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.

272. Reprieve Continued

I think everything is starting to get to me and I'm pretty burned out after all these crises one right after the other. Now I learned today that I do in fact have a new stenosis at Lumbar 5/Sacal 1 (L1/S1), and I have an epidural shot scheduled for next week for the pain. So far the neurological symptoms are too bad, mostly tingling in the feet and only a little weakness in the legs. I think it's affecting my gastro-intestinal system though.

I'm still dealing with things around mom's death and the family, but that's going to take some time to come to grips with it, and whatever implications there might be.

And the condo search is taking longer than I'd like too, and it turns out that there aren't many options of places that meet my criteria.

But the reason I'm posting this time is to discuss my relationship with my brothers. It was nice that while I was in Seattle staying with a family friend for the funeral a month ago I mentioned something I was getting frustrated about as being a male thing going on in the family and he said he recognized it too. (He's known the family pretty well over many years.) I find it encouraging when someone else has observances that mesh with mine, as it serves as a kind of confirmation that my observational skills are pretty good, and it seems they generally are pretty accurate.

I have to decide how I'm going to relate to my brothers now. Ever since I returned to Florida over a year ago now I haven't been filling out "emergency contact" forms, and if I have to put anyone I designate my pastor as the emergency contact. Within this context I've thought of what the implications might be or should be regarding naming my brothers as beneficiaries in financial matters. The thing is, of, course, that I don't have anyone else, so I'm stuck. Or am I? It's been my observation of people from the two generations before me that this kind of felt dilemma makes people make otherwise uncharacteristic compromises of one sort or another. Such compromises generally don't sit too well with me. That doesn't mean I'm above such compromises altogether, but Scripturally such compromises are sin in as much as "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23).

The latest dialogue dealing with these relationships regards my contention that mom was the last person who really loved me. I mentioned feeling like this (among other things) in an e-mail to my brothers, which they (rather predictably) vehemently protested. But is this a case of where "methinks thous protests too much" could be an issue? Also, I'd like to turn to another Scripture, although I might be doing so somewhat out of context; that is James 4:20: "But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?" Or more aptly, I John 3:18: "Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth."

Now before I get in to this too much, I should say that I am just as guilty of this as my brothers are. On my part my neglect of my brothers has been fairly intentional, such as in response to something one of them did or said and/or an attempt to avoid partaking in what I see as unhealthy familial interpersonal relations. But, no matter what the reason, the end result is basically the same I think.

The recent time where the contrast between mom's relationship to me and my brothers' relations with me are in direct contrast was when I was in the hospital last January after my cervical surgery. I didn't hear from my brothers at all during that time, but mom called me a lot, especially that day after the operation when I was in so much pain and not being adequately treated for it. She really was very upset that I was in so much pain... because she loved me.

The other thing that comes to mind on this issue dates from the month before I left my brother in New England to return here to Florida. As it happened I was supposed to start on a Cognitive Behavior Therapy treatment, but ended out instead dealing with what was going on there and other relevant family issues. As one point the psychologist asked me if it must be confusing to her my brother there say he loved me when he was treating me like he was. I shrugged this suggestion off, saying that I mostly ignored it, but I thought my brother really did think he loved me, but I thought his concept of love is warped. It's hard to say anything has really changed in the past year or so since then.

This, then brings us back to the issue of whether or not my brothers and I love each other. I mostly think we don't although I think they love each other.

The other thing is something I've talked with one of my cousins about, and that is my determination that our family runs on a "survival of the fittest" mentality. She picked up on this and agreed wholeheartedly, thinking in the broader family terms (I just meant my parents and brothers and I, but she interpreted it in extended family terms). In this value system, mom was the weakest link and now I am the weakest link, followed by my handicapped nephew who has muscular dystrophy. Now we all know what happens to "weakest links," at least in Darwinian terms. Weakest links get shoved aside and left to die while the stronger and more fit forge ahead, or climb some kind of ladder of success (however "success" might be defined). I hope you can see how the weakest link is not exactly the object of massive quantities of love, or at least might feel that way.

Unfortunately, I wasn't in a position to help mom much and the males in the family pretty much saw to that, making my role to be one of encourager, which was touted as being very important in the grand scheme of things. Early on after dad's death 5 years ago I offered to live with mom but that was responded to with resounding nos. Short of that, from a distance there wasn't much I could do without entangling myself in familial relations I didn't want to get caught up in. The other thing I did a few times was call someone back there in Seattle to help out in one way or another. But that's about all I could do. A few times I called mom right when she was having problems and so was able to help out from a distance in that way. But she was not good at reaching out when she needed help. She maybe called 2 or 3 times for help after dad's death, but those were the exception. And she never seemed to reveal her struggles with me like she did with my brothers. I think that's partly because she saw me in some ways as competition, which I won't go into now, but that's a whole other issue by itself. Let's just say that this is where the book "In the Company of Women" could be helpful.

But to return to the issue at hand, I need to decide what my response is going to be to my brothers' assertions that they love me. By response I mean how I think about it primarily, but also what my response actions might or should be. I really don't want to get caught up in unhealthy family relations, but it would be difficult to completely break ties with my brothers, so I have to figure out what my response will be.

It's late and I"m tired... Good night.

6/1/11 (next day) Addendum:

After thinking about this post I thought of a couple other things I should add or clarify.

First of all, I don't know that my brother in Seattle could have done any better than he did at taking care of mom. He did get frustrated with her sometimes, but I'm not sure that my other brother or I would have done much, if any, better on that score. If there was anyone who was better in this regard it was dad. My other brother might have gotten angry (or possibly even angrier), but I might have been more inclined to sort of make moratoriums with mom, which could have left her to her own devices more. This may or may not have been a good thing. To a certain extent it could have been helpful (regarding her well-being), but at other times it could have been tantamount to abandoning her. That would depend, to a large degree, on her response to being left with more responsibility for her own care and how I handled giving it to her. Sometimes being given more responsibility can encourage more self-effort, but there would have to have been certain safety mechanisms in place that didn't just left her high and dry if she messed up and I don't know how good I would have been at that part of it - making sure there were appropriate safety mechanisms in place. This would have been much like taking the parenting role in dealing with her.

The other issue regarding my relationship with my brothers has to do with sibling "equality." I don't remember this being an issue until dad started saying things about it starting sometime when I was living in Russia during the 1990s. My recollection was that he put it in terms of him being limited in how much he could help me because my brothers were demanding more equality in our parents dealings with us kids. I'm not sure how this transpired between my parents and brothers, so I can't really speak about that. I don't remember really having a problem with this except that I blamed my dad for a lot of my problems anyway, as I've discussed a lot in this blog. I didn't see him as being to blame for any difficulties my brothers had in which they might have needed help. But in general I don't think outside of my problems being related to dad I don't think I had a problem with this premise. But I did see a potential of this equality issue as being a sort of scape goat to get dad off the hook for my problems. Of course dad might not have been directly the cause of any of my problems. That is, he didn't make me do anything or order any of my problems. So it was an indirect causation at best, and the more indirectly the problem could be attributed to being related to him and his work the harder it would be to expect him to try to compensate for my problems or help me get out of them. So at some point the finger would have turned to be pointing more at me and less at him as far as taking responsibility is concerned. To a certain extent, I think, this is justified, but in one way it isn't. What I mean is that it depends on how much one considers past events as having a bearing on current events. The logic might go something like this:

I probably never would have had the problems I did with the Vienna mission if it weren't for dad's work.

If I hadn't had problems with the Vienna mission I wouldn't have had to change careers (missions being all but a closed door at that point).

If dad hadn't been in the work he was the Soviet guest I helped host during the Seattle Goodwill Games wouldn't have been someone other than who we expected and probably a spy (with no other known reason for why he was there).

If I hadn't helped host a Soviet guest at the Goodwill Games who was most likely a Soviet spy I probably wouldn't have gotten the call I did the next January inviting me to the Soviet Union to teach ESL.

If I had been invited to teach ESL in the Soviet Union by a group who ended out being the Young Communist League (although they denied it vehemently) I wouldn't have had the problems I did in the USSR/Russia.

If I hadn't been invited to the USSR under questionable circumstances I would not have had the trouble I did leaving Russia for good in 1997.

If I hadn't had the political problems I had to that point I wouldn't have had the problems I did with the universities in Indiana and Pennsylvania in trying to make me do or be something I didn't want to do or be. (You'll have to wait for more details on that until I get closer to that point in my autobiography.)

If I hadn't had problems with the universities and then with jobs too I wouldn't have had to make another career change to become a librarian.

Etc., etc.

After I left Russia the connection with dad became gradually more and more tenuous. The most likely continuing connection would have been something akin to being based on hearsay or the like. I'm not quite sure how I can attribute these experiences to dad, other than it just felt like my problems were too systematic and predictable to be just coincidence. Of course, this is exactly how dad might appear justified in not accepting responsibility for my life experiences. And the rest of the family would have not understood these things so anything past Russia they wouldn't have attributed at all to him. But I think dad also might have honestly thought those involved in security related to his work (or former work, depending on the point of time in question) had strict legal boundaries that they adhered to. In other words, he attributed to these security-related individuals and institutions a certain integrity and ethical nobility, which I've come to question, to say the least. Fortunately for me I'm not the only one who has ever questioned these things. I say "fortunately" because it gives me a little more credibility. Whether or not I have credibility and/or security organizations and individuals have integrity does not prove that in particular situations I was a victim of monkey business. Rather, it only opens up the possibility that I was such a victim.

Still, I did make my own choices along the way and I have to take responsibility for those choices. The main issue I have here is regarding how free I was to make the choices I did. Some of the limitations might include my value system, how much political manipulation was going on, and how much relevant information I had (or lacked) in order to make good decisions.

I think that's enough for now and I have to go to physical therapy.