Fortunately or unfortunately for you I have not found the books, yet, on the other subject I wanted to discuss here. But I did find books on other subjects I might want to discuss and... I also found some more peace / conflict management books. One of these in particular have things in them that I think would be helpful here.
***
Here is (I think) the last source for discussions on this topic:
Arnet, Ronals C. (1979).
Dwell in Peace: Applying Nonviolence to Everyday Relationships. Elgin, Illinois: The Brethren Press.
"
For the peacemaker, in the implementation of a truth both the ends and means must be compatible. There is little choice but to seek nonviolent means, if the means are congruent with the end goal of a peaceful world." (p. 38)
Think about it, if you weren't a Christian (and maybe your aren't, for all I know) and knowing what you know about the Vienna mission (or at least my experience and observations of it when I was there), would the nature of the mission draw you
to Christ or
away from Christ? Or, put another way, if the mission were a person with a character along the lines of how I've described it (and you knew the person to be such), and that person tried to share the gospel with you, how would you react? Would you be attracted to the person and therefore want to have the same faith s/he did? Or would what you knew of the person repel you away from the gospel?
Really, the ends do
not justify the means, I don't care how you cut it. God does care
how we run the race, not just
that we run it (cp. Heb. 12:1ff for examples of running the race by living by faith).
***
Here's a World War II illustration:
"
Authentic innocence is similar to costly grace, in that the human accepts the fact that she may even lose her life in the act of caring for the other. Dietrich Bonhoeffer accepted an authentically innocent position as he protested against the Nazi regime. In 1939, he was on a lecture tour in the United States. He could have remained in the security of the American borders, but he chose to return to Germany in order to protest Hitler's regime. This action cost Bonhoeffer his life. But he had accepted the possibility of his future faith before he returned to Germany. He realistically pursued the goal of a just world without naively expecting others to affirm his protest. At the end of the section 'The Last Days' in Bonhoeffer's Letters and Papers from Prison
is the following poem: He who punishes sin and willingly forgives, God, I have loved this people, That I carried its burdens And seen its salvation - that is enough. Keep me! Preserve me! My staff is sinking, O faithful God, prepare my grave." (p. 51-52)
Bonhoeffer is famous, so many of my readers might know of him. The point is, if he was willing to suffer for social justice, don't you think Christians in other ministries might need to take a similar attitude? Bonhoeffer didn't try to take on the Nazi's methods and approaches to things, but instead chose not only a stance (way of thinking) but also a response (action) that were both based on conviction and faith, knowing that there could be personal repercussions for his actions.
***
Here's Bonhoeffer, again, but on a different subject:
"
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in Life Together, refers to the problem of having both community and independence of thought. Speaking with a commitment to Christ, Bonhoeffer says: 'Where Christ bids me to maintain fellowship for the sake of love, I will maintain it. Where his truth enjoins me to dissolve a fellowship for love's sake, there I will dissolve it, despite all the protests of my human love.' Bonhoeffer has pointed to a significant problem that a person may encounter as he works for nonviolent peace and change. There may be times that a nonviolent peacemaker disagrees with a group decision so vehemently that he must have the independence to stand alone and not to follow the group, even at the expense of dissolving fellowship. For there are some disagreements that cannot be easily swept aside... 'Collectivism suppresses the unique wonder of the individual person, whether in ruthless totalitarianism and racism or in seemingly benign philosophies that ask us to abandon freedom and personal dignity for the sake of gaining a happy manipulated society. Individualism destroys the sustaining ties of human affection, whether in competitive economic ideologies or in the protests of rebels who disdain the processes of community life.'" (p. 110-111)
Of course, it was the Vienna mission that asked me to "abandon freedom and personal dignity for the sake of gaining a happy manipulated society," and I ended out leaving at the end of my 2-year term (instead of trying to lengthen my time commitment).
***
From the same text...
"
The representatives of the historic peace churches described a particular way of addressing another, whether friend or opponent, in which the human voices his view while openly attempting to understand the other's perception of an event.. One individual said that a nonviolent peacemaker should not allow the other to manipulate her in a conversation. She should speak with clarity and compassion without desiring to dominate the other. Both parties should be free to accept or reject the comments of the other." (p. 113)
Needless to say, this could not have happened in Vienna with
anyone. If I had expressed my concerns to anyone in the mission the comments probably would have eventually reached the ears of someone in leadership and I'd be in big trouble. And for me to try to directly someone, who in a regular workplace would be the among the the appropriate parties to address a grievance to (e.g., my boss, h.r., the Eastern Europe director for my sending mission, etc.) would be tantamount to committing career suicide. And since that happened anyway, this might provide an argument for the position that I should have at least tried to talk with someone in authority about these things.
***
"
There is no guarantee that nonviolent peacemaking will always be effective; there is only a basic trust that it is a means for resolving conflict that may in the final analysis contribute to the mutual growth of human beings." (p. 139)
I just want to bring out here that even when you do the right thing there is no guarantee it will come out as you desire. That's what living by faith is all about. When we "share Christ" we can't
make the person believe (as the "
baptism of Rus" demonstrates). And if we strip off our excessive defenses and attempt to trust God instead, there is no guarantee we won't suffer.
There's one thing I've learned in my life, and that is taking a stand feels good. I may not always do it right, but I come away with a clear conscience that I stood up for what I believed in... and I have suffered for doing that. But would I give up the clear conscience just so I wouldn't have to suffer if I could do it all over again? Not in a million years. And I'm not talking only about my experiences in Vienna here, but also Russia, for example.
The security efforts in Vienna involved the making of compromises that should not have been made. Instead of compromising one's values, I think it's better to live by faith, even if it means you might, indeed, have to suffer.
Okay, I guess that's it for that subject... unless I find more books on it!
***
The rest of this post takes us back to the (55-page) Van Maanen and Schein article from my socialization file.
This first quote, comes from the introduction part of the main "Organizational Socialization" section.
"Novices bring with them different backgrounds, faulty preconceptions of the jobs to be performed within the setting, including their own, and perhaps values and ends that are at odds with those of the working membership.
The more experienced members must therefore find ways to insure that the newcomer does not disrupt the ongoing activity on the scene, embarrass or cast a disparaging light on others, or question too many of the established cultural solutions worked out previously." (p. 211)
This isn't the first time I've presented a text that might point to my not having been properly socialized. But on the surface this text might seem rather obvious and not that interesting. I disagree.
The reason why I disagree is that this text is not talking about Christian missions or how Christian institutions should run. In that context, I submit, there is the issue of biblical teaching and authority, which Evangelical Christians, in particular, are especially prone to be concerned about. So the next question might be, "what might the Bible have to say about this kind of thing?" Glad you asked.
First of all, there is the issue of "more experienced members." In my mind, sociology does not have the last word on how to define "more experienced members" in the context of a Christian ministry institution. At the very least, a context-appropriate understanding of "more experienced members" should not be contrary to relevant Scriptural teaching. (If "more experienced" only entailed issues of transmission of job-related skills or the like, assuming it didn't involve gross sin, like stealing or lying, this discussion might not be particularly necessary, but we're talking "experienced" in a broad sense that included values and norms, for example, which I think is cause enough for seeking biblical guidance.) The Bible does address how a person's conscience (which responds to values and the like) can make someone "weaker" or "stronger". Romans 14 is a good jumping off point for a discussion of this topic:
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11It is written:
“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.’”
12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
According to this text, how should a Christian who is stronger (e.g., more experienced in the faith) relate to one who is weaker (e.g., less experienced in the faith)? According to my understanding (and correct me if my lack of sufficient theological education results in an erroneous interpretation), the stronger Christian is supposed to avoid putting a stumbling block before the weaker one and also to stop judging him/her. In fact, if the stronger Christian makes the weaker one do something against his/her conscience, s/he is leading him/her to sin, because "everything that does not come from faith is sin." If I was the weaker partner in this relationship, then, the mission should have: 1) not put a stumbling block before me; 2) not judged me; and 3) avoided causing me to sin.
However, a closer reading of this text leads me to doubt that I was, in fact, the weaker partner. It could be possible, I think, to turn the table around. If they were the weaker ones (in the sense used in this text), then they are the ones who had put extra-biblical legal requirements on themselves, beyond what Scripture clearly delineates a right or wrong. In this way, I would have been the one who needed to 1) not put a stumbling block before them; 2) not judge them; and 3) avoid causing them to sin... by forcing my fuller understand of "grace" on them.
The issue, then, is who was adding the extra-biblical requirements and who had a clearer understanding of grace. If I was placing demands on them that aren't clearly biblical in nature, then I was clearly the weaker. But if they were the ones that have the better appreciation for grace and were not adding extrabiblical demands on me, then I was clearly the weaker.
Secondly, there is the issue of "the jobs to be performed within the setting." As you can imagine, Scripture does have something to say about this. Any biblical discussion about this kind of thing would ultimately have to deal with the issue of spiritual gifts (e.g., teaching, mercy, etc.) as well as positions within the church (e.g., deacon, pastor, etc.). Romans 12 and I Corinthians 12 are two of the main "spiritual gift" passages. Here's what Romans 12:6-8 has to say about this:
"6We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. 7If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully."
This text doesn't say anything about the church limiting a person's use of their spiritual gifts, so I'm not sure how useful it is. It only says how one should use their gifts.... Or, maybe the church isn't supposed to limit the use of one's spiritual gifts. Maybe, just maybe that is the case. [4/9/11 comment: I'm referring here to the mission limiting my ministry attempts in my off-hours.]
Just in case this might be considered an unclear text on this subject, let's try comparing it with the I Corinthians 12 passage:
"4There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.
7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.
One Body, Many Parts
12The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire the greater gifts."
My fine toothed comb failed to find anything here either about churches limiting a believer's use of their gifts. So it seems that Scripture just says how to use gifts, not how to not use gifts. Let's try one more passage, just for good measure. This is one is taken from Matt. 25:
"14“Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19“After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’
21“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
22“The man with the two talents also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.’
23“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
24“Then the man who had received the one talent came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
26“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
28“‘Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’"
Maybe I didn't understand everything regarding how to be a good secretary ("jobs to be performed"), but at the very least I should not have been hindered from using my spiritual gifts. I'm afraid they'll have to answer before God on that one.
Thirdly, there is the issue of "values and ends." Whether or not my "values and ends" were the same as the groups (and I think it's safe to say they weren't the same), this measuring stick is not appropriate for Christian institutions. Rather, the question should be more like: How do the mission and its individual members (including new recruits) match up to scriptural "values and ends"? My naivety is undoubtedly showing through here, in assuming that earthbound human institutions might not make "values and ends" demands on their members apart from scriptural teaching, and this is undoubtedly so, but I'm not talking about how things are in fact, but how things ought to be, according to Scripture. Also, I'm talking about earthbound human Christian institutions, and, in this case a Christian institution with a decidedly Christian purpose. I've dealt with this a lot elsewhere, but just suffice it to say here that I think I was reasonable to think I was coming into a Christian institution that made a concerted effort to operate by Christian principles, and that Christian principles should be the overriding influence on the organization. Pardon my naivety, but Jesus did say: "And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 18:3)
Fourthly, there is the issue of issue of "established cultural solutions worked out previously." Whatever cultural solutions the mission might have worked out prior to my arrival on the scene, I think it was quite reasonable of me to assume that the organization might have more of a resemblance to our Father (Romans 8):
"12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory."
In as much as the mission had a closer resemblance to a spy agency or other worldly institution, it did not resemble anything I can find in Scripture, certainly not anything we should be emulating. I'm speaking from my experiences and observations of the mission here, of course. At the very least, I think it's hard to dispute that how they treated me was ungodly, which strikes me as rather odd for a bunch of theologian missionaries. I'm certainly glad I went to Bible school elsewhere, because one of the things that I really respected about where I did go was the godliness of the professors and how they really lived what they taught... and they were all different, just as you and I are different and not cut by one cloth as in the Vienna mission. In this way, the Bible school was a much better example of Christianity in action than was the Vienna mission. And, unfortunately, a lot of what I witnessed and experienced in Vienna that was wrong with the mission was actually intentional. So not only were they not Christ-like, but they were actually intentionally so, while at the same time displaying a Christian face to the world that was in diametrical opposition to what I witnessed and experienced more-or-less from the inside.
***
These next sections from the text come from the main article section: "Background and Underlying Assumptions"... and from the sub-section: "Some Assumptions." These all refer to socialization as the subject of the assumptions.
"There are, of course, many assumptions that undergird our theory building efforts in this regard. First, and perhaps of most importance, is the well-grounded assumption that individuals undergoing any organizational transition are in an anxiety-producing situation." (p. 214)
This is not new, but it might bear repeating that this kind of "anxiety" produced by the entry into a new organization could mimic, to a certain extent, "culture shock."
***
"Second, organizational socialization and the learning that is associated with it does not occur in a social vacuum strictly on the basis of the official and available versions of the new role requirements. Any person crossing into a new organizational region is vulnerable to clues on how to proceed that originate within the interactional zone that immediately surrounds him..." (p. 215)
In other words, what's on paper and how things actually might not be exactly the same and/or the immediate context serves to fill in gaps in the official job description. On one level, it's hard to argue with this, in that it's virtually impossible for any job description, no matter how meticulously prepared and detailed, to describe everything about what is required to perform and succeed at one's job. On the other hand, however, if there is a significant difference, or even a conflict, between the paper and actual job, these kinds of differences might warrant more inspection. You might remember that about 80% of the time I was not even in the position I was supposed to be in, and of the time that I was in that position, about 80% of that time was spent doing non-work. (These figures are meant to be indicative; it would be difficult to go back now and calculate exactly how much time was spent in these ways.) In addition, I did not have a "job description" at all in the normal understanding of that term. All I had was a job title for the position I had been accepted to fill. Because of not having a job description, I had to fill in the blanks for myself prior to arrival in Vienna, and I used the standard secretarial type duties as a reference point for that job. Now usually, of course, no one would accept a position without a job description, but in the world of Christian missions, I think that these kinds things are common (although I don't know that for sure, I suppose). As a missionary one understands that one would likely be called upon to help out in ways not usually considered as part of the type of position one was filling. Other examples of this might be missionary nurses, missionary pilots, etc. So, where a lack of having a detailed job description might be a deterrent to taking a position in other settings, in the missionary setting it wouldn't really raise any red flags.
So why, then, did I eventually experience these red flag moments while with the mission? These red flags were raised in part in conjunction with the totality of surprises I met when I got to Vienna, but also because of the "non-work" (e.g., reading software manuals for 2 months) and also the moving around so much (which, it might be noted, no one else did. As a matter of fact, I don't remember anyone ever being moved around at all while I was in Vienna, now that I come to think of it. So I was the only one experiencing that kind of thing also.)
***
"Third, the stability and productivity of any organization depends in large measure upon the ways newcomers to various positions come eventually to carry out their tasks. When the passing of positions from generation to generation of incumbents is accomplished smoothly with a minimum of disruption, the continuity of the organization's mission is left intact. And, assuming the organizational environment remains reasonably stable, the survival of the organization is assured - at least in the short run. It could be said that the various socialization processes carried out within an organization represent the glue which holds together the various interlocking parts of an ongoing social concern." (p. 215)
I was starting a new position, so continuity with what went before me wasn't so much the issue. But I think continuity with what was planned for the future could well have been an issue, assuming that I was really supposed to fulfill a useful role within the mission, which my experience with them doesn't particularly confirm.
Also, the issue the advisability of the organizational environment remaining "reasonably stable" should, I think, but subject to biblical scrutiny (because of the nature of the organization and its claiming to be Christian). See above discussions that might shed some light on this.
***
"Fourth, the way in which individuals adjust to novel circumstances is remarkably similar though there is no doubt great variation in the particular content and type of adjustments achieved (or not achieved)... Yet, in any of these shifts there is likely to be at least some surprise or what Hughes (1958) calls 'reality shock' in store for the individual involved when he first encounters the new working context." (p. 215)
I'd like to now dissect "reality shock" as it might have applied to my entry into the mission:
1. The shock that I would have mainly useless work to do a good part of my time with the mission
2. The shock that the mission would try to dissuade me from using my spiritual gifts
3. The shock that the mission demanded total and complete submission (despite the fact that I was sociable, diligent, reliable, respectful, etc.)
4. The shock that there was no route for me to (realistically) express my concerns without the likelihood of severe repercussions to me and my future career (which I guess I valued too much)
5. The shock of the organizational obsession with security to the point where it felt like it overshadowed everything and even influenced their use of and interpretation of Scripture
6. etc., etc.
Whether or not you are a Christian (or a conservative Evangelical one), I hope you can appreciate that a Christian missionary organization should reflect biblical principles in action (in as much as that is a value among conservative Evangelical Christians). No organization would be expected to be a perfect model of Christian living, any more than an individual would be... but the extent to which the mission deviated from that standard, as I understand it, and seemed to do so in many cases rather intentionally, I think it was wrong in how it acted and the "reality shock" should never have happened, or at least not the degree to which it did. That is, my experience of reality shock, I think, has a direct correlation to the extent and nature of mission's deviance from Scripture, and that relationship is not only one of correlation, but also includes some elements of causality. I'm not saying that I was perfect, but I am asserting that, despite educational differences (i.e., no Th.M. in contrast with most of the other missionaries), I think my view was (and is) based on a stronger biblical footing.
***
"Fifth, the analysis that follows makes no so-called functional assumptions about the necessity of organizations to socialize individuals to particular kinds of roles. Indeed, we reject any implicit or explicit notions that certain organizationally relevant rules, values, or motivations must be internalized by people as 'blueprints for behavior' if they are to participate and contribute to the organization's continued survival. Such a view leaves little room for individual uniqueness and ignores the always problematic contextual nature of the various ways organizational roles can be filled. While, there are no doubt reasons why certain socialization tactics are used more frequently by one organization than another, these reasons are to be located at the human level of analysis, not the structural or functional levels. From this perspective, we are very much committed to a symbolic interactionist view of social life, one that suggests that individuals, not organizations, create and sustain beliefs and what is and is not functional (Strauss, 1959). And, as in all matters individual, what is functional for one actor may be dysfunctional for another." (p. 216).
I can tell I'm going to be working on this one for awhile... so I'm going to take a break and come back to it...
First of all, I wouldn't take all of this text (at least not without some modification) as being applicable to the Vienna mission context. So as I go along I'll note these issues. Secondly, this text is talking in broad stroke sociological terms, so I linked the terms to definitions.
If I understand this text correctly, it basically says that the authors believe that there is no free-standing code (via functionalism, which argues for the continuance of a culture) that dictates the necessity of an individual to be socialized to it. (And by "free-standing" I mean something that can be extricated from the interrelationships of individuals. Codes only have meaning in as much as they are seen as part of group dialogue, and as such are fluid.) Later on in the text, the authors argue against structuralism, which says that codes exist prior to individuals. So, put in the Vienna context, this would mean that the authors deny that there could have existed a normative code that I could be expected to follow either prior to my coming to the mission or apart from interactions with me. This approach would make me a legitimate party in the defining of the role(s) I should /would play as part of the organization. I hope this makes sense.
The area where I might disagree with this is that as conservative Evangelical Christians, there would always be the Bible as a standard, but I think it could be argued that that standard is actually not only bound by structuralist, functionalist or symbolic interactionalist constraints, although the specifics of how it is interpreted and applied might be thus constrained. And this is not a trivial matter, since we are talking about a purported conservative Evangelical Christian (me) as part of a purported conservative Evangelical Christian organization (the Vienna mission).
But let's say that those areas of specific interpretation and application of Scripture to the context of the mission could be discussed in terms of structure, function and/or symbolic interaction. Issues that might be pertinent to Scriptural oversight would be anything regarding avoidance of sin, anything involving Christian character, anything involving Christian interaction, and probably a few other things as well. On one hand that limits the playing field considerably, but on the other hand it opens it wide up. That is, it probably eliminates such things as what format a letter should be typed in (full block, modified block, etc.). On the other hand, it might well open up areas not commonly of concern in workplace socialization contexts. So now we have two basic areas in which we might apply any of these 3 (generally viewed as 2, combining "functionalism" and "structuralism") basic sociological paradigms. (We're not not even going anywhere near "conflict theory", the usual 3rd sociological viewpoint.) These two areas that we might consider are 1) the interpretations and applications of biblical teaching to the mission context and 2) tasks of the job (that aren't particularly addressed in Scripture).
Before we start on this, though, I want to review some basic principles of interpreting and applying Scripture. Unfortunately, I think all of my books of this nature were probably in the boxes of books I went through last night when I wasn't thinking of this topic. So I'm going to have to rely on the Internet here. I don't want to go off in a lot of detail on this though, but if you want more information, here are a couple other resources that express more or less where I'm coming from: Here's a rather thorough resource. Here's another much more concise (if less thorough) resource. But here's what I'm getting at (and there's more explanation of each these in the original source):
"Interpretation answers the question, “What does the passage mean?”...
- Context ALWAYS rules first. Never take a Scripture out of its context to make it say what you want it to say....
- Always seek the FULL counsel of God’s Word. Never accept someone’s teaching based on one or two verses; ensure that they’re not taken out of context as they’re employed throughout the whole Bible.
- Scripture never contradicts Scripture...
- Never base a belief or conviction on an obscure passage of Scripture....
- Interpret Scripture literally. Obviously there are no dragons and the Bible uses it and other symbols. But these are far and away the exceptions in the Bible as the vast majority are very, very literal... God is very clear in Scripture when He uses allegory, parables, or other literary devices to communicate His Word.
- Look for the single meaning of the passage. Let the passage speak for itself. Seek to understand what the author had in mind..."
These are commonly accepted rules for Bible interpretation (at least among conservative Evangelical Christians). To understand " the interpretations and applications of biblical teaching to the mission context" and determine what might be mostly irrelevant to biblical oversight (such as letter formats), we have to be careful not to errantly interpret or apply Scripture. Now, from this vantage point it looks like I could write a whole book on this subject, but I'll just content myself with a few small examples.
1. I'm going to start with the basic job tasks (because that seems the easier of the two issues). The question here, returning back to the text at hand, is should the mission have approached my integration, vis a vis only the job tasks, as something of a structural, functional and/or symbolic interaction event? If so which one of these, or which combination of these? Also, how did the mission seem to approach my integration in this realm?
I will start with the latter question (because, again, it seems easiest). I think it took a sort of-kind of symbolic interactionist approach to my being integrated into the responsibilities of the job. I say sort of-kind of because I wasn't an active player in the dialogue, at least not in the sense that my concerns and/or interests were relevant or apparently of interest to the mission leadership. In fact, it seemed to me that they didn't like that I even had any concerns and/or interests apart from what they might want. So in this case, I was a passive player (well, I won't go into the psychology of the exact term for my role; there's undoubtedly a more accurate way to describe it). That is, I didn't want it to be a passive role, per se, but it ended out being one because I never got any indication that there was any concern for what I wanted or thought about what was going on. And because the situation was so unexpected to me I wasn't sure quite how to proceed. Let's just say I was more at ease the whole time I lived in Siberia than I ever was in working with the mission. At least I understood the rules of engagement in Siberia.
But that's getting off the subject. Whether the mission had a pre-set idea of the tasks it wanted me to preform before I arrived is unknown to me, but it did seem to have a willingness to revise their idea of whatever it is that they might have wanted me to do, and to do this based on interactions with me. So in that way it was a kind of lop-sided symbolic interactionism, if that's possible. (I'm not a sociologist, even though the subject interests me.) So that's how they did manage my induction into my position - that is, they managed it by changing it on their own whims apparently in response to something in their interactions between me and them.
Now, how should they have socialized me into my job role? Now here I'm speaking of my own personal desires and interests, because we're outside the realm of biblical mandate (unless in the process of their lop-sided symbolic interactionist integration of me into my job tasks was somehow unbiblical). How I would have liked my integration into my job might have gone something like this (and I'm trying to limit my comments only to the job tasks):
I would have been told, in response to my offer to take a class, what software I'd be using in Vienna and would have taken a class in it at the Lake Washington Technical Institute (where I also took a photography class in preparation for deputation). Then I would have arrived in Vienna and immediately set upon beginning my work as a secretary. My induction into the details of the job would have been overseen by my boss and my boss's boss' secretary, and together we'd develop the new position in a way that was most efficient, suitable to the context, and otherwise amenable to all parties. In the process we'd probably decide on procedures and policies that would serve as guidelines for the most optimal functioning of everyone in concern. In this way, I'd describe this process mainly in symbolic interactionist terms, although there could have been a certain amount of structuralism and/or functional involved, especially in broad stroke terms, where everyone knew the general activities and purpose of the position before I got to Vienna. But once I arrived in Vienna socialization in this area should have been mostly a symbolic interactionist one.
That didn't happen, of course.
The other issue regards the mission's socializing me in areas subject to "the interpretations and applications of biblical teaching to the mission context". Since the catalog of areas that could possibly fall under this rubric is rather formidable (from my perspective, at least), I'll just take a couple examples.
Biblical issue #1: functioning of the body of Christ
My arrival in Vienna involved, at least in one way of looking at it, my taking on a new relationship with one local emanation of the Body of Christ, the Church - although it wasn't itself a church in the usual sense of the term. Still, the mission served a role as a part of the Body of Christ and relationships within the mission, should, I think have reflected how the Bible thought that believers should interact with one another. I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so it might be worth breaking this down further.
Assumption 1. I am a Christian
Assumption 2. The Vienna mission was comprised up of "born again" Christians, that is, members of the Body of Christ.
Assumption 3. The Vienna mission as an institution was an arm of the Church, the Body of Christ.
Assumption 4. Passages of Scripture that delineate how believers should interact with each other applied to relationships within the Vienna mission.
Now, in my effort to use only very reliable and commonly acceptable hermeneutical processes, I need to be careful not to rely too much on vague texts, nor take anything out of context, nor read into a passage more than I should, but I should take texts as literally as the text allows and I should avoid coming to conclusions that might contradict other Scripture. Also, I want you to know that I'm not trying to judge individuals or the group so much as just develop a common framework based upon an agreed upon foundation, so that any conclusions I might make at the end can be understood (at least in part) in light of the foundation.
Assumption 1: To the best of my knowledge I am a Christian and have confidence that my name is written in the book of Life based on my acceptance as Jesus Christ being the only way to salvation, by way of sinless life, sacrificial death, and resurrection. In addition, I understand that (good) works contribute nothing to salvation, but should be evident in me as confirmation that I am saved. I will not make any great claims as to how well I do that, however (i.e.,
Assumption 2. I'm going to assume this is true, that all the members of the mission were Christians. I'm not going to play God here and pretend I might know who is or isn't a Christian when these people all otherwise believed the gospel, as I understand it (cp. Rom. 10:9, for example). I actually have no doubt that this is so, that they were all believers. The main thing that might argue against this is the actions of the mission, particularly in relation to me (cp. Luke 6:43); however, it is possible to be a Christian, and even one of the stature of the Apostle Paul, and still struggle with sin (Rom. 7:7-25). I am viewing the individuals in the mission as being Christians but in as much as any of them might have lived (when I knew them) in contradiction to Scriptural teaching, they would have been participating in sin. (This could be said of any Christian, but I'm just laying it out here for clarity and logic's sake.) This assumption deals with soteriology and biblical anthropology, for example.
Assumption 3. I'm also going to assume this is true. The mission's doctrinal statement and what I knew of its theology and teaching content all would seem to confirm that it is an arm of the Church, the Body of Christ. I don't know that collective entities can "sin" in the same sense as an individual can, but there are instances in the New Testament when whole churches are lumped together for collective censure (e.g., the church at Corinth and divisions, I Cor. 1:10-17; the church at Ephasus and forsaking its 'first love,' Rev. 2:1-7). I'm not going to say anything about this, other than to confirm that it would seem based on reasonable observation and knowledge of Scripture, that the mission was an arm of the Church the Body of Christ. And, putting it in a larger cultural context, churches also viewed the mission this way, as is evident, for example, in their support of it.
Assumption #4. So now I have shown how my relationship with the mission and with members of it in particular would meet the necessary criteria that will allow me to use Scripture passages that give direction as to how believers should interact with one another.
I'm going to start with Romans 12:9-21:
"9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13Share with God’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
Here are a few instructions taken from this text that should be applicable to me and the mission (and these are necessarily from my perspective, so I can't exactly speak for the mission and individuals in it as to their perspective):
> Love must be sincere: I felt like the mission's "love" for me was somewhat insincere, in as much as their demands on me were (I felt) unreasonable and their responses to my demands were out of line. That being said, although I never did anything negative towards them (which is in stark contrast to how they treated me), my love for them was at least tinged by not trusting them, and eventually even fearing them. In as much as I felt these ways, my love for them would have been affected and been not, perhaps what it should have been. I think the only way that could have changed, however, was to remove or otherwise deal with the cause of fear and distrust.
> Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Their love - or at least the outward expression of it - was very fickle, and their actions towards me ranged from the shockingly manipulative to the almost smothering kindness and attention. (When I say "shockingly manipulative" I mean it was shocking to me.) I think I was a lot more "devoted" in the sense of "stable" and "constant" as pertains to showing of affection for one another is concerned.
> Honor one another above yourselves. I'm not sure that either I or the mission excelled at this, but I think I was better at it than they were in as much as they never even really wanted to know me - not in a respectful way that would have made me feel comfortable sharing my concerns with them, for example. So that was not honoring of them to treat me like that. If I dishonored them, I think the only way that would have been so is in the their apparent demand of total submission, which I couldn't give them. Other than that I did everything well, without grumbling, cheerfully, etc. And the fact that I never did nor intended any harm to them I think could also be seen as a kind of honoring of them.
> Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality. They were good about helping me with needs (such as moving in), but I didn't have many needs. But when I did have needs they were very good about this. Their hospitality, however, was as fickle as their devotion, and I think there's a relationship between those two acts. Withholding hospitality was used to isolate me towards the end of my stay, for example. I don't remember being asked to help with needs (but that's not surprising since I never was totally socialized). The only thing that might have been looked at in this way was in befriending a daughter of my boss that they were concerned might be starting to get some wrong influences at school, but at the end even she shunned me. I think I was very good at hospitality, and I included a wide range of different people in different situations. For example, one time I prepared a picnic and invited to families with young kids and we walked to a picnic spot on the edge of the Viennese Forest near me, and another time I invited singles over for appetizers.
> Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. (Some of these actually seemed like they might be talking about relations with unbelievers, but that's not the context and because I've taken all day to write this one post and I'm just getting lunch now at 5:00, I'm not going to look up what commentaries might say to help clarify this, and I'm going to use the context of talking about intra-believer relations is appropriate for the whole text. That doesn't mean this is not an important issue though regarding the applicability of the text to me and the Vienna mission.). I think if there was going to be any applicability of this text to the relationship between me and the mission, it would have to be from the perspective of the mission "persecuting" me. According to the Holman Bible Dictionary, persecution means: "Harassment and suffering which people and institutions inflict upon others for being different in their faith, world view, culture, or race. Persecution seeks to intimidate, silence, punish, or even to kill people." That's pretty much what one would expect, but I wanted to make sure the Bible didn't give some different nuance to it (which it might, though, upon closer study). I've talked very (was it my last post?) about self and other, and that is what it came down to: I was an "other," a "not-us," a "someone not an insider," and so the mission did exactly what the Holman Bible Dictionary describes as persecution to be: that is, the mission sought to intimidate me, silence me, punish me... well, not kill me, though. But the injunction here is all about what a person should do when they faced such a situation (being persecuted). At the time I think I neither blessed nor cursed them. As to what I'm doing on this blog, you can judge for yourself I guess.
> Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. I'm not sure how to apply this to my relationship with the Vienna mission.
> Live in harmony with one another. This is a loaded one. The mission's idea of being "in harmony with one another" was that everyone totally submit to the mission and its norms and culture. From that perspective, it did everything it could to fit their definition of living in harmony. I don't think they necessarily had a biblical understanding of "living in harmony with one another," but here are a few commentaries to consider. I took a different perspective on harmony than they did, but I think I did everything I could to live in harmony with them without contradicting my beliefs and values. I was not divisive or complaining about anything, and I think I did try to make a positive contribution to the group.
> Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Everyone was willing to associate with everyone else, although there were definite lines of authority. It might be relevant here to discuss my relationship with the other secretaries. I never had anything against associating with them, it's just that I felt pegged and limited as them being a "reference group" I didn't relate to that well because of my background. I have a hard time with relationships that seem to be overly "instrumental" and I felt that this was a situation that was leaning that way. In other words, it wasn't just "relationship for relationship's sake," but "relationship for some particular end/goal", which was to socialize me to become like them.
> Do not repay evil for evil. Again, as in the above discussion about blessing those who persecute you, I think this would have to be taken as advice that would only fit me, since I never did the mission any harm. While I was with them I didn't do any harm to them, but I'll let you judge whether you think this blog is like that or not.
> Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. The mission did not do what was right in the eyes of me. But, they might have thought that I wasn't doing right in their eyes, either, by not submitting totally to them.
> If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. See "Live in harmony with one another" above.
> Do not take revenge, etc. See "Do not repay evil for evil" and "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse" above.
> If your enemy is hungry, etc. It is possible that the mission thought I was their enemy (or one of their enemies), but they spent too much time persecuting me to worry too much about feeding me or giving me something to drink (see "... Practice hospitality" above) It usually felt like hospitality was offered in an instrumental way, except for among the singles, as we had regular get-togethers (such as treating a birthday person to a play where we'd all go together and pitch in to pay for that person's ticket).
> Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. If the mission saw my refusal to submit totally as an evil, they did not try to overcome my "evil" with good. I guess it could be seen that I returned good for the mission's ill-treatment of me, in as much as I did all I could to be a productive, kind, sociable, etc. member (without submitting totally, which went against my beliefs and convictions.
I'll take one more passage, but you understand that this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as what I could do.
The next passage is Ephesians 4:25-31:
"25 Therefore, putting away lying, “ Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor,” for we are members of one another. 26 “Be angry, and do not sin”: do not let the sun go down on your wrath, 27 nor give place to the devil. 28 Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need. 29 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice."
Again, let's break this up:
>
Therefore, putting away lying, let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor... I think I've mentioned that they lied to me, such as by saying there was so much work to do that they couldn't afford to let me study German as the policies stated. That was during the time I spent 2 months studying software manuals, which was right at the beginning, which means we weren't off to a good start. I never lied to them.
>
Be angry, and do not sin: do not let the sun go down on your wrath, nor give place to the devil. I may well be guilty of this, but if you'll grant me a little literary leeway, I felt/feel a bit like I'm wanting to turn over some money changers' tables. That being said, it still makes me very angry to think about all I went through with the mission, but other experiences have clouded it over in the meantime. I can't say that lived up to this verse maybe as well as I should have. On the other hand, I really don't know what the mission thought of me while I was with them and shortly thereafter or what it thinks of me now (or if it thinks of me at all, although I have a feeling I went down in their hall of infamy as part of their organizational story telling of one sort or another). It seemed clear to me that the mission was displeased that I didn't submit enough for them, but what exactly that displeasure entailed I do not know.
>
Let him who stole steal no longer... I don't think this applies.
>
Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. It seems ironic to me that for all our dancing around each other there were no direct words of this nature that came from either side of the relationship. On my side I think there were two things going on: 1) I really didn't ever want to harm them - including talking bad about them, and 2) I was scared spitless and might even have rather kissed a tarantula than open my mouth about what I was experiencing and thinking. On their side, I think that they never uttered anything fitting this description was because all the things I was having trouble with were the informal culture, organization, norms and power structure that was part of the security efforts and so they were good at putting on a show of normalcy, and any slip ups I caught were probably security blunders. They were good, really, they were good at this security thing. [4/9/11 comment: That is, these things happened more by actions than words a lot of times.]
>
Do not grieve the Holy Spirit... I imagine that through this all there was a whole lot of grieving the spirit in as much as it was contrary to God's will, especially His explicit will (like the things we're discussing here).
>
Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. Again, the outward shows were absence, at least in words, but how the mission actually treated me was rotten. I think that these things in this portion of the text might be internal (attitudes, etc.), spoken and/or acted out. I think I've already dealt with each of these potential elements in discussing the previous verses and passage.
So now that we've gotten that part of this discussion finishes, let's turn back and look at the Van Maanen and Schein text again. We're trying to determine whether the mission did and/or should have used functional, structural and/or symbolic interactionist methods of socializing me... vis a vis my relationship with them as a group and as individuals, according to biblical standards which we all agree on because we're mature, dedicated Christians.
To me it is a no-brainer that they did use a functional and structural approach to socializing me into these relationships. That is, they tried to socialize me to how they had determined in advance (structural) and was intended to continue the then current relational structure (functional).
What they
should have done, if I understand Scripture correctly, would be more symbolic interactionist, with a structural element. The structural element would have been the Biblical basis on which to build our relationship. It should have been symbolic interactionist in order to reflect Romans 12:9-10: "
9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves." I can't imagine that either of the other two approaches would allow for what is demanded in these verses.
So how do the mission's socialization efforts stand up to the test of Scripture here? They failed big time. They used a structural model other than Scripture (i.e., the current relational structure), and they also used a method that made obedience to Scriptural demands regarding relationships among Christians virtually impossible. Also, I might clarify that whether or not the current set up (the structural model they used in socializing me) was biblical or not, is irrelevant because by using the current praxis as their standard they placed it above Scripture - they replaced Scripture as their standard with the status quo in the organization.
Biblical issue #2: relationship with "the world"
I don't have to go through all the assumptions this time because we've already determined that the members of the mission and I were all Christians and the mission itself was an extension of the Body of Christ, that is a part of the Church.
These are mostly single verses or short passages, but I'll try to select a few different ones to give you an idea of the breadth of the issues involved.
I Peter 2:11-12: "11 Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. 12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us."
I can't say that this was an issue for either me or the mission during my time in Vienna.
II Corinthians 10:3-5: " 3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
This is one of the bones of contention I have with the mission, namely, that I think they took on "weapons of the world" (even if just defensive ones - for security). I think they were of the world in as much as 1) they were apparently modeled after worldly principles and examples; and 2) they made unbiblical compromises to take them on (I've discussed this elsewhere in more detail).
I Corinthians 5:9-11: "9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people."
This implies (if not commands) that we are not to withdraw from the world, but from worldly-like believers. The mission seemed to include such a withdrawal from the world among their demands of me. I did my best to try to have a ministry among the Austrians, but it was difficult with their interference.
James 4:4 " 4 You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5"
If this were an issue in Vienna, it would have to involve the mission's outside ties, like having U.S. military chaplains on staff and having our annual conference at Hitler's Crow's Nest one year. The mission I worked with earlier that took money from the CIA for their short wave radio work was also part of the Vienna mission. My suspicious that there's more that I don't know about.
John 17: 14-21: " 14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
Jesus Prays for All Believers
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."According to this passage, although we are living in the world, we are not of the world - that is, we are different from the world - and that difference, which is based on our relationship with Christ, should be evident to others and attract unbelievers to God. All Christians struggle with trying to live in a way that reflects our being in the world but not of it, but I don't think there's anything outstanding regarding a problem on either the mission's side nor mine as to how the world might have seen us. The problem was (from my perspective) the secret side of the mission that the world wouldn't have seen, unless someone was unusually astute to such things.
Mark 16:15-18: " 15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”"
The Vienna mission was good at doing this in Eastern Europe, but not in Vienna. Their approach to this in Eastern Europe was to build up indigenous church leadership so that they could to the work, including evangelism, so this was an indirect support of the "Great Commandment," but one what was actively pursued. The mission actively dissuaded me from building any relationships in Vienna that might have been along these lines.
Matthew 5:13-14: " 13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."
The same comments apply here as for the previous text.
Romans 12:2: " 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."
The same comments apply here as for the James 4:4 passage.
Okay, that should be enough to get an idea of where we are on this subject. So, again, I'm taking this back to the socialization issue in our text.
How did the mission socialize me vis a vis my relationship with "the world" (unbelievers):
I think the sociological analysis here is the same as the previous one: They used a functional and structural approach to socializing me into these relationships. That is, they tried to socialize me into how they had determined in advance (structural) and was intended to continue the then current relational structure (functional).
How, according to Scripture, should they have socialized me: Again, in as much as their predetermined object (structural) which involved an effort to maintain the status quo (functional) deviated from Scripture, their objectives in socializing me were... unscriptural. I've already pointed out how they tried to get me to stop any outside ministry efforts (actually they wanted to cut off and redefine all my outside relations). Also, their world-wise connections probably influenced their relationship with me and actually made me an accomplice to that by being a part of the organization. So what we have left is a standard (pre-defined/structural, status quo/functional) that is something other than the Bible and most likely influenced by their outside world-wise connections. As such, it is based on the wrong standard, from a conservative Evangelical Christian perspective.
I don't think these sets of Scriptures say anything particularly about how they socialized me into what they wanted by way of outside relations. Probably the previous set of Scriptures (dealing with believers' relationships with each other) are more applicable and actually should be applied to how they socialized me in general since it was a matter of relations between believers. In this case, the earlier statements would apply here too:
What they should have done, if I understand Scripture correctly, would be more symbolic interactionist, with a structural element. The structural element would have been the Biblical basis on which to build our relationship. It should have been symbolic interactionist in order to reflect Romans 12:9-10: "9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves." I can't imagine that either of the other two approaches would allow for what is demanded in these verses.
One last word on this discussion: I didn't write out my efforts to abide by the hermeneutical principles for each passage of Scripture, but they were in the back of my mind and I tried to be true to what I know of Scripture as a whole and to the context and select clear texts, for example. Still, you're free to use the guides I've provided to come to your own conclusions.
***
Thankfully, the sixth assumption (about socialization) is irrelevant here... it just says theories of socialization should, basically, be generalizable.
This has been a marathon post and I've been sitting so long that my fibromyalgia is beginning to act up, so I'd better go move around some!
