and how many churches backing them?  So it's clearly a case of might makes right.

But, is might the basis on which you prefer to make decisions?  If so, then send out the bullies.  Send out infantry men. Meanwhile, make sure your supporters know the truth.  I'm just one person, but here I stand I can do no other. 

***

"However, a less cynical reading of Nuremberg is that the International Military Tribunal reflected international morality.  It means that the defense "I was only following orders" will not wash in the face of war crimes." (p. 16)

Okay so nothing can really compare to My Lai or what happened in Hitler's concentration camps, but I'm trying to use these articles to learn something regarding my Vienna mission experience.  Those two tragedies were horrific and I want to acknowledge that before going on, so don't get me wrong there, okay?  Millions died there in awful tragedies.  I've actually been to a few of the concentration camps and had an internship at the Holocaust Museum in Wasington, D.C., so I really do apreciate these things, honestly.  So please don't take me wrong.

The thing about this as applied to the Vienna mission is that once people in the mission become socialized and then actually participate in the activities, such as take a few mission trips (for the theologians) they have then bought into the system and then it's too "costly" for them to either opt out or not follow orders, even in things they might otherwise not feel completely comfortable with.  So over time they become more and more sort of desensytized to these things, probably through a variety of means depending on the individual and the situation and the issue.  And the next thing you know they are the system; They're an integral part of it, and not just a member in training.  Sure they'll continue to learn new things, but they all do partly because the context of their work changes from time to time if nothing else. 

So in this process the only options really are to obey or not to obey.  Near the beginning of your tenure with the mission I think they tolerate a certain amount of disobedience, but I think they consider certain parameters, such as the attitude, how often one disobeys, if a security breach is involved, etc.  I think they realize that the new recruit has to adjust to the situation, so they allow for whatever they expect that person might need for adjusting.

So this security system is virtually unknown to the new person.  They do not really know what's behind it.  They just trust the mission leadership.  If they had any qualms, including any qualms that what the mission was asking of them ran against their concept of biblical teaching, they just shrugged their shoulders and said "I was just following orders."  Everything they learned in seminary and their own studies may have been flushed down the toilet by way of ethical backbone.  They might have been able to stand up to a Communist but not to a mission leader whom they disagreed with.  So they went against their conscience maybe even and sinned.  But then eventually their conscience changed and it wasn't sin any more.  Sort of like watching enough killing on TV and it doesn't bother you any more (not that you'd necessarily do it though).

So why did everyone shun me to the person and child before I left Vienna?  "I was only following orders"

***

"So we have come full circle. The military cannot close itself off to society, it cannot have a private morality exempt from outside scrutiny, accountability or oversight.  Which leads me into my conclusion: only a unified system of ethics will do, one which will serve to uphold high standards in war or peace; up or down and in all parts of the military system; and reflecting the best of civilization's values." (p. 16)

How much more the Vienna mission needs this, and I have said this before too, so it bears repeating.  This is accountability!! 

I feared that the private morality of the Vienna mission was something that I did not like and I don't even want to speculate here what it might have been but I was afraid it might not have been something church-y.  I hope not, though.  But you can't blame me for thinking like that since there were already two military chaplains on staff and one of the most influential missions involved in the multi-mission effort took money from the CIA, and the fact that my parents were treated special and I had unique problems and my dad was a program manager in Boeing's SDI program.  And they way they treated me...

But then, maybe the problem really harks back to the problem with American churches, because American churches really could care less about what the missions do and maybe they're so politicized anyway themselves that the Vienna mission is just a reflection of the American churches anyway.  In this case I have to run back to Scripture and Jacques Ellul.  I have to remind you that Judas Iscariot was the disciple most interested in politics.  He was obsessed with it, whereas the others may have had some interest, but not like him.  And Jesus had to correct the others even to set them on the right course that we are about spiritual things. 

Ethics.  You actually need ethics to be able to do ethics ethically, because you can sort of use ethics or make a show of doing ethics so that your're not really doing ethics ethically.  I don't believe the Vienna mission is capable (or at least was capable of - in the late 1980s) using ethics ethically in some of these issues.  I've discussed here.  And I'm just one person against many so at this point especially you know it's not going to be just, especially with my health.  I'm not making a cop out, I'm just stating a fact because I know that I could have done a lot better on these posts even a year ago before I had the migraine, for example.

371. Commitment, Pt. 13 (DeCotiis & Summers, pt. 1)

Sometimes I wish I could just pump out like 10 of these a day I have so much to go over and to say, but I just can't.  It's not just a matter of time, but my health restrictions too.  Like now my lower back hurts and my migraine (which actually doesn't hurt so much as put me in a mental fog - and sometimes make reading difficult and affect my balance) is noticeably present.  So that slows me down.  I had 2 medical tests today, 1 doctors appointment and physical therapy, and I've been tired all day and I'm still tired.  So here's my best shot... (I never have been one to give up easily, once I set my mind to something).

***

This next paper is:

DeCotiis, Thomas A. & Summers, Timothy P. (1987). A path analysis of a model of the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment. Human Relations. 40(7), 445-470.

***

The first major section of the article is: "Rethinking the Definition of Organizational Commitment" and within that section there are various issues, usually a paragraph or two long.  The first issue I'm going to address is "Attitudinal Commitment."

"Buchanan (1974a) presented a definition of organizational commitment that appears to be the basis of many of the attitudinal definitions found in the literature.  He defines organizational commitment as an individual's '... partisan affective attachment to the goals and values of an organization, to [his or her] role in relation to these goals and values and to the organization for its own sake, apart from its purely instrumental work [to the individual]" (p. 533).'" (p.446)

This is probably going to go in a direction that you might not expect if you've been reading any of these posts at all.  There was never any complaint about my attitude while with the Vienna mission and I was always pleasant and agreeable and never complained.  I did as I was told, maybe to a fault even.  I was sociable and took initiative, which seems like a good sign of affective commitment too.  So there shouldn't be any problem right?  Wrong.

When I was sent to the USA for "culture shock" counseling my "take away" from that was to hide my true thoughts and feelings from others.  I think I was even afraid to leave counseling until I could master that because I was scared to death of the mission after that.  So, in truth I had zilch affective commitment, which is why I could leave and never look back.

I was shocked that they really and truly were going to send me back to the USA and my affective commitment zeroed out I think when I took all my things from my office and brought them to my apartment to stay for the duration of the time I'd be gone.  I lived about half a mile from the office and I did this all on foot, including a lot of books I'd brought over and each trip was like nailing the coffin of my affective commitment until it was just dead.

It hardly had a time to come to life, actually, when you think of it.  I mean I arrived in Vienna and right away I faced these lies and sitting hours on end with software manuals when I could have learned that beforehand in a class.  And then there was the issue about not being allowed to study German which was promised in the policy handbook to new comers because I was "too busy" (studying policy manuals!).

So on the one hand I was a model of Pollyana where I was social and kind and all.  Actually, though, you might as well make the best of a bad situation, so it's not that I wouldn't have done any of that.  But that wasn't an indication of affective commitment in my case.

***

This issue is "The Membership and Willingness Issues."

"...Weiner (1982) has distinguished between organizational and instrumental motivation in that he defines commitment as '... the totality of interalized normative pressures to act in a way that meets organizatal goals and interests' (p. 421)" (p. 447)

If I may take the "organizational goals and interests" to be what the mission ostensibly says they are I think I felt it my duty and responsibility to do the best I could to do my job in such a way as to further the mission.  I also think that some of the social things I initiated benefited the organization.

But that being said, you understand, that I also entertained outside the mission, as well, such as my neighbor and landlady, singles from my sending mission, etc. So I'm not sure that the mission would really have been so keen about that.  They would have liked more single-focused attention, I think.  Therefore, maybe the entertaining shouldn't be counted here.

So then if all you have lef is me doing my job well, that probably wasn't adequate for the mission, especially if I was rebellious in their eyes.  To me it was that they hadn't done anything to earn my trust and I didn't think I was doing anything wrong.  I wasn't harming them in any way.

***

"The Revised Concept"

"In view of the above discussion, the view of the present authors is that commitment to an organization is a two-dimensional construct centered on organizational goal and value internalization, and role involvement in terms of these goals and values.  Hence, organizational commitments can be defined as 'the extent to which an individual accepts and internalizes the goals and values of an organization and views his or her organizational role in terms of its contribution to those goals and values, apart from any personal instrumentalities that may attend his or her contribution." (p. 448)

So we already know that I really didn't internalize the mission's norms and values, not the ones I found once I arrived in Vienna.  The goals, as expressed publicly were what drew me there in the first place and I accepted them wholeheartedly, but some of the other things there ended out taking precedence and crowding out the goals.

I don't like the way that this is worded, at least for my particular situation, because it was not my "personal instrumentalities" that got in the way, although the secretary issue would probably have been along those lines, but I said in advance that I wanted to work with Austrians in the evenings, so I thought that was all okay and agreed upon.  They wanted to absolutely shove me into the secretarial mold and I wouldn't have accepted that if I'd known in advance.

The issue here though is the use of deception, and right from the beginning with me, not just with border guards or what have you, but with me.  So those kinds of things with the values and what they thought they had to do that I disagreed with, based on things I had studied and been with different missionaries as well as a bit of experience myself in Eastern Europe.  So I couldn't accept their values, and I'm talking what I think are some fairly major values for what are fundamental bases for their work.

So it's quite a dilemma when you agree with the goal but not the values.  What do you do?  I guess this may be the first time I remember thinking of it quite like this.  Maybe I did at some point, but I don't remember.  But actually, it really is the old Ends-Justifies-The-Means philosophy, which I've talked about more than once here, right? Unfortunately, I'm not a pragmatist, so that doesn't go over too well with me.

The thing is that the whole time with the Vienna mission I was in a supporting role, although I went on one teaching trip and a few day-long ESL trips.  I could do my work according to my values, but I was in actuality supporting they mission with it's values operate in its pragmatist fashion.  That is pretty much what I did for 2 years.  I had figured out the ends-justtifies-the-means philosophy while I was there so I knew  while I was still there that that was how they were operating.

Okay, so bear with me here.  To backtrack above I had trouble with the goals & values because of the values, that there was a discrepancy, in my mind between the goals and the values of the mission, which I interpreted as the Ends-Justifies-The-Means (Pragmatism, among other names).  For further explanation of this look for the pragmatism keyword and follow the discussions in the other posts where I discuss it more in detail.

What threw me off from the mission were actions that indicated a difference in values, particularly.  Some of the things, especially having the two military chaplain on staff made me wonder about other connections since I did know that one mission had received money from the CIA (and I did a Freedom of Information Act request on it), so that would have been a separation of church and state concern as well if anything there was going on as well.  And if anything was going on there then the question would have been raised as to whether there were any other "goals" besides the obviously stated ones.  For example, "keep Margo under control/out of East Europe/etc." (because of my dad working in management in SDI at the time) would have been another goal, if a fleeting one.  In such a case, I might have also had a problem with a goal as well as with values.

 I think that there are security mandates that probably also come close to these, even if they only come from mission leadership, but, for example, they managed to have everyone shun me pretty well the weeks before I left the mission for good.  Even my boss's kids ignored me!  So that's in there too somewhere as part of a goal too, right?  I don't know where it is, but it's somewhere, and it's real.

And my commitment to it... Can I claim the 5th Amendment*?  Or is it too late for that?

*In the USA the 5th Amendment of the Constitution grants the right to remain silent rather than  testify against yourself in a court of law

***

That's all for now, but I'll get another one in later, Lord willing.

I'd just like to say, and this has been on my mind to say this.  All these articles that I collected, you whould remember the context.  I collected these articles during the time when I was living in Russia - on an extended visit to the USA.  I was so SICK AND TIRED of all the problems and political issues in my life that constantly kept pointing back to my dad and I couldn't have a life of my dad and I was in my 2nd career and had my 2nd major health catastrophe, one in the USA and one in Russia and I had had it.  I wrote a human rights report and I've quoted parts of it here and then the other thing was I had to try to understand my life and the worst time was with the Vienna mission.  I didn't research like this any other time, just that time because I had to understand it and a few people believed me but my family didn't, except my Grandmother, she did.  So I am studying the Vienna mission from the standpoint of it being part of a political USA-USSR/Russia mess that is my life.  But to understand the Vienna mission I have to look at the mundane parts, but that's why I went to Minneapolis and did this research full-time every day for a month.  And I've done I don't know maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of the articles so far.  We've got a ways to go.  So sit back and enjoy the ride.  There's other stuff along the way too.

244. Vienna Mission Years, Pt. 5

"Ideology as a Means of Rule

If ideology as thus defined is to be accessible to the grasp of understanding, it cannot be left in this half light [between the passive reflection of living processes, the pragmatic invention of ends, and scientific axioms]. As we shall discover, this lies in its pragmatic tendency. Ends are invented. This may be seen above all in the fact that wherever an ideology enters normative spheres like science, law, and ethics, it robs the norms of their authoritarian position and turns them into mere means for attaining certain ends and serving certain 'interests.' The pragmatic purpose of ideologies is beyond question. Our concern, then, is not so much to assert this fact as to inquire concerning the degree to which this pragmatic tendency works in opposition to such non-material norms as the true, the righteous, or the good, actually swallowing them up....

Hence ideologies are subject, not to the truth, but to the end which they serve. They are variable, not merely in the sense that they change in accordance with the material substructure on which they depend, but also in the sense that they change with changing ends. As means of actualization, ideologies are controlled by men, whereas truth controls men. The consequence is that the statements made in ideologies are not shaped by the truth even if they resemble truth. The form of their statements is wholly an expression of the will to power, in Nietsche's sense. By appearing to pronounce truths, while in fact proclaiming a program, they supply an intellectual alibi for the exercise of a collective will to power.

The norm of the good is similarly swallowed up by the ends sought. In this connection one may draw upon illustrations from quite different sources, such as the sayings: "God is whatever serves my country," or: "My country, right or wrong." Or one may think of the demand of Machiavelli that in practical politics the good not be made the ideal, but that ethical phrases be used only in order to establish the moral credit which will be useful in achieving political ends."

Thielicke, Helmut. (1969). Theological Ethics, v. 2: Politics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, p. 35-36.

***

Up to my time in Vienna I was very good about keeping in touch with friends I met in various places under various circumstances. My friend in Minneapolis (with whom I stayed when I did the literature review I've discussed in this blog) and I for several years put out a newsletter so that everyone from the summer mission trip in Europe could keep in touch with one another. Among those summer co-workers was a German teacher from Omaha. Before the mission asked me to increase the amount I was raising for my support I thought I'd be in Vienna around February 1987. So when this friend and I agreed she could bring her junior high students to me we didn't know that I would be arriving in Vienna just a month before she and her students. Also, I didn't know what my living arrangements exactly would be and when I found I was going to be in a studio apartment I had to find someone else to house the male students. So I recruited the other missionary who went to the Austrian church I was going to.

(Also, as an aside, this means I must have started going there before this, because my relationship with this other worker was founded a lot on us going to the same church, since otherwise we worked in completely different aspects of the ministry and I wouldn't have gotten to know him much otherwise. So this means that I was probably attending the Austrian church by July 11 - two weeks prior to the students coming.)

So there I was, barely settled in myself, when all of a sudden I'm actually hosting a group of junior high students! I'm sure the mission was very unhappy about this, which would account for the timing of how they treated me later on, too, because I was in the States again when this same friend came back to town and people from the mission let her in the apartment. That is, if I had been there my friend might have become privy to what was going on there - how the mission was treating me - and she would have been a credible witness.

My friend and her kids were in Vienna from July 23 to July 25. My friend had already planned out things for them to do during the day, but my colleague, who housed the male students, and I did things like take them places for authentic (cheap) Austrian food. I remember fixing breakfast for the girls, muffins and the like. Since I just had a studio apartment there wasn't a lot of room and at night the floor was literally covered with sleeping bags, so that you'd think that it was a slumber party or something. It was cozy but I think it worked out okay. My colleague was the one who suggested where to eat and otherwise helped with logistical information more than I did because even thought I could get to Ikea by myself I didn't really know the city that well yet and he had lived there for a few years by then.

In the top picture I'm on the far left in front and my colleague is the one in the far back wearing a striped shirt and glasses. In the lower picture my friend is on the far right. The last I knew she had married a German professor and moved to the Carolinas or somewhere in there. After my Vienna years I began losing touch with a lot of my former friends because it was hard to explain what I'd been through and it was hard to relate to old friends in the same way any more. So she was one of those casualties. I think I tried to explain to her about my not being there when she came by the second time, but I don't remember what I told her and it took too much effort to try to make people understand, especially when I was so confused about it myself even. So we just sort of lost touch.

24. Truth: The Search Goes On

Truth is very illusive, it seems, especially when you consider all the various opinions about what it is. It would seem on the surface that if we collectively can't even agree on a definition of truth that we're destined to eternal darkness and separation from it.

Fortunately, however, despite the fact that collectively we can't agree on what it is, individually we are often quite certain we do know what it is, so it is quite possible that individuals might find it, even if we collectively can't. Does this mean we are to live out our short lives here on earth in individual microcosms of truth? Well, that last question is beyond the scope of this particular blog post.

But I do want to discuss 3 particular conceptions of truth. [WARNING: this is likely to be a long post, so feel free to take it in chunks.]

To begin with, however, I should say that there are self-declared understandings of truth and then there are actual representations of truth. Where there is a discrepancy, that is often called hypocrisy. For example, I say that X is true, but I act as if Y (which at least appears to contradict X) is true.

So let's say I'm talking about Charlie Brown (the comic strip character)here. I can know his version of reality by his words, by his actions and/or by his thoughts. Since I'm not God and also can not psychically read minds, I can only know my thoughts, not someone else's, although psychologists will probably scream out that there are all these blind spots and different mind-bending tactics we humans use that can even warp or hinder my understanding of my own thoughts.

With that caveat in mind, and because this is my blog, I will present my version of truth based on my thoughts and the other versions of truth based mostly mostly on deeds. That may sound unfair, but like I said, it's my blog. So this posting is going to be my (albeit limited) perception of my version of truth and 2 other versions of truth by other collective entities.

Now that we got that out of the way, let the party begin!

Although I did have an introductory philosophy class in my undergraduate studies, it was in my master's class on Philosophy of Education that I consciously remember identifying with idealism. Here is part of the definition from Britannica.com:

"in philosophy, any view that stresses the central role of the ideal or the spiritual in the interpretation of experience. It may hold that the world or reality exists essentially as spirit or consciousness, that abstractions and laws are more fundamental in reality than sensory things, or, at least, that whatever exists is known in dimensions that are chiefly mental—through and as ideas."

In my class we studied various major philosophical positions, especially as related to education and teaching, and we also were asked to analyze our own views.

During that process I learned that I was a minority in that class and, according to the professor, in teaching as a whole. Realism was much better represented in our class, which apparently also is more the norm (I'm speaking of early 1990s in the USA).

In my view the person ("man") is primarily soul and our body is just a temporary house for the soul and spirit. Other than that I believe that ultimate reality and understanding of reality comes from God, and while I believe He does not contradict the physical realm, we often don't understand the physical correctly and so it is best to trust Him rather than potentially erroneous understandings of the physical world. There are plenty of examples of how science retracts itself when it is discovered that they were wrong about something that is now "proven" incorrect.

My idealism has held me in good stead, (my Achilles heel?, my fatal flaw?) when faced with apparent conflicting pressures and views. I mean, I've been in situations that the only way I could stand firm at all was by holding to my beliefs and not letting myself just be pressured into changing. I can't tell you how strengthening it feels that despite everything I managed to keep my conscious relatively clear and holding to my beliefs. However, you should already understand that I am open to change, but not by pressure: only if I come to really believe that I was wrong and need to change, usually after significant experiences and even research.

Another example of this that some people might be able to relate to regards professional ethics (any profession). Usually professional organizations put together ethics statements, which are revised from time to time as issues come up and need addressing. A lot of companies that hire professionals want their allegiance to be with the company, but professionals can be slippery folk because they often have ethical standards apart from the company they work with. This is a very limited example, but maybe you can understand idealism a bit by it.

So my truth is ultimately based mostly on idealism.

Here's where you can take a break before I go on to the next view of truth.

*** And now we will pause for station identification. ***

Now that you're refreshed and ready to plow on with me, I'll present to you the second view of truth. In this view, the proof is in the pudding... or the ends justifies the means. Who cares how you throw the pudding together, as long as it tastes good, right? I just hope Fido wasn't helping and that you washed your hands somewhere in the process. But in this view, those things don't matter - only the end result.

I'm speaking here of the mission organizations working in Eastern Europe (I held out hope that not all were so bad, but any that might not have actively been involved in such politicizing of their work just turned a blind eye regarding the others.)

It's hard for me to imagine an alternative than these missions holding to an ends justifies the means view of truth - where the end is the truth and it is displayed as truth.

The Apostle Paul sort of addresses this in Philippians chapter 1, but there he is only talking about bad motives in preaching the Gospel, not about the tactics used when he says "...whether in pretext or in truth, Christ is announced; and in this I rejoice" (1:18, Darby translation).

My understanding of how missions in Communist countries (and I believe other "closed" countries too) is that anything is allowed as long as it gives them the opportunity to reach people in these countries. That's why they can lie to border guards, take money from the CIA, maintain military connections, etc.

In Vienna we were told to explain our work to local people we might interact with by saying we work for an international publishing company. That's a partial truth, but the publishing part was only a support for the teaching, which was the primary activity of the organization. They published textbooks for the courses being taught in Eastern Europe. But, hey! it's no big deal, and ultimately by telling little white lies we can continue our work.

And when you take little steps towards relativism and John Dewey's pragmatism (which is very American) it's easy to take another step and another until before you know it you've just slid completely down the slippery slope and there you are where the ends justifies the means.

But if they are able to show significant results ("ends") to their supporters back home, and claim that the process ("means") is secret because of the delicate nature of the context they're working in, then no one is worse for the not knowing. And everyone lives happily ever after.

My contention is, however, that this whole work there was permeated with this "ends justifies the means" pragmatism so that it really did become a modus operandi. Needless to say, my idealism was not well excepted there and we had a major clash of cultures: Americans against American (me).

Phew! Two down and just one to go. Go take another break.

****

The third view on truth that I'm going to address today is that of my family. Actually, it is only fairly recently that I have come to see this as a value in the family. I learned a lot by living up north by my brother for a few months.

This view says that might makes right. That's the Capalini view of life and truth, what I call a "Capalini-ism".

Now might can be many things, such as the obvious, physical strength, but also monetary strength, prestige strength, even credibility strength or being the most incredibly needy person in the family ("woe is me! I have it so bad that if you don't feel sorry for me and help me everyone will know you're a jerk!"). Right now I'm at the bottom of the various types of strength, but since I don't hold to this view of truth and I'm in a position where I don't have much to lose anyway, I'm perhaps not as phased by it as I "should" be (according to our family social norms). I definitely don't fit in too well at present, except as a fall guy or scapegoat.

It might seem sort of strange that all these years I didn't know that those were the rules of play in my own family, but remember, I was the oldest child and only daughter and I just went about doing what I thought I was supposed to do. I didn't make choices to place myself in the family strength-wise. So now I've had to rethink some things from the past and wonder if while I was out doing my thing I may have in some way set some family standards for strength that some others thought they had to compete against. Also, I don't know this for sure now, and Dad died a few years ago, but I almost wonder if he sort of set this wheel going that way by, for example, being proud of me doing this or that resulting in a chain reaction where the others thought they had to compete for his approval against me as the standard. I'm not sure about that, but I have a suspicion that there may be at least some of that. I really am not the competitive sort, except to perhaps compete against myself for personal development.

Anyway, taking us back to the present, my brother up north has physical strength. The thinking goes like this: I'm stronger than you so knock it off (accompanied by a display of physical strength). He also holds the purse strings of the family, except me, although I don't have any money anyway, because he manages everyone's finances. But it's mom that really has the most money, but besides that her claim to right-ness is her incredible needyness and she sets a standard against which others must compete for similar attention and sympathy. My brother in Seattle, I think , has a lot of strengths, but I'm not sure they're the kind that work well in this kind of "might makes right" system. As far as this ethic goes, his proximity to and care of Mom, gives him some extra power. After my back surgery a year and a half ago I think I had some of the "needyness" strength, that even for a brief time pre-empted mom's claim to fame on that front.

In this system, if you don't wield power along the lines mentioned here, then you don't have the right to determine "truth". However, if tables turn, then understandings of truth (the details of truth) will change with the position of the players, which is determined by their strength. Hence: might makes right. Or: The person with might determines what's right.

The end.

****

So to summarize, here are these players and their views of truth:

1. Me: Idealism: What is spiritual (esp. from a Christian viewpoint) is the ultimate truth.

2. Missions to closed countries: Pragmatism/The Proof is in the Pudding: Show me results and I'll believe. (How you got there doesn't matter).

3. My family: Might makes right: Whoever is the most powerful gets the right to determine what's right and true.

I hope you get a sense of clash of cultures here. Like the children's ball game I'm the "monkey in the middle". Aaaaaghhh! Get me out of here... I don't want to play this game. Stop the world... I want off!

Wouldn't it be nice if it were so simple in real life? *Sigh*

Pardon me if I take leave with that thought and have an extended reverie about the possibility of a different reality.

~ Meg