This afternoon I tried to get a document that would help in one aspect of what I want to write here, but no one knows where it is! I can't give any more details than that right now, but someone's supposed to call me back in tomorrow. I was given 20 pages of unneeded (and unrequested) information, but what I need isn't in the system. Presumably it's a hard copy somewhere. The person I'd normally contact about this is on vacation (it is summer, after all), which doesn't help either, so I had to really call around to try to get somewhere on this.
I have a list of things I want to discuss, but I'm trying to figure out what order and how to present it. Some things will require me going in to some detail, and I actually did research and have some research articles and books on some issues that I need to review, especially since it's been a while since I did the research ("lit. review").
Also, I need to have a day where I'm minimally stressed and can focus on some of these more cerebral things, to work around fibromyalgia's affects.
One thing that's difficult in all this is that a lot happens at once, but if I just took everything strictly chronologically, it might not make so much sense, as to deal with different issues, even if they are concurrent with something else going on.
Also, there is a lot I don't know, and probably never will (unless in heaven I find out) what really went on.
I just wanted to affirm that I haven't abandoned this project; it's just that I have time and health constraints and some of the things I need to address will take some focus and pulling things together from different angles and sources.
'Til next time ...
~ Meg
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
29. Short & Sweet
This is just to say I haven't fallen off the edge of the planet or anything...
Yesterday was pretty busy ("busy" considering the limits put on me by my health condition). One of the main things, and somewhat of a stressor, is that since I'm living from disability check to disability check right now I'd run out of money and couldn't even afford my prescription refills until yesterday, when I got monthly deposit. I had to pay rent and then get the refills. But when I went to pick up the refills the computer communication with my insurance company was down. I was given a 2-day emergency supply, but my kitchen table was already taken up with the baggies that I use to portion everything (including a bunch of supplements - which also cost a bundle but are a tremendous help to my functionality) out for the week. It's so easy for me to make mistakes and when I get rushed I can very easily also forget to do or take this or that prescription or doctor-ordered health-maintenance activity. So I have to try to keep a routine as much as possible to limit errors.
I was finally able to get the prescriptions last night, but I was really wiped out and didn't quite finished. Then I had to go to BJ's and the Vitamin Shoppe today to pick up some other necessities... so much for my paycheck. I do get one other one later in the month too, though.
I'm pretty tired now too, but I've spent the evening going over some of my records and journals from the period I want to discuss here. I also have a list of things to discuss in the lead-up to Vienna (1987-1989). So I am working on it, but it's just a bit slow going here.
It's late though, and it takes me 1 or 2 hours to go through my bed time routine, and I haven't even started. So I'd better leave off for now...
~ Meg
Yesterday was pretty busy ("busy" considering the limits put on me by my health condition). One of the main things, and somewhat of a stressor, is that since I'm living from disability check to disability check right now I'd run out of money and couldn't even afford my prescription refills until yesterday, when I got monthly deposit. I had to pay rent and then get the refills. But when I went to pick up the refills the computer communication with my insurance company was down. I was given a 2-day emergency supply, but my kitchen table was already taken up with the baggies that I use to portion everything (including a bunch of supplements - which also cost a bundle but are a tremendous help to my functionality) out for the week. It's so easy for me to make mistakes and when I get rushed I can very easily also forget to do or take this or that prescription or doctor-ordered health-maintenance activity. So I have to try to keep a routine as much as possible to limit errors.
I was finally able to get the prescriptions last night, but I was really wiped out and didn't quite finished. Then I had to go to BJ's and the Vitamin Shoppe today to pick up some other necessities... so much for my paycheck. I do get one other one later in the month too, though.
I'm pretty tired now too, but I've spent the evening going over some of my records and journals from the period I want to discuss here. I also have a list of things to discuss in the lead-up to Vienna (1987-1989). So I am working on it, but it's just a bit slow going here.
It's late though, and it takes me 1 or 2 hours to go through my bed time routine, and I haven't even started. So I'd better leave off for now...
~ Meg
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
28. Photo Journal (with Commentary)
One of the main reasons I have to jump around quite a bit chronologically is to be able to provide examples of certain things span various periods in my life. But as we move closer to a more detailed analysis of what happened in Vienna, Austria, I'm going to have to make sure I have all my ducks in a row and have covered the major things that need addressing as a lead up to that period.
But for this post, I'd like to present some photos that correspond with things we've already discusses. After all, on the Internet, I could just be anyone and how do you know this isn't all made up unless I provide some evidence to the contrary. And even if it wasn't on the Internet, you may or may not believe me then either. That's a lot of why I began these posts with a couple of major pieces of evidence to increase my credibility and also to hopefully convince you that I might be worth listening to and might have something worthwhile to say. But at this point in the game I confess that I'm getting a little nervous because it's risky for me to be so open about some things.
But for now, let's focus on these photos I've picked out from my modest collection.
***
Pictures 1 & 2: Summer 1980
These two pictures were taken the first summer I began my intermittent work with Soviet emigres.
The first photograph was taken on an evening program we put together which included music, preaching and a skit. Here we are dramatizing the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:23-35), which describes a scene in which a lord asked repayment of debts from servants who owed him. In this process, one beseeches the master to hold off and he will pay him back, and, being moved, the master lets him go. But in turn, the forgiven servant goes asking repayment from those who owe him money. When of of his debtors similarly begs forbearance of him, however, he denies him his request and has him sent to prison. When the master hears this he calls his servant to him and reneges on his earlier kindness and has him punished for nonpayment of the debt. The message is that if we are forgiven, we should turn around and likewise forgive your offenders. I'm the one in the yellow t-shirt.
The second photo was taken on a retreat that we put on for the emigrants. Here we are in a group photo. I'm sitting down at the end on the left.
We did a lot of other things, including leading English classes, helping with material needs as we were able, providing a Russian library they could borrow books from, having Russian vacation Bible school, and the like.
That summer I was full-time, if only for the summer, but later on when I lived and went to school there I also helped out as I could, such as manning the emigrant center once a week in the morning and doing some visitation.
***
Pictures 3 & 4: Sept. 1981, France
These pictures were taken during the ten-days I was a delegate with the Seattle-Nantes Sister City exchange.
The man in the front on the left in the first picture is Mr. Noyes, the one who physicist who worked with my father. He is taking with Lise, who is from Seattle, but worked in the sister city office in Nantes; she was also the one who picked me up the first night when I came in so late after that timing mix-up with the trains that I mentioned in an earlier post. Even though I was very wiped out after the long trip and short night sleep I still arrived in time for the official welcoming of the group by the mayor at city hall the next morning at 9 a.m. prompt, and there's a newspaper photo of the group from that morning which I should have somewhere.
The woman to the right who looks like she's talking was the mistress of the family who I stayed with after the first night. She came on several of the excursions with us as she was available to do so. They had 3 lovely children, and I remember meeting them for the first time the next morning (we had a long day and the kids were in bed by the time I got there in the evening) and they were all ready for school and lined up to meet me. They were very sweet kids.
The second picture was taken on one of our excursions, this one to the salt marshes where the famous "fleur de sel" is harvested. If you're unfamiliar with that salt, you can read with David Lebovitz has to say about it here: http://www.davidlebovitz.com/archives/2006/09/fleur_de_sel_de_1.html.
We really were taken on some wonderful excursion and treated to some fabulous food (and wine) while on that exchange. The mayor of Seattle was supposed to be with us, but the election was in November, and so he felt he had to attend more to campaigning.
***
Pictures 5 & 6: Oct. 1981, Klender Dijk Park, Holland
When S., the Italian gal in our group and I went to Amsterdam on one of our long weekend breaks from studying in Belgium, we took a day trip to this windmill park, which includes trails and historic village-type buildings. (I really like those outdoor museums!). We didn't stick together as a group once the bus brought us there, and in the second picture here you see S. on a bridge over a canal as we wandered around the park.
I don't know what S. would think if she saw these pictures, because her major was photography and she had some lovely photos.
***
Pictures 7 & 8: Oct. 1981, Madrid
The top picture here is of the 4 of us (I'm in the back on the left) at a restaurant in Madrid that we found and liked so much that we went back to it. Not only was the food wonderful, but with the strong dollar we got a full meal, with appetizers and dessert and wine for about $5!
Then in the second picture we were sort of given special attention and the musicians singled us out and played for us which was kind of fun too. It felt like a real local place that Spaniards frequented, rather than a tourist spot, which was an extra draw for us too.
***
Pictures 9 & 10, Nov. 1981, Stockholm & Copenhagen
After our group settled down for another month of study, this time in Germany, we once again took advantage of the long weekends to travel around. This trip to Stockholm was the longest trip I took on a weekend break, but the weather was gray in Stockholm, so I didn't want to show you my dismal outdoor museum pictures from there. You'll just have to trust me that this picture of my exchange student friend was taken in Stockholm. We had train transfers in Copenhagen which gave a little time to explore around, and you'll probably recognized this famous mermaid statue from the harbor there.
***
Pictures 11 & 12, Summer, 1983, Austria
These pictures were taken the summer I was on a short-term summer ministry, stationed in Vienna. Specifically, these two were from my work in the refugee camp at Bad Kreuzen. Austria had set up dorm-type apartments for refugees from all over, but many from Eastern Europe at that time. Hungarians, Poles and Czechs were amongst those we spent time with. We did a lot of different things while there including just chatting or going mushroom picking in the woods around the town. But we also had Bible studies and children's groups and helped with language learning and the like. We were always careful to time our visits after the meal times, because otherwise they were likely to give us the lion's share of their food out of their generosity.
The top picture is taken of me and a Hungarian women we visited a lot when I was with the refugee camp team. While each of the people in the refugee camps had various claims for requesting refugee status, this woman had a somewhat unique situation because she had to colored children, and because of that she wasn't well accepted.
On the week's we were at the refugee camp we actually lived in another nearby town in a gasthaus where our room and board were both provided. As we were preparing to leave for the summer our hausfrau, the woman that ran the house, gifted us a bottle of wine, which you see in this photo. I kept in touch for a long time with a bunch of people from that summer, including some of the people on our refugee team (and also some of the refugees we worked with).
***
I hope you understand that I'm not just showing you these pictures just for the heck of it, but to let you get to know me more and to give you some more evidence to back my words so that hopefully my credibility will be built up as I continue on. I don't exactly have concrete evidence for every little thing I say, so I have to at least show you that my story is reasonably credible.
These pictures show fun times and fun things, but not everything along the way has been so pleasant.
But for this post, I'd like to present some photos that correspond with things we've already discusses. After all, on the Internet, I could just be anyone and how do you know this isn't all made up unless I provide some evidence to the contrary. And even if it wasn't on the Internet, you may or may not believe me then either. That's a lot of why I began these posts with a couple of major pieces of evidence to increase my credibility and also to hopefully convince you that I might be worth listening to and might have something worthwhile to say. But at this point in the game I confess that I'm getting a little nervous because it's risky for me to be so open about some things.
But for now, let's focus on these photos I've picked out from my modest collection.
***
Pictures 1 & 2: Summer 1980
These two pictures were taken the first summer I began my intermittent work with Soviet emigres.
The first photograph was taken on an evening program we put together which included music, preaching and a skit. Here we are dramatizing the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:23-35), which describes a scene in which a lord asked repayment of debts from servants who owed him. In this process, one beseeches the master to hold off and he will pay him back, and, being moved, the master lets him go. But in turn, the forgiven servant goes asking repayment from those who owe him money. When of of his debtors similarly begs forbearance of him, however, he denies him his request and has him sent to prison. When the master hears this he calls his servant to him and reneges on his earlier kindness and has him punished for nonpayment of the debt. The message is that if we are forgiven, we should turn around and likewise forgive your offenders. I'm the one in the yellow t-shirt.
The second photo was taken on a retreat that we put on for the emigrants. Here we are in a group photo. I'm sitting down at the end on the left.
We did a lot of other things, including leading English classes, helping with material needs as we were able, providing a Russian library they could borrow books from, having Russian vacation Bible school, and the like.
That summer I was full-time, if only for the summer, but later on when I lived and went to school there I also helped out as I could, such as manning the emigrant center once a week in the morning and doing some visitation.
***
Pictures 3 & 4: Sept. 1981, France
These pictures were taken during the ten-days I was a delegate with the Seattle-Nantes Sister City exchange.
The man in the front on the left in the first picture is Mr. Noyes, the one who physicist who worked with my father. He is taking with Lise, who is from Seattle, but worked in the sister city office in Nantes; she was also the one who picked me up the first night when I came in so late after that timing mix-up with the trains that I mentioned in an earlier post. Even though I was very wiped out after the long trip and short night sleep I still arrived in time for the official welcoming of the group by the mayor at city hall the next morning at 9 a.m. prompt, and there's a newspaper photo of the group from that morning which I should have somewhere.
The woman to the right who looks like she's talking was the mistress of the family who I stayed with after the first night. She came on several of the excursions with us as she was available to do so. They had 3 lovely children, and I remember meeting them for the first time the next morning (we had a long day and the kids were in bed by the time I got there in the evening) and they were all ready for school and lined up to meet me. They were very sweet kids.
The second picture was taken on one of our excursions, this one to the salt marshes where the famous "fleur de sel" is harvested. If you're unfamiliar with that salt, you can read with David Lebovitz has to say about it here: http://www.davidlebovitz.com/archives/2006/09/fleur_de_sel_de_1.html.
We really were taken on some wonderful excursion and treated to some fabulous food (and wine) while on that exchange. The mayor of Seattle was supposed to be with us, but the election was in November, and so he felt he had to attend more to campaigning.
***
Pictures 5 & 6: Oct. 1981, Klender Dijk Park, Holland
When S., the Italian gal in our group and I went to Amsterdam on one of our long weekend breaks from studying in Belgium, we took a day trip to this windmill park, which includes trails and historic village-type buildings. (I really like those outdoor museums!). We didn't stick together as a group once the bus brought us there, and in the second picture here you see S. on a bridge over a canal as we wandered around the park.
I don't know what S. would think if she saw these pictures, because her major was photography and she had some lovely photos.
***
Pictures 7 & 8: Oct. 1981, Madrid
The top picture here is of the 4 of us (I'm in the back on the left) at a restaurant in Madrid that we found and liked so much that we went back to it. Not only was the food wonderful, but with the strong dollar we got a full meal, with appetizers and dessert and wine for about $5!
Then in the second picture we were sort of given special attention and the musicians singled us out and played for us which was kind of fun too. It felt like a real local place that Spaniards frequented, rather than a tourist spot, which was an extra draw for us too.
***
Pictures 9 & 10, Nov. 1981, Stockholm & Copenhagen
After our group settled down for another month of study, this time in Germany, we once again took advantage of the long weekends to travel around. This trip to Stockholm was the longest trip I took on a weekend break, but the weather was gray in Stockholm, so I didn't want to show you my dismal outdoor museum pictures from there. You'll just have to trust me that this picture of my exchange student friend was taken in Stockholm. We had train transfers in Copenhagen which gave a little time to explore around, and you'll probably recognized this famous mermaid statue from the harbor there.
***
Pictures 11 & 12, Summer, 1983, Austria
These pictures were taken the summer I was on a short-term summer ministry, stationed in Vienna. Specifically, these two were from my work in the refugee camp at Bad Kreuzen. Austria had set up dorm-type apartments for refugees from all over, but many from Eastern Europe at that time. Hungarians, Poles and Czechs were amongst those we spent time with. We did a lot of different things while there including just chatting or going mushroom picking in the woods around the town. But we also had Bible studies and children's groups and helped with language learning and the like. We were always careful to time our visits after the meal times, because otherwise they were likely to give us the lion's share of their food out of their generosity.
The top picture is taken of me and a Hungarian women we visited a lot when I was with the refugee camp team. While each of the people in the refugee camps had various claims for requesting refugee status, this woman had a somewhat unique situation because she had to colored children, and because of that she wasn't well accepted.
On the week's we were at the refugee camp we actually lived in another nearby town in a gasthaus where our room and board were both provided. As we were preparing to leave for the summer our hausfrau, the woman that ran the house, gifted us a bottle of wine, which you see in this photo. I kept in touch for a long time with a bunch of people from that summer, including some of the people on our refugee team (and also some of the refugees we worked with).
***
I hope you understand that I'm not just showing you these pictures just for the heck of it, but to let you get to know me more and to give you some more evidence to back my words so that hopefully my credibility will be built up as I continue on. I don't exactly have concrete evidence for every little thing I say, so I have to at least show you that my story is reasonably credible.
These pictures show fun times and fun things, but not everything along the way has been so pleasant.
Monday, August 2, 2010
27. A Bedtime Story
For something different, I'm presenting you with a story I wrote some years ago. I submitted it to the magazine "The Wittenberg Door", but they said they were changing their focus and it didn't fit in with the new focus.
And to ward off any potential protest about this story, I will tell you up front that it is a spoof on modern day mission practices, looking at how these practices would have affected the early Church.
Without any further ado...
***
Missions in Hostile Lands: Only the Beginning...
Part I
The year was A.D. 44 and the city was Antioch. The fledgling church was growing by leaps and bounds, but mainly in one centralized area. At this time there was a church that had a missionary vision to reach the uttermost ends of the earth with the Good News of Jesus Christ. That was the church of Antioch, where we begin our tale. Since it was deemed unwise and foolhardy to begin missionary activities without the proper missionary structure, they set out to form their own, the world's first Christian missionary organization, founded A.D. 44: The Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch. Since they were the first they could do whatever they wanted, basically. But they decided that they needed to appoint a governing board of eminent church leaders in order to give the nascent organization a public image and acceptability. They found a group of such men who agreed with their doctrinal statement and aims. Then they had to set up a home office to process all the receipts of missionary support, take on administration responsibilities for the work of the missionaries' activities, and provide a support for the missionaries they sent out. This took about a year to accomplish, which brings us to A.D. 45.
Now as the church was debating about the need to fill a vacant position in the ministry to the Gentiles and praying that God would show them who would be best for this position, they just happened to receive applications, complete with references and transcripts from two men named Paul and Barnabas. They had been making the circuits around churches and Bible schools and they had met Paul in Damascus where he was found preaching to the believers. Paul later met Barnabas and suggested that they together consider joining up with this new venture.
After the mission leaders and board had sufficiently deliberated the matter, comparing their application papers with those of others, they decided to consider accepting them into their newly-formed mission organization. However, first they had to go through candidates' course to learn the policies of the organization and meet the leadership and allow the leadership to get to know them likewise. Then within about a month's time after all of the appropriate boards and committees had given their blessing on the acceptance of these two men and given them a job description for the role that they would play in the ministry, they sent them back home to raise support. By the time the applications had been considered, the (first) annual candidates' course had come and gone, and they had been accepted another year had gone by.
For the next year, A.D. 46, these two men each sent out circular letters requesting financial support and going around from church to church and meeting with individuals to extol the work being done in that part of the world by their chosen mission board and explain the part that they personally would have in it as well. After the necessary pledges for prayer and financial support had been received and sufficient initial finances had been raised to begin their ministry, they set off for Cyprus with the blessing of their sending board and supporters back home.
Finally, in A.D. 47 Paul and Barnabas set out on the first missionary journey sponsored by this sending agency. Eventually others also joined the mission, such as Silas and John Mark. This mission specialized in church planting and used the traveling evangelist/teacher approach to missionary work. Later on other modes of missionary work were developed, but this was the early primitive approach used in those days.
Part II
At this time there was great opposition to the gospel in this part of the world. Opposition came both from Jews and also from heathen believers in false gods. To better protect their missionaries from having to risk being imprisoned or stoned, the Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch created certain rules and safeguards for its workers. Among them was a code of secrecy, which is so secret that we are only aware of its existence today, but know nothing of the details of its contents.
However, I must say that we do know that this is why Paul was a tentmaker and why he worked in this profession while at the same time evangelizing the heathen. You see, these men had to sneak into these regions and cities because of the great opposition to the gospel. If they hadn't done so they would most certainly have risked both their freedom and their very life. It is only because such safegaurds were not in place, in fact, that Stephen lost his life for the sake of the gospel. But these wise mission leaders had learned from that incident, as well as from the experiences of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ Himself.
So Paul was sent out to make tents in the places he went to. Now granted, he really did know something about this trade, too, so it wasn't as if it was like completely pulling the wool over the government officials' eyes. It was fortunate that this territory was completely under Roman rule and that Paul was a Roman citizen, however, because he didn't have to worry about getting passports and visas. But nonetheless, as soon as it was found out that he and his coworkers did more than make tents they still faced the risks I've already mentioned, namely stoning or imprisonment.
Part III
Now the leadership of the Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch was careful about maintaining unity and controlling the movements of its workers. After all, it couldn't be that its missionaries would just up and go wherever they wanted. That would be very chaotic and sloppy. And what would the supporters back home say? The mission leadership had to know what its workers were doing and why and where and with whom in order to keep accounts and make reports. And they were the ones responsible to make major decisions, such as where their workers went, what they did there, why and with whom. That was there job. Actually, it is a misnomer that the bureaucracy is a 20th century invention. It actually began centuries ago in a little known city called Antioch by a long forgotten mission board.
In case you haven't gathered yet, the Scriptural account in the book of Acts really leaves a lot of gaps in the story which modern scholarship has unearthed. You've probably heard of the Macedonian call? Well, it's obvious that they didn't have telephones back then, so there was no literal call like we think of today. However, the account in Acts 16:6-11 is somewhat misleading. At this point Paul and Timothy are together, Paul and Barnabas having split ways over whether to take John Mark or not just before this. Paul and Timothy had wanted to go on to Galatia, but when they sought permission from their mission board, they were denied. Something about it not being advisable or not in their overall plan for the mission or something along those lines.
So they proceeded on to Mysia and from there intended to go to Bithynia, but again their mission intervened. So they eventually agreed with their mission that they should go to Troas. From there their mission sent word to them that they should go on to Macedonia to help the people there. It's a good thing that Paul and Timothy had such good connections with their home office, because they would have surely been at a loss as to where to go. They probably would have wandered around the subcontinent of Asia Minor until some kind soul took them in. But thanks to the diligent oversight of their mission they ended out in a place where they were needed.
I don't know about you, but I think that it's just amazing how mature this early mission board was. Today we have all the experience of centuries of mission work and we have come to much the same ways of doing things as they did way back then. Think of it, the very first mission board doing things the right way. So meticulously and assiduously. Sometimes we like to pat ourselves on the back for having come so far, but in actuality that's just an illusion. We really haven't progressed passed what this early board did and was. We think that we've progressed on to bigger and better things, when in actuality we haven't. We're still at square one. I don't mean that to be a put down to modern missions, though, but rather a tribute to the Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch.
Part IV
Well, as I already said, the Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch was conscientious about not putting its missionaries through unnecessary risks. I don't mean to imply that they didn't have any faith or anything, but it's just that their faith was a little different than we think it was. Since these regions where they worked were so hostile to the gospel it was quite the rational thing to do, to protect their workers. After all, who would go out on such a mission if there was no protection? People like John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and Stephen don't come along just every day, you know. And this mission had grand plans of growing and becoming powerful. After all, it was the first mission ever and it had a right to do so. And besides, since they were the first, they were the specialists in how to minister to this part of the world. And they could set the standards, too. They could, in a word, do whatever they wanted.
Also, if their workers had to take great risks for their work they might have trouble raising support. Churches and supporters back home would wonder why they lost so many workers. It doesn't look good to show on a report that you took in 10 new workers, 5 others were stoned to death and another 7 were imprisoned for various lengths of time. And you just don't hide facts like those, especially the stonings. Eventually you have to inform a missionary's supporters back home that he has expired so they don't need to send any more funds designated in his name.
So here's what they came up with. In the places where the gospel was poorly received they wouldn't do street preaching and they would curtail synagogue appearances, too. Instead, they quietly set up small group Bible studies, did friendship evangelism, left tracts secretly in public places and offered correspondence Bible courses. These types of ministries were safer because they weren't so public and you could really get to know the people you were ministering to (although they might not have realized that that was what you were doing) to judge if you could trust them or not.
In fact this was a rather effective measure from one standpoint, in that the number of missionary casualties due to stoning or imprisonment was greatly reduced. And this seemed to more than make up for the fact that it also resulted in less people being reached with the gospel.
Part V
I do think the Acts account is very incredible. It's amazing the wisdom and insight we find in the lives of these early church fathers. I can see how they made the pages of Scripture.
Our mission that we've been working with now for some time, the Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch, still had other tricks up its sleeves, though, that have amazingly enough carried down to this day. I told you already about Paul and Barnabas breaking up over John Mark. Well that was nothing. I mean it, I'm serious! Before long there got to be other church groups and denominations. They split up and went their own ways, just like Paul and Barnabas did. Well, you know already how antagonistic some cities were to the gospel. But I haven't mentioned yet that the believers in those days could be almost as vicious towards each other. Fortunately this died out some where in the 16th century or so.
You see, they all understood that they were after a limited resource: the souls of men for the gospel. And each group viewed the other as contrary to their own and in competition with their own.
So to attract people to their group and keep them away from others they passed out broadsides and spoke in church against the others. In those days, you must realize, there was no New Testament, and so no supreme authority to tell them how they should act. If they had only known what we know today they wouldn't have acted so I'm sure. This is really a blotch on church history, and probably a predecessor to the Inquisition. Since they didn't have Scripture, the New Testament, to refer to, they reverted to primitive tactics like name calling and gossip to try to win over people to their side. However, the Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch was very good at keeping this from being known, which is why so few people know about it to this day. The thing is that since they worked in such a difficult part of the world, secrecy was vital to the success of their work and once you learn to work within that framework it's easy to apply it to other issues and situations as well.
Part VI
Missionaries who went out with the Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch were required to raise their own support, as I already mentioned at the beginning of this series. However, today I need to elaborate more on exactly what that entailed. The largest portion of the total amount to be raised went to their living and ministry expenses, as you'd probably expect. Another part of that total figure went to support administrative expenses (the home office), taxes and retirement. However, what you might not have been aware of is that there was also a set amount to raise for the use of bribes. Now before you get too bent out of shape about that, let me explain a bit. You see, the difficult situations that these missionaries found themselves in occasionally required advanced planning as to how to get out of them. One method that they found very effective was to give the authorities bribes in order to gain their freedom, when detained or imprisoned, or the like.
This came in very useful in Paul's meeting with Felix in Caesarea. Paul knew that Felix wasn't really interested in the gospel and that it would be useless to waste his time behind bars when he could very easily use the brains God had given him, which he did, to get himself free. Felix used to call Paul to himself regularly. At first Paul put up with his detainment, and tried some of the other means of gaining freedom, such as calling his embassy. But when none of that proved to be of any help he finally decided that the better part of valor is wisdom and that meant he should give into Felix's wishes to receive a bribe from him. After having done that he was quickly freed and continued with his preaching in secret as before, this time being somewhat more careful not to get caught.
Part VII
Today I want to let you in on some more secrets about the Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch. As you've seen, there are strengths and weaknesses to this mission board, just like always. No board is perfect, you know. After all we're all children of Adam and Eve and tainted by the fall, and it's fallen people who make up organizations. So far we've seen, however, that this mission board has a lot going for it, except for what I said earlier about the rivalries and how those were handled; very badly.
GMS of A still had more practices and policies, however, that we haven't even begun to touch on. One of them was that it took in everyone who was a mature Christian, had good references, could raise the necessary support and...well, you know, just like today. But there was another thing that they did that was a great time and money saver, which was to dispense with the study of target language and cultures of the places they were going to. This way, their workers must have saved a good year of preparation time plus all the money that would have been spent on that process. Talk about good management. These guys were really on the ball.
Every once in a while there was a problem with this, but rarely. The thing was that Latin was the international tongue and most people knew Latin anyway. If you were members of the Roman Empire chances are you had the opportunity to learn it somewhere along the way. This was extremely convenient for the mission.
However, there were a few times when a problem arose because of sidestepping this issue. They were minor, really, and wouldn't have justified the expense of time and money for learning a language or culture.
One such rare incident was in Athens, which is in Greece, and they speak Greek there. Paul didn't know Greek however. And he really didn't know anything about the Greek culture either. The sermon from Mars' Hill we have recorded in Acts 17 has been touched up somewhat and does not accurately represent the original. In actuality, a local scribe took notes on Paul's sermon there, which archeologists have only very recently discovered. The truth of the matter is that Paul spoke with a translator and he actually didn't know what to make of all their gods. The scriptural account is much shorter than it really was and Paul really rambled on. He mostly talked about Jesus fulfilling Old Testament prophecy and the like. That's actually why so many people reacted negatively to his preaching. However, GMS of A got a hold of the Acts manuscripts before they went public and touched them up to make their worker look better. It's a shame to use such a cover up tactic, but it worked! For so many centuries we all thought Paul's sermon on Mars' Hill was a brilliant showpiece of cultural sensitivity. That's how skilled GMS of A was at pulling the wool over people's eyes.
Fortunately, however, these situations were few it seems and so the lack of linguistic and cultural knowledge little effected the ministry of these first missionaries.
Part VIII
I already told you some about rival groups forming. Well, there was another sort of similar issue that bore on ministry in those early days of mission work too. It seems like there are always a few troublemakers who don't like change. The Pharisees weren't too happy about this new sect, for example, the "Christians". They really went all out to destroy this group of reformers. Well, the Christians also had their troublemakers. Some didn't like the things I've been telling you about here and got really all bent out of shape about it. They took to publishing pamphlets and preaching against these adaptations in ministry techniques. It got pretty hot, let me tell you.
You'd think that having the right doctrine would be enough for these guys, but no, that wasn't so. Not only did they require accuracy in doctrine, but in practice and ministry, too. The reformers, the progressive GMS of A'ers, thought, of course, that their attackers were completely out of line and simply too conservative. After all, it didn't say anything in Scripture about not doing these things, well, not really or directly it didn't. So they in turn labeled their attackers "legalistic."
The "legalistic" Christians insisted on a ministry based on faith, which meant being willing to risk persecution and being bold. As you can imagine, they had quite a tough time of it and suffered quite some number of casualties. Their numbers remained small, too, although it must be admitted that their adherents were quite faithful and true to their faith.
The progressives, on the other hand, suffered little in their ministry and prospered in numbers too. They were seen as moving the gospel forward into a new era. A lot of their adherents weren't so faithful, but their movement was effective in reaching the lost. These two groups never did combine forces and for a time the conflict between them was downright base and dirty. You wouldn't think that Christians could act like that, but we should be honest with ourselves and admit to such dark blotches on Church history too. Fortunately, however, the progressives seemed to win over eventually and the legalists were isolated from the mainstream of Christianity. If it hadn't been for that then missions might look quite different than they do today, which is terribly hard to imagine.
Part IX
This is the last in this series on the GMS of A mission. I hope that you have found it enlightening and informative.
Remember how I already told you how GMS of A took very careful precautions in protecting the welfare of its workers? Well, occasionally they weren't able to prevent mishaps. You probably remember the incident with Paul and Silas in prison. That was an awful day for the mission and a terrible mar on its reputation, before both the public authorities and the supporters back home.
So what happened in this incident? I mean, what really happened? Paul and Silas were quietly leading a house church group, which evidently the authorities had found out about. They barged into the meeting and disrupted it, taking Paul and Silas away to prison. They couldn't figure out how the police found out about them, because they had been so careful about changing location and who they trusted with the knowledge of where the meeting was being held each time. Plus, the police were supposed to think that Paul was just a tentmaker. That meant that his cover was blown. It was a disaster. I'm sure you can imagine.
Well, when they got to the prison, Paul took immediate action by calling his embassy. His embassy went straight to work on the matter, contacting the Philippian authorities and ordering them to free their citizens. In this manner the situation became somewhat political, but you have to understand: it was all meant for the sake of the gospel and the protection of innocent people.
The next morning he and Silas were let go. But they had to leave the city. They were afraid to go see any of the believers for fear of causing more trouble, so they just quietly snuck away, intending to have someone else go visit the Philippian believers to ease their concerns for them.
Well, now you have a picture of what the world's very first Christian mission was like. I know it's a little different picture than what you have in the book of Acts, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that the gospel was preached and now here you and I are believers, maybe because of the work of that first mission!
And to ward off any potential protest about this story, I will tell you up front that it is a spoof on modern day mission practices, looking at how these practices would have affected the early Church.
Without any further ado...
***
Missions in Hostile Lands: Only the Beginning...
Part I
The year was A.D. 44 and the city was Antioch. The fledgling church was growing by leaps and bounds, but mainly in one centralized area. At this time there was a church that had a missionary vision to reach the uttermost ends of the earth with the Good News of Jesus Christ. That was the church of Antioch, where we begin our tale. Since it was deemed unwise and foolhardy to begin missionary activities without the proper missionary structure, they set out to form their own, the world's first Christian missionary organization, founded A.D. 44: The Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch. Since they were the first they could do whatever they wanted, basically. But they decided that they needed to appoint a governing board of eminent church leaders in order to give the nascent organization a public image and acceptability. They found a group of such men who agreed with their doctrinal statement and aims. Then they had to set up a home office to process all the receipts of missionary support, take on administration responsibilities for the work of the missionaries' activities, and provide a support for the missionaries they sent out. This took about a year to accomplish, which brings us to A.D. 45.
Now as the church was debating about the need to fill a vacant position in the ministry to the Gentiles and praying that God would show them who would be best for this position, they just happened to receive applications, complete with references and transcripts from two men named Paul and Barnabas. They had been making the circuits around churches and Bible schools and they had met Paul in Damascus where he was found preaching to the believers. Paul later met Barnabas and suggested that they together consider joining up with this new venture.
After the mission leaders and board had sufficiently deliberated the matter, comparing their application papers with those of others, they decided to consider accepting them into their newly-formed mission organization. However, first they had to go through candidates' course to learn the policies of the organization and meet the leadership and allow the leadership to get to know them likewise. Then within about a month's time after all of the appropriate boards and committees had given their blessing on the acceptance of these two men and given them a job description for the role that they would play in the ministry, they sent them back home to raise support. By the time the applications had been considered, the (first) annual candidates' course had come and gone, and they had been accepted another year had gone by.
For the next year, A.D. 46, these two men each sent out circular letters requesting financial support and going around from church to church and meeting with individuals to extol the work being done in that part of the world by their chosen mission board and explain the part that they personally would have in it as well. After the necessary pledges for prayer and financial support had been received and sufficient initial finances had been raised to begin their ministry, they set off for Cyprus with the blessing of their sending board and supporters back home.
Finally, in A.D. 47 Paul and Barnabas set out on the first missionary journey sponsored by this sending agency. Eventually others also joined the mission, such as Silas and John Mark. This mission specialized in church planting and used the traveling evangelist/teacher approach to missionary work. Later on other modes of missionary work were developed, but this was the early primitive approach used in those days.
Part II
At this time there was great opposition to the gospel in this part of the world. Opposition came both from Jews and also from heathen believers in false gods. To better protect their missionaries from having to risk being imprisoned or stoned, the Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch created certain rules and safeguards for its workers. Among them was a code of secrecy, which is so secret that we are only aware of its existence today, but know nothing of the details of its contents.
However, I must say that we do know that this is why Paul was a tentmaker and why he worked in this profession while at the same time evangelizing the heathen. You see, these men had to sneak into these regions and cities because of the great opposition to the gospel. If they hadn't done so they would most certainly have risked both their freedom and their very life. It is only because such safegaurds were not in place, in fact, that Stephen lost his life for the sake of the gospel. But these wise mission leaders had learned from that incident, as well as from the experiences of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ Himself.
So Paul was sent out to make tents in the places he went to. Now granted, he really did know something about this trade, too, so it wasn't as if it was like completely pulling the wool over the government officials' eyes. It was fortunate that this territory was completely under Roman rule and that Paul was a Roman citizen, however, because he didn't have to worry about getting passports and visas. But nonetheless, as soon as it was found out that he and his coworkers did more than make tents they still faced the risks I've already mentioned, namely stoning or imprisonment.
Part III
Now the leadership of the Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch was careful about maintaining unity and controlling the movements of its workers. After all, it couldn't be that its missionaries would just up and go wherever they wanted. That would be very chaotic and sloppy. And what would the supporters back home say? The mission leadership had to know what its workers were doing and why and where and with whom in order to keep accounts and make reports. And they were the ones responsible to make major decisions, such as where their workers went, what they did there, why and with whom. That was there job. Actually, it is a misnomer that the bureaucracy is a 20th century invention. It actually began centuries ago in a little known city called Antioch by a long forgotten mission board.
In case you haven't gathered yet, the Scriptural account in the book of Acts really leaves a lot of gaps in the story which modern scholarship has unearthed. You've probably heard of the Macedonian call? Well, it's obvious that they didn't have telephones back then, so there was no literal call like we think of today. However, the account in Acts 16:6-11 is somewhat misleading. At this point Paul and Timothy are together, Paul and Barnabas having split ways over whether to take John Mark or not just before this. Paul and Timothy had wanted to go on to Galatia, but when they sought permission from their mission board, they were denied. Something about it not being advisable or not in their overall plan for the mission or something along those lines.
So they proceeded on to Mysia and from there intended to go to Bithynia, but again their mission intervened. So they eventually agreed with their mission that they should go to Troas. From there their mission sent word to them that they should go on to Macedonia to help the people there. It's a good thing that Paul and Timothy had such good connections with their home office, because they would have surely been at a loss as to where to go. They probably would have wandered around the subcontinent of Asia Minor until some kind soul took them in. But thanks to the diligent oversight of their mission they ended out in a place where they were needed.
I don't know about you, but I think that it's just amazing how mature this early mission board was. Today we have all the experience of centuries of mission work and we have come to much the same ways of doing things as they did way back then. Think of it, the very first mission board doing things the right way. So meticulously and assiduously. Sometimes we like to pat ourselves on the back for having come so far, but in actuality that's just an illusion. We really haven't progressed passed what this early board did and was. We think that we've progressed on to bigger and better things, when in actuality we haven't. We're still at square one. I don't mean that to be a put down to modern missions, though, but rather a tribute to the Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch.
Part IV
Well, as I already said, the Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch was conscientious about not putting its missionaries through unnecessary risks. I don't mean to imply that they didn't have any faith or anything, but it's just that their faith was a little different than we think it was. Since these regions where they worked were so hostile to the gospel it was quite the rational thing to do, to protect their workers. After all, who would go out on such a mission if there was no protection? People like John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and Stephen don't come along just every day, you know. And this mission had grand plans of growing and becoming powerful. After all, it was the first mission ever and it had a right to do so. And besides, since they were the first, they were the specialists in how to minister to this part of the world. And they could set the standards, too. They could, in a word, do whatever they wanted.
Also, if their workers had to take great risks for their work they might have trouble raising support. Churches and supporters back home would wonder why they lost so many workers. It doesn't look good to show on a report that you took in 10 new workers, 5 others were stoned to death and another 7 were imprisoned for various lengths of time. And you just don't hide facts like those, especially the stonings. Eventually you have to inform a missionary's supporters back home that he has expired so they don't need to send any more funds designated in his name.
So here's what they came up with. In the places where the gospel was poorly received they wouldn't do street preaching and they would curtail synagogue appearances, too. Instead, they quietly set up small group Bible studies, did friendship evangelism, left tracts secretly in public places and offered correspondence Bible courses. These types of ministries were safer because they weren't so public and you could really get to know the people you were ministering to (although they might not have realized that that was what you were doing) to judge if you could trust them or not.
In fact this was a rather effective measure from one standpoint, in that the number of missionary casualties due to stoning or imprisonment was greatly reduced. And this seemed to more than make up for the fact that it also resulted in less people being reached with the gospel.
Part V
I do think the Acts account is very incredible. It's amazing the wisdom and insight we find in the lives of these early church fathers. I can see how they made the pages of Scripture.
Our mission that we've been working with now for some time, the Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch, still had other tricks up its sleeves, though, that have amazingly enough carried down to this day. I told you already about Paul and Barnabas breaking up over John Mark. Well that was nothing. I mean it, I'm serious! Before long there got to be other church groups and denominations. They split up and went their own ways, just like Paul and Barnabas did. Well, you know already how antagonistic some cities were to the gospel. But I haven't mentioned yet that the believers in those days could be almost as vicious towards each other. Fortunately this died out some where in the 16th century or so.
You see, they all understood that they were after a limited resource: the souls of men for the gospel. And each group viewed the other as contrary to their own and in competition with their own.
So to attract people to their group and keep them away from others they passed out broadsides and spoke in church against the others. In those days, you must realize, there was no New Testament, and so no supreme authority to tell them how they should act. If they had only known what we know today they wouldn't have acted so I'm sure. This is really a blotch on church history, and probably a predecessor to the Inquisition. Since they didn't have Scripture, the New Testament, to refer to, they reverted to primitive tactics like name calling and gossip to try to win over people to their side. However, the Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch was very good at keeping this from being known, which is why so few people know about it to this day. The thing is that since they worked in such a difficult part of the world, secrecy was vital to the success of their work and once you learn to work within that framework it's easy to apply it to other issues and situations as well.
Part VI
Missionaries who went out with the Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch were required to raise their own support, as I already mentioned at the beginning of this series. However, today I need to elaborate more on exactly what that entailed. The largest portion of the total amount to be raised went to their living and ministry expenses, as you'd probably expect. Another part of that total figure went to support administrative expenses (the home office), taxes and retirement. However, what you might not have been aware of is that there was also a set amount to raise for the use of bribes. Now before you get too bent out of shape about that, let me explain a bit. You see, the difficult situations that these missionaries found themselves in occasionally required advanced planning as to how to get out of them. One method that they found very effective was to give the authorities bribes in order to gain their freedom, when detained or imprisoned, or the like.
This came in very useful in Paul's meeting with Felix in Caesarea. Paul knew that Felix wasn't really interested in the gospel and that it would be useless to waste his time behind bars when he could very easily use the brains God had given him, which he did, to get himself free. Felix used to call Paul to himself regularly. At first Paul put up with his detainment, and tried some of the other means of gaining freedom, such as calling his embassy. But when none of that proved to be of any help he finally decided that the better part of valor is wisdom and that meant he should give into Felix's wishes to receive a bribe from him. After having done that he was quickly freed and continued with his preaching in secret as before, this time being somewhat more careful not to get caught.
Part VII
Today I want to let you in on some more secrets about the Gentile Missionary Society of Antioch. As you've seen, there are strengths and weaknesses to this mission board, just like always. No board is perfect, you know. After all we're all children of Adam and Eve and tainted by the fall, and it's fallen people who make up organizations. So far we've seen, however, that this mission board has a lot going for it, except for what I said earlier about the rivalries and how those were handled; very badly.
GMS of A still had more practices and policies, however, that we haven't even begun to touch on. One of them was that it took in everyone who was a mature Christian, had good references, could raise the necessary support and...well, you know, just like today. But there was another thing that they did that was a great time and money saver, which was to dispense with the study of target language and cultures of the places they were going to. This way, their workers must have saved a good year of preparation time plus all the money that would have been spent on that process. Talk about good management. These guys were really on the ball.
Every once in a while there was a problem with this, but rarely. The thing was that Latin was the international tongue and most people knew Latin anyway. If you were members of the Roman Empire chances are you had the opportunity to learn it somewhere along the way. This was extremely convenient for the mission.
However, there were a few times when a problem arose because of sidestepping this issue. They were minor, really, and wouldn't have justified the expense of time and money for learning a language or culture.
One such rare incident was in Athens, which is in Greece, and they speak Greek there. Paul didn't know Greek however. And he really didn't know anything about the Greek culture either. The sermon from Mars' Hill we have recorded in Acts 17 has been touched up somewhat and does not accurately represent the original. In actuality, a local scribe took notes on Paul's sermon there, which archeologists have only very recently discovered. The truth of the matter is that Paul spoke with a translator and he actually didn't know what to make of all their gods. The scriptural account is much shorter than it really was and Paul really rambled on. He mostly talked about Jesus fulfilling Old Testament prophecy and the like. That's actually why so many people reacted negatively to his preaching. However, GMS of A got a hold of the Acts manuscripts before they went public and touched them up to make their worker look better. It's a shame to use such a cover up tactic, but it worked! For so many centuries we all thought Paul's sermon on Mars' Hill was a brilliant showpiece of cultural sensitivity. That's how skilled GMS of A was at pulling the wool over people's eyes.
Fortunately, however, these situations were few it seems and so the lack of linguistic and cultural knowledge little effected the ministry of these first missionaries.
Part VIII
I already told you some about rival groups forming. Well, there was another sort of similar issue that bore on ministry in those early days of mission work too. It seems like there are always a few troublemakers who don't like change. The Pharisees weren't too happy about this new sect, for example, the "Christians". They really went all out to destroy this group of reformers. Well, the Christians also had their troublemakers. Some didn't like the things I've been telling you about here and got really all bent out of shape about it. They took to publishing pamphlets and preaching against these adaptations in ministry techniques. It got pretty hot, let me tell you.
You'd think that having the right doctrine would be enough for these guys, but no, that wasn't so. Not only did they require accuracy in doctrine, but in practice and ministry, too. The reformers, the progressive GMS of A'ers, thought, of course, that their attackers were completely out of line and simply too conservative. After all, it didn't say anything in Scripture about not doing these things, well, not really or directly it didn't. So they in turn labeled their attackers "legalistic."
The "legalistic" Christians insisted on a ministry based on faith, which meant being willing to risk persecution and being bold. As you can imagine, they had quite a tough time of it and suffered quite some number of casualties. Their numbers remained small, too, although it must be admitted that their adherents were quite faithful and true to their faith.
The progressives, on the other hand, suffered little in their ministry and prospered in numbers too. They were seen as moving the gospel forward into a new era. A lot of their adherents weren't so faithful, but their movement was effective in reaching the lost. These two groups never did combine forces and for a time the conflict between them was downright base and dirty. You wouldn't think that Christians could act like that, but we should be honest with ourselves and admit to such dark blotches on Church history too. Fortunately, however, the progressives seemed to win over eventually and the legalists were isolated from the mainstream of Christianity. If it hadn't been for that then missions might look quite different than they do today, which is terribly hard to imagine.
Part IX
This is the last in this series on the GMS of A mission. I hope that you have found it enlightening and informative.
Remember how I already told you how GMS of A took very careful precautions in protecting the welfare of its workers? Well, occasionally they weren't able to prevent mishaps. You probably remember the incident with Paul and Silas in prison. That was an awful day for the mission and a terrible mar on its reputation, before both the public authorities and the supporters back home.
So what happened in this incident? I mean, what really happened? Paul and Silas were quietly leading a house church group, which evidently the authorities had found out about. They barged into the meeting and disrupted it, taking Paul and Silas away to prison. They couldn't figure out how the police found out about them, because they had been so careful about changing location and who they trusted with the knowledge of where the meeting was being held each time. Plus, the police were supposed to think that Paul was just a tentmaker. That meant that his cover was blown. It was a disaster. I'm sure you can imagine.
Well, when they got to the prison, Paul took immediate action by calling his embassy. His embassy went straight to work on the matter, contacting the Philippian authorities and ordering them to free their citizens. In this manner the situation became somewhat political, but you have to understand: it was all meant for the sake of the gospel and the protection of innocent people.
The next morning he and Silas were let go. But they had to leave the city. They were afraid to go see any of the believers for fear of causing more trouble, so they just quietly snuck away, intending to have someone else go visit the Philippian believers to ease their concerns for them.
Well, now you have a picture of what the world's very first Christian mission was like. I know it's a little different picture than what you have in the book of Acts, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that the gospel was preached and now here you and I are believers, maybe because of the work of that first mission!
26. And the Beat Goes On ... And On... And On...
It's time really to have something light and pleasant to talk about here. But this is my life and this is what it's like.
So I how do I manage to do as well as I am, all things considered?
First of all, I do have resources to fall back on, such as my education and learning through experiences and personal research. I told someone earlier this year that one way I deal with things in my life, especially bizarre ones that smack of politics, is to research them to see if there are any clues in the (scientific) literature out there that can help me make sense of things. Not everyone can do it, either because of genetics of some other cause of inadequate intellect, or because they don't know how to because of lack of formal education. Fortunately for me I've had enough enough of both to help me wade through this without completely drowning.
The other is having family, including now deceased relatives, and friends that were in a position to help me at various times in my life; not everyone has that. However, I must say that in hind sight, some of those cases of assistance (from particular individuals) were with later-to-be-realized strings attached. These kinds of strings go something like this: If I help you you are eternally indebted to me and had better be forever kind to me, not disagree with me, and never cross me.
More specifically, people who help me like that might think something like this (and I'm thinking of specific examples as I write this):
1) "If I don't help you I'm going to look like a jerk, so I want everyone to notice what a good person I am in extending this arm of help to you. (And I also want you to come under my close tutelage so that I can make sure you don't cross me.)"
2) "I may be the cause of part of your problems in the first place, but after I help you you're going to have a hard time proving that to others because your credibility will be diminished."
3) "I'm helping you, but I want you (and everyone else) to know what a terrific sacrifice I'm making in doing so."
4) "You're getting a lot of attention for all your unusual problems (esp. political ones) and I want to join you in the limelight. Let me help you."
5) "Finally, (it looks like) you're seeing it my way, let me help you."
Among the people who I don't think thought like this were friends, my Grandmother and my Great Uncle. So I really can differentiate and don't across the board think that everyone is like this (which some of my detractors would undoubtedly like to argue).
****
I want to apologize if you found it difficult to read yesterday's image. I increased the clarity as much as I could. Even if you click on the image to enlarge it you still have to strain to read it. There might be a better way to do it, but I haven't figured it out, especially with my equipment (I have a new computer & all-in-one printer, but I use Adobe Acrobat as the software for scanning (because I can do multiple pages in one PDF and also save the images as JPEGs). My Acrobat is an old version though (v. 6.0).
****
I'd like to discuss one more thing about my father here. I told you earlier that he virtually never got angry or expressed displeasure. After I left my early childhood years, somewhere around 10 years old, I hardly ever experienced his displeasure. For the most part I was a "good" teenager, and when I did do things that did or should have garnered his (and mom's) displeasure, they may or may not have known about them, and usually I was just sort of following along with others and it wasn't out of my own malice or particular desire. Still, I think we've all been told to "just say 'no'" and those things were still wrong, but at least I wasn't hardened to continue in those activities. In junior high I did get in a bit of trouble, but it really had no bearing on things that happened later. So, for example, even if I skipped school it was a major shock to teachers even and I only ever did that a very few times, and wasn't involved in anything bad (like drugs or the like) while playing hookie.
But there were some things that I think may have involved political aspects that displeased dad.
As I started studying Russian my sophomore year in college there were a couple things I brought home to sort of play with: One was that the word for brother in Russian is "brat" - although it's pronounced more like our (American) English "brought" (I trust you can figure out how that could be used in fun, considering I had 2 brothers); and the other was that I learned that they were more prone to use patronymics than last names in Russian. So my name using that system would be something like this: Meg Markovna. Dad really didn't like that and I thought it was strange then, as I otherwise hadn't realized any of what was in store for me later. He didn't get mad, like bark at me or anything, but it sort of made him tighten up, look like he was biting his tongue from saying something. I didn't think it was any big deal, though, so I didn't let it deter me from using the patronymic.
The other thing was in Russia, and here we jump ahead to winter 1993. By that time I'd had a lot of problems, to say the least - and you ain't seen nothin' yet, really - so I had put together a 1000+ page report including documentation to submit to a human rights agency. I was able to find someone in my city who was supposed to be a representative of a human rights organization out of Germany. When I gave her the report she said she would submit it to the German organization and also to a Russian Duma member, who would have it translated into Russian. (That's a lot of translating!)
When Mom and Dad came to visit me, it was after we'd been estranged and they came to see me after I lost my child (I'll go into that another time) and had spend 6 weeks in the hospital. The time they were there was rocky for us in many ways, but at one point my dad (here's where the anger/displeasure comes in) asked me bluntly why I had written a report in Russian - someone in Washington (east coast Washington) had contacted him about it. My Dad at this point had been retired almost 2 years.
I leave you with that to ponder the possible significance of these things. I'm afraid that if I try to explain things you might think I'm crazy... but I'll get to that later, but I will say that I have significant evidence to prove that as of this writing I am not crazy.
I do want to add here, though, that after my paternal Grandmother's death they were going through her 99 years worth of possessions, which included a life-long practice of writing a journal. I don't know what exactly triggered it, but I have since then heard from different family members, notably my Mom and brothers, that something in those journal entries made him angry towards me. Like I said, I'm not sure what exactly what in the journals was the trigger, but I suspect it had something to do with my talks with Grandmother about my father. These are some of the scenarios I consider when I wonder what was going through his head that made him angry:
1) Cr*p (sorry, I seldom use such language, but I thought it suitable here)! this girl (me) understood more than I gave her credit for!
2) Cr*p! I worked so hard at maintaining my image and I can't believe that although I helped her so much, like helping her get out of Russia (more on that later, too), how could she talk about me like this? Ungrateful S.O.B. (that would be me)!
3) Cr*p! You mean she came to the States (from Russia), came to Seattle, and saw her Grandmother and not me/us (Mom and him)? And I love her so much!
These may not be the only options, but I find any and/or all of them to be fairly credible.
~ Meg
So I how do I manage to do as well as I am, all things considered?
First of all, I do have resources to fall back on, such as my education and learning through experiences and personal research. I told someone earlier this year that one way I deal with things in my life, especially bizarre ones that smack of politics, is to research them to see if there are any clues in the (scientific) literature out there that can help me make sense of things. Not everyone can do it, either because of genetics of some other cause of inadequate intellect, or because they don't know how to because of lack of formal education. Fortunately for me I've had enough enough of both to help me wade through this without completely drowning.
The other is having family, including now deceased relatives, and friends that were in a position to help me at various times in my life; not everyone has that. However, I must say that in hind sight, some of those cases of assistance (from particular individuals) were with later-to-be-realized strings attached. These kinds of strings go something like this: If I help you you are eternally indebted to me and had better be forever kind to me, not disagree with me, and never cross me.
More specifically, people who help me like that might think something like this (and I'm thinking of specific examples as I write this):
1) "If I don't help you I'm going to look like a jerk, so I want everyone to notice what a good person I am in extending this arm of help to you. (And I also want you to come under my close tutelage so that I can make sure you don't cross me.)"
2) "I may be the cause of part of your problems in the first place, but after I help you you're going to have a hard time proving that to others because your credibility will be diminished."
3) "I'm helping you, but I want you (and everyone else) to know what a terrific sacrifice I'm making in doing so."
4) "You're getting a lot of attention for all your unusual problems (esp. political ones) and I want to join you in the limelight. Let me help you."
5) "Finally, (it looks like) you're seeing it my way, let me help you."
Among the people who I don't think thought like this were friends, my Grandmother and my Great Uncle. So I really can differentiate and don't across the board think that everyone is like this (which some of my detractors would undoubtedly like to argue).
****
I want to apologize if you found it difficult to read yesterday's image. I increased the clarity as much as I could. Even if you click on the image to enlarge it you still have to strain to read it. There might be a better way to do it, but I haven't figured it out, especially with my equipment (I have a new computer & all-in-one printer, but I use Adobe Acrobat as the software for scanning (because I can do multiple pages in one PDF and also save the images as JPEGs). My Acrobat is an old version though (v. 6.0).
****
I'd like to discuss one more thing about my father here. I told you earlier that he virtually never got angry or expressed displeasure. After I left my early childhood years, somewhere around 10 years old, I hardly ever experienced his displeasure. For the most part I was a "good" teenager, and when I did do things that did or should have garnered his (and mom's) displeasure, they may or may not have known about them, and usually I was just sort of following along with others and it wasn't out of my own malice or particular desire. Still, I think we've all been told to "just say 'no'" and those things were still wrong, but at least I wasn't hardened to continue in those activities. In junior high I did get in a bit of trouble, but it really had no bearing on things that happened later. So, for example, even if I skipped school it was a major shock to teachers even and I only ever did that a very few times, and wasn't involved in anything bad (like drugs or the like) while playing hookie.
But there were some things that I think may have involved political aspects that displeased dad.
As I started studying Russian my sophomore year in college there were a couple things I brought home to sort of play with: One was that the word for brother in Russian is "brat" - although it's pronounced more like our (American) English "brought" (I trust you can figure out how that could be used in fun, considering I had 2 brothers); and the other was that I learned that they were more prone to use patronymics than last names in Russian. So my name using that system would be something like this: Meg Markovna. Dad really didn't like that and I thought it was strange then, as I otherwise hadn't realized any of what was in store for me later. He didn't get mad, like bark at me or anything, but it sort of made him tighten up, look like he was biting his tongue from saying something. I didn't think it was any big deal, though, so I didn't let it deter me from using the patronymic.
The other thing was in Russia, and here we jump ahead to winter 1993. By that time I'd had a lot of problems, to say the least - and you ain't seen nothin' yet, really - so I had put together a 1000+ page report including documentation to submit to a human rights agency. I was able to find someone in my city who was supposed to be a representative of a human rights organization out of Germany. When I gave her the report she said she would submit it to the German organization and also to a Russian Duma member, who would have it translated into Russian. (That's a lot of translating!)
When Mom and Dad came to visit me, it was after we'd been estranged and they came to see me after I lost my child (I'll go into that another time) and had spend 6 weeks in the hospital. The time they were there was rocky for us in many ways, but at one point my dad (here's where the anger/displeasure comes in) asked me bluntly why I had written a report in Russian - someone in Washington (east coast Washington) had contacted him about it. My Dad at this point had been retired almost 2 years.
I leave you with that to ponder the possible significance of these things. I'm afraid that if I try to explain things you might think I'm crazy... but I'll get to that later, but I will say that I have significant evidence to prove that as of this writing I am not crazy.
I do want to add here, though, that after my paternal Grandmother's death they were going through her 99 years worth of possessions, which included a life-long practice of writing a journal. I don't know what exactly triggered it, but I have since then heard from different family members, notably my Mom and brothers, that something in those journal entries made him angry towards me. Like I said, I'm not sure what exactly what in the journals was the trigger, but I suspect it had something to do with my talks with Grandmother about my father. These are some of the scenarios I consider when I wonder what was going through his head that made him angry:
1) Cr*p (sorry, I seldom use such language, but I thought it suitable here)! this girl (me) understood more than I gave her credit for!
2) Cr*p! I worked so hard at maintaining my image and I can't believe that although I helped her so much, like helping her get out of Russia (more on that later, too), how could she talk about me like this? Ungrateful S.O.B. (that would be me)!
3) Cr*p! You mean she came to the States (from Russia), came to Seattle, and saw her Grandmother and not me/us (Mom and him)? And I love her so much!
These may not be the only options, but I find any and/or all of them to be fairly credible.
~ Meg
Sunday, August 1, 2010
25. Family (Again)
I hope you've recovered from that last post. This one isn't so cognitive, but it's more problems.
I finally got up the nerve to call mom, and I think it helped that they prayed about it with me at church this morning.
The phone call started out okay; we just chit-chatted about how we were doing, which isn't a whole lot on either end considering our health issues. I could feel the competition thing, what I mentioned in my last post about "might makes right", kick in. I told her I was still sick (since December), the doctors agree that it's a virus of some kind, the infectious disease doctor wants to run more tests, and my fevers are climbing again. She just jumped right in with how someone there had a virus for a month and was sneezing and sniffling... I felt like she was making she I knew my place that my 8 month long virus is nothing much to worry about.
But then when I told her about the thyroid acting up (I'll know for sure later this week from the blood tests, but the symptoms are there) and how I expect if that's so I'll probably have my thyroid taken out. Immediately she jumped on that as being of major importance, that they're actually going to cut something in my body, which is a crisis of sorts. I told her it's no big deal, which I don't think it is. At this point it would be a lot better to have the thyroid out and have that problem all done with - I just wish I could do that with fibromyalgia and this viral thing.
Her response to the possible surgery though immediately made me feel like such knowledge would give her power and she would feel obligated to tell my brothers about it and everyone would come together, she'd be the ring-leader, and we'd all be a happy family again.
Then after she started giving me detailed updates on my brother up north, the one I lived near before having to move back here, and his kids, I interrupted her to tell her that at this point I really didn't care about them and as far as I was concerned there was no relationship there. Well, I won't bore you with all the details, but that's the gist of it.
So now, I feel like I need to share about what happened with my brother and I. This is my side of the story and I don't know exactly what he's telling people, but I know a couple things he's saying that I absolutely disagree with.
First of all, I was sick the whole time I was up there from March of '09 through January of '10, with the exception of the period from about the middle of October to the middle of December, when I came down with this bug.
I should say to begin that I was sort of afraid of how I'd do in the colder climate, because I hadn't been in a cold climate since I got fibromyalgia - before that the cold didn't bother me at all.
When I arrive up there they were having an unusually cold spring and my "fibrofog" was pretty bad. Eventually I figured out that cold and wet for me are a bad combination for my fibromyalgia. I fared better in cold and dry while there than I did in cold and wet. My fibrofog was bad enough that at one point my brother there asked me if they let me drive when I'm like that. Think senile old lady, and you'll get an idea of what fibrofog is like.
Then at the end of May I came down with really bad dizziness that even landed me in E.R. twice. On the second visit they referred me to an ear-nose-throat doctor and put me on an anti-dizziness medication that helped, but I later learned shouldn't be taken for any length of time as it could do more harm than good over the long haul. I couldn't get in to the ENT until August, however, so I was dizzy virtually all summer, although it ebbed and flowed as far as how bad it was.
During this whole time I was trying to be able to do things with my brother and the boys but it was hard because I wasn't feeling well and also still getting situated which is harder when you're not well. I really tried, but I felt like my attempts were not appreciated and I was even put down. My brother kept telling me about all the things I'd cooked in high school that even dad didn't like, and how my dad and brothers would go out to eat somewhere else afterwards.
Well, I want you to know that 1) I won the home-ec award for my graduating junior high class. In high school I made such things, and very successfully too, as beef burgundy, authentic paella, chocolate eclairs and bouche de noelle. The one thing I made that even I agreed was not good was the curried eggs - maybe I just picked a bad recipe. But even when I lived in Russia my cooking was always well received, even when my housecleaning did not meet their standards, so they weren't just being nice to me in complimenting my cooking. And last Thanksgiving I virtually single-handedly put on a very successful Thanksgiving then mom and my other brother were out visiting so we were all together. Because of my health I had to really plan ahead to have it all come together so smoothly, but it did. And then I made tons of Christmas cookies and candies that everyone liked, even such things as nanaimo bars (our family recipe) and baklava.
When I first arrived up there it was soon going to be my youngest nephew's birthday, so I offered to make a cake, and then somehow I ended out also making fondue too. I wasn't doing that well (fibrofog and just recently having arrived), and it was a cake with ice cream in it and I didn't have enough time for it to freeze right, so it wasn't perfect, and then they disagreed about the fondue, some thinking it was too "cheesy" (?). That was my first experience with my brother's criticism.
Then I was invited to their place one evening for dinner so I thought I'd make some muffins to bring along. I mean, here I was being a recipient of all my brother's giving, and it's hard to just be the recipient. So I brought these muffins over and his boys tried them and were still trying to decide what they thought of them when my brother absolutely refused to try them - they were mincemeat muffins and it turns out he's always hated mincemeat. But really, these muffins were very moist and it was like having lots of fruit in them. Still, he barked at his sons asking them if they like the muffins, but saying it in a way that assumed they didn't. So he basically made them agree with him and they started spitting the muffins out.
I was really devastated about. I mean, I'd just lost a job I really liked and did everything I could to keep it while I was having back surgery, but lost it anyway. Then I had to give up my condo, and now my brother is telling me that I can't even cook, I mean that's how I felt.
After that I told him I didn't want to eat at his place because I didn't want it to be just that I'm a recipient of his generosity if I can't also give something. I said I wouldn't mind coming over just to socialize, but not for a meal.
Then my brother had his birthday in the middle of the summer and there were a couple things he was going to do for it, but I wasn't invited to anything! I mentioned this to mom and she may have said something to him and so he agreed to at least come over to my place for a dinner. Again, you have to understand that I'm not well and it's a big deal for me to cook a whole meal like that. Usually I may cook one or 2 things a day and eat left overs otherwise, some of which I freeze. So for me to make an appetizer, main dish, side dish and dessert all in one day was very hard for me. I asked if he liked lasagna, so he liked that idea, and for dessert he said he wanted something light, because he's trying to watch his weight. I asked if a compote would be okay, and he said yes.
So then at the dinner he really liked the lasagna and the crostini. But I made a special salad with its own dressing and he didn't like that so much, the dressing I guess mostly. But then the compote he really didn't like and then he told me he hadn't even known what compote is! I had made that compote several times and I really like it, but the most important thing is I really began to think that 1) my brother is very rude about these things and doesn't seem to know how to be gracious even if he doesn't like something and I thought it was maybe good that he hadn't been oversees because he'd probably just eat at McDonald's anyway. And the other thing I began to think about is that he might be like that with his sons and maybe his ex-wife too. Maybe he does it to make up for his own securities, but it's still not right and I think to live with that kind of thing would be a kind of emotional abuse.
So now on to another aspect of my time there: how he treated his boys. The main thing I saw early on is how controlling he was. I mean, his boys are 13 and 15 and as one example, but when they were with their dad, my brother, the only friends they had over were kids that were the friends of their dad. At that age I would want to start trying to have some of my own friends and get involved in some activities at school or church or wherever on my own, and maybe even work part-time. But their time was very controlled.
In fact, I have been able to do things in the past with the kids of friends of mine. I remember taking the some of some friends in Vancouver, B.C. (they've moved since then) to Stanley Park and out to lunch. And when I was in Vienna I took the daughter of one of my friends out to the zoo and for her birthday I had her over for a fancy lunch. But could I do that kind of thing with my nephews? No way!
Then my mom gave my brother some money that he was supposed to use for us all doing something together in the summer. Eventually it was decided to go to Six Flags on a certain day when everyone could work it out in their schedule. But at the last minute I couldn't go because my dizziness took a downward spin (sorry, I couldn't resist that pun) a day or so before and didn't let up enough for me to be able to go with them. I was really upset because then that meant my nephews really weren't going to see me having fun with them at all.
But I was also very concerned about my brother's controllingness. I don't think he was always like that, but I don't know how that evolved. But then at one point in the summer, in a very spontaneous way, my youngest nephew came up to me - he took the initiative to broach me on this - and almost announced that his dad used to hit him when he was younger. I asked him if he'd left marks on him and he said he had. I told him that was wrong and that was it. But of course that really hit like a sledgehammer and verified my worst fears. And this particular nephew also has muscular dystrophy.
From mid-September to mid-October I was I was doing exercises to help retrain my brain to correctly read the divergent signals from my two ears (the left one is "over-active") and then I began my preparations for holiday cooking. I was planning to look for part-time work after the holidays, because I'd just recuperated and then we were having out-of-town family visit. That visit went well, although I think I overdid it on the Christmas baking and it ended out being too much for Mom.
But meanwhile, I got diagnosed with sleep apnea and on Dec. 21 I stopped by my brother's to pick up some cookie dough in his freezer that I would bake, but I didn't have much time because I had to go to the second sleep study to get fitted with the CPAP and see how I'd do with it. So this was pretty much an in and out zip-zip-zip visit, just enough to say "Hi, I'm here for the cookie dough, talk to you later" and that's about it. But in that short time the elder son came bounding (playfully, I thought) up the stairs and sort of gave his dad a sock in the arm. My brother just flew off the handle and punched him hard back and I thought it was in anger too. I was a bit shocked but I didn't know how to respond, and I'd been trying to find someone anyway to help advise me on how to deal with this situation I was seeing there, so I left, dropped the cookie dough at home and headed to the sleep study, which was about an hour away. The next day when I talked to mom, just our usual talk about what's going on and how we're doing and the like, and I mentioned to her what I'd seen at my brother's. As I understand it, she must have turned around after the call and called my brother up to confront him with it.
The next morning, Dec. 23, he called me from his office (I was in the apartment upstairs) and presented me with this document that you see below to sign. He even brought a friend in to be a witness.
After that and before I moved out he started threatening me that I shouldn't trash his apartment. Huh? I don't know where he got that idea. So then I found a form on-line and printed it out for him to go around the apartment and see if anything was wrong, but he said his lawyer advised him not to sign anything! Right.
I'd like to respond to some of these items here.
1. Rich did not understand about my fibromyalgia and even started saying he was tired of hearing about it. But it takes a lot for me to make myself as functional as I am and something like having to go to a laundromat is very stressful and when you don't feel well and have to sit in those uncomfortable seats if they have enough, it was like taking 5 steps backwards. Before I went up north I discussed the laundry with him and he agreed I could do it at his place.
2. Regarding being welcome or not in his office... I know he's said things about how I would go down there and talk to his secretary and it would disrupt his work. But I only went there when it was something I had to do, like sending a fax to my doctor, which my brother had offered for me to do.
3. I special ordered key chains for his boys with their names engraved on them, and also got them thumb drives that latch on to the key chain. What am I supposed to do with these now?
4. I don't even know his boys' e-mail addresses, although the elder one had e-mailed me sometime before I knew I'd even be going up there to ask for Russian recipe for his class. I think that's the only e-mail contact I've ever had with either of them. Regarding calling them, I'd only called either of them once. The time I called the younger one was when they were away and I was taking care of their dog. They had this routine that if the dog did a poop she'd get a dog biscuit. I ran out of dog biscuits. So I'd mentioned this to our other brother in Seattle and he thought it was funny and suggested corking the dog. So I called the younger nephew and asked when they thought they'd be picking up their dog because we had this sort of emergency with no dog biscuits. You understand, this was all in fun and joking. I think I also called the other nephew once, but I can't remember why.
5. ? Okay. However, he has called me since as the conduit of news about mom. I guess this restriction only goes one way.
6. Oh thank you. I hate to put you out.
7. I found out from the local RCIL office that he could not legally evict me. The RCIL representative said that an eviction had to come from a judge, and since there was no rent agreement and I didn't pay any rent it is highly unlikely that any judge would order an eviction notice. However, getting the signatures and having a witness is a nice faux-legal step. At that point I DID NOT want to stay and do not intend to have any contact with that brother EVER.
8. Like I said above, he seemed to think I'm the apartment trashing type, which is pure idiocy.
9. I don't know what he means by undermining, but I think it means something like letting the cat out of the bag regarding how he treats his sons. I ended out calling family protective services because I had enough concern and would not have any more contact with them to be able to do anything if there really was a serious problem there. I don't know if they acted on it or not, but it's out of my hands now, and I am not reneging on my conviction that there is some unhealthy parenting going on there.
How would you respond to something like this? I was really shocked, and at least one person I talked with said my mom shouldn't have called my brother about the Dec. 21 incident.
On top of it, I was starting to get sick and when I went to the Dec. 21 sleep study they took my vital signs, and found out I had a fever. Before that I just thought it was my fibromyalgia acting up, but a fever isn't fibromyalgia; I'd been feeling unusually worn down and tired. On Dec. 24 I had a fever of 101.8 and I was on 2 rounds of antibiotics before leaving there and driving back down here. Not long after I arrived here I had another relapse, following the 2nd antibiotic, and may have at that point even developed pneumonia as a secondary infection. I'm still on prescription nasal apray and inhalant too.
The previous summer I'd told mom of some of my concerns about what was going on there and she told me that she'd had concerns for years about my brother's strictness with his boys. But after talking to my brother and since then she (and my other brother too) have sided with my brother. I think it's a matter of risks involved in pushing my brother too far. I told one person before leaving up there that I was the most "expendable" person in the family because I don't have a necessary role to play. Mom isn't strong enough to risk alienating either one of them, and my brother in Seattle isn't going to risk his relationship with our other brother, the one up north, over this. Mom's going to try to patch things up though, and my brother up north might try to too, to make it look like he's the big caring brother despite my causing so many problems. (He's so magnanimous!).
Women are supposed to respond to men being loving protectors, right? Yeah, right.
Here's hoping that you're family is doing better than mine! What a soap opera... talk about drama - we got it.
Till next time,
~ Meg
I finally got up the nerve to call mom, and I think it helped that they prayed about it with me at church this morning.
The phone call started out okay; we just chit-chatted about how we were doing, which isn't a whole lot on either end considering our health issues. I could feel the competition thing, what I mentioned in my last post about "might makes right", kick in. I told her I was still sick (since December), the doctors agree that it's a virus of some kind, the infectious disease doctor wants to run more tests, and my fevers are climbing again. She just jumped right in with how someone there had a virus for a month and was sneezing and sniffling... I felt like she was making she I knew my place that my 8 month long virus is nothing much to worry about.
But then when I told her about the thyroid acting up (I'll know for sure later this week from the blood tests, but the symptoms are there) and how I expect if that's so I'll probably have my thyroid taken out. Immediately she jumped on that as being of major importance, that they're actually going to cut something in my body, which is a crisis of sorts. I told her it's no big deal, which I don't think it is. At this point it would be a lot better to have the thyroid out and have that problem all done with - I just wish I could do that with fibromyalgia and this viral thing.
Her response to the possible surgery though immediately made me feel like such knowledge would give her power and she would feel obligated to tell my brothers about it and everyone would come together, she'd be the ring-leader, and we'd all be a happy family again.
Then after she started giving me detailed updates on my brother up north, the one I lived near before having to move back here, and his kids, I interrupted her to tell her that at this point I really didn't care about them and as far as I was concerned there was no relationship there. Well, I won't bore you with all the details, but that's the gist of it.
So now, I feel like I need to share about what happened with my brother and I. This is my side of the story and I don't know exactly what he's telling people, but I know a couple things he's saying that I absolutely disagree with.
First of all, I was sick the whole time I was up there from March of '09 through January of '10, with the exception of the period from about the middle of October to the middle of December, when I came down with this bug.
I should say to begin that I was sort of afraid of how I'd do in the colder climate, because I hadn't been in a cold climate since I got fibromyalgia - before that the cold didn't bother me at all.
When I arrive up there they were having an unusually cold spring and my "fibrofog" was pretty bad. Eventually I figured out that cold and wet for me are a bad combination for my fibromyalgia. I fared better in cold and dry while there than I did in cold and wet. My fibrofog was bad enough that at one point my brother there asked me if they let me drive when I'm like that. Think senile old lady, and you'll get an idea of what fibrofog is like.
Then at the end of May I came down with really bad dizziness that even landed me in E.R. twice. On the second visit they referred me to an ear-nose-throat doctor and put me on an anti-dizziness medication that helped, but I later learned shouldn't be taken for any length of time as it could do more harm than good over the long haul. I couldn't get in to the ENT until August, however, so I was dizzy virtually all summer, although it ebbed and flowed as far as how bad it was.
During this whole time I was trying to be able to do things with my brother and the boys but it was hard because I wasn't feeling well and also still getting situated which is harder when you're not well. I really tried, but I felt like my attempts were not appreciated and I was even put down. My brother kept telling me about all the things I'd cooked in high school that even dad didn't like, and how my dad and brothers would go out to eat somewhere else afterwards.
Well, I want you to know that 1) I won the home-ec award for my graduating junior high class. In high school I made such things, and very successfully too, as beef burgundy, authentic paella, chocolate eclairs and bouche de noelle. The one thing I made that even I agreed was not good was the curried eggs - maybe I just picked a bad recipe. But even when I lived in Russia my cooking was always well received, even when my housecleaning did not meet their standards, so they weren't just being nice to me in complimenting my cooking. And last Thanksgiving I virtually single-handedly put on a very successful Thanksgiving then mom and my other brother were out visiting so we were all together. Because of my health I had to really plan ahead to have it all come together so smoothly, but it did. And then I made tons of Christmas cookies and candies that everyone liked, even such things as nanaimo bars (our family recipe) and baklava.
When I first arrived up there it was soon going to be my youngest nephew's birthday, so I offered to make a cake, and then somehow I ended out also making fondue too. I wasn't doing that well (fibrofog and just recently having arrived), and it was a cake with ice cream in it and I didn't have enough time for it to freeze right, so it wasn't perfect, and then they disagreed about the fondue, some thinking it was too "cheesy" (?). That was my first experience with my brother's criticism.
Then I was invited to their place one evening for dinner so I thought I'd make some muffins to bring along. I mean, here I was being a recipient of all my brother's giving, and it's hard to just be the recipient. So I brought these muffins over and his boys tried them and were still trying to decide what they thought of them when my brother absolutely refused to try them - they were mincemeat muffins and it turns out he's always hated mincemeat. But really, these muffins were very moist and it was like having lots of fruit in them. Still, he barked at his sons asking them if they like the muffins, but saying it in a way that assumed they didn't. So he basically made them agree with him and they started spitting the muffins out.
I was really devastated about. I mean, I'd just lost a job I really liked and did everything I could to keep it while I was having back surgery, but lost it anyway. Then I had to give up my condo, and now my brother is telling me that I can't even cook, I mean that's how I felt.
After that I told him I didn't want to eat at his place because I didn't want it to be just that I'm a recipient of his generosity if I can't also give something. I said I wouldn't mind coming over just to socialize, but not for a meal.
Then my brother had his birthday in the middle of the summer and there were a couple things he was going to do for it, but I wasn't invited to anything! I mentioned this to mom and she may have said something to him and so he agreed to at least come over to my place for a dinner. Again, you have to understand that I'm not well and it's a big deal for me to cook a whole meal like that. Usually I may cook one or 2 things a day and eat left overs otherwise, some of which I freeze. So for me to make an appetizer, main dish, side dish and dessert all in one day was very hard for me. I asked if he liked lasagna, so he liked that idea, and for dessert he said he wanted something light, because he's trying to watch his weight. I asked if a compote would be okay, and he said yes.
So then at the dinner he really liked the lasagna and the crostini. But I made a special salad with its own dressing and he didn't like that so much, the dressing I guess mostly. But then the compote he really didn't like and then he told me he hadn't even known what compote is! I had made that compote several times and I really like it, but the most important thing is I really began to think that 1) my brother is very rude about these things and doesn't seem to know how to be gracious even if he doesn't like something and I thought it was maybe good that he hadn't been oversees because he'd probably just eat at McDonald's anyway. And the other thing I began to think about is that he might be like that with his sons and maybe his ex-wife too. Maybe he does it to make up for his own securities, but it's still not right and I think to live with that kind of thing would be a kind of emotional abuse.
So now on to another aspect of my time there: how he treated his boys. The main thing I saw early on is how controlling he was. I mean, his boys are 13 and 15 and as one example, but when they were with their dad, my brother, the only friends they had over were kids that were the friends of their dad. At that age I would want to start trying to have some of my own friends and get involved in some activities at school or church or wherever on my own, and maybe even work part-time. But their time was very controlled.
In fact, I have been able to do things in the past with the kids of friends of mine. I remember taking the some of some friends in Vancouver, B.C. (they've moved since then) to Stanley Park and out to lunch. And when I was in Vienna I took the daughter of one of my friends out to the zoo and for her birthday I had her over for a fancy lunch. But could I do that kind of thing with my nephews? No way!
Then my mom gave my brother some money that he was supposed to use for us all doing something together in the summer. Eventually it was decided to go to Six Flags on a certain day when everyone could work it out in their schedule. But at the last minute I couldn't go because my dizziness took a downward spin (sorry, I couldn't resist that pun) a day or so before and didn't let up enough for me to be able to go with them. I was really upset because then that meant my nephews really weren't going to see me having fun with them at all.
But I was also very concerned about my brother's controllingness. I don't think he was always like that, but I don't know how that evolved. But then at one point in the summer, in a very spontaneous way, my youngest nephew came up to me - he took the initiative to broach me on this - and almost announced that his dad used to hit him when he was younger. I asked him if he'd left marks on him and he said he had. I told him that was wrong and that was it. But of course that really hit like a sledgehammer and verified my worst fears. And this particular nephew also has muscular dystrophy.
From mid-September to mid-October I was I was doing exercises to help retrain my brain to correctly read the divergent signals from my two ears (the left one is "over-active") and then I began my preparations for holiday cooking. I was planning to look for part-time work after the holidays, because I'd just recuperated and then we were having out-of-town family visit. That visit went well, although I think I overdid it on the Christmas baking and it ended out being too much for Mom.
But meanwhile, I got diagnosed with sleep apnea and on Dec. 21 I stopped by my brother's to pick up some cookie dough in his freezer that I would bake, but I didn't have much time because I had to go to the second sleep study to get fitted with the CPAP and see how I'd do with it. So this was pretty much an in and out zip-zip-zip visit, just enough to say "Hi, I'm here for the cookie dough, talk to you later" and that's about it. But in that short time the elder son came bounding (playfully, I thought) up the stairs and sort of gave his dad a sock in the arm. My brother just flew off the handle and punched him hard back and I thought it was in anger too. I was a bit shocked but I didn't know how to respond, and I'd been trying to find someone anyway to help advise me on how to deal with this situation I was seeing there, so I left, dropped the cookie dough at home and headed to the sleep study, which was about an hour away. The next day when I talked to mom, just our usual talk about what's going on and how we're doing and the like, and I mentioned to her what I'd seen at my brother's. As I understand it, she must have turned around after the call and called my brother up to confront him with it.
The next morning, Dec. 23, he called me from his office (I was in the apartment upstairs) and presented me with this document that you see below to sign. He even brought a friend in to be a witness.
After that and before I moved out he started threatening me that I shouldn't trash his apartment. Huh? I don't know where he got that idea. So then I found a form on-line and printed it out for him to go around the apartment and see if anything was wrong, but he said his lawyer advised him not to sign anything! Right.
I'd like to respond to some of these items here.
1. Rich did not understand about my fibromyalgia and even started saying he was tired of hearing about it. But it takes a lot for me to make myself as functional as I am and something like having to go to a laundromat is very stressful and when you don't feel well and have to sit in those uncomfortable seats if they have enough, it was like taking 5 steps backwards. Before I went up north I discussed the laundry with him and he agreed I could do it at his place.
2. Regarding being welcome or not in his office... I know he's said things about how I would go down there and talk to his secretary and it would disrupt his work. But I only went there when it was something I had to do, like sending a fax to my doctor, which my brother had offered for me to do.
3. I special ordered key chains for his boys with their names engraved on them, and also got them thumb drives that latch on to the key chain. What am I supposed to do with these now?
4. I don't even know his boys' e-mail addresses, although the elder one had e-mailed me sometime before I knew I'd even be going up there to ask for Russian recipe for his class. I think that's the only e-mail contact I've ever had with either of them. Regarding calling them, I'd only called either of them once. The time I called the younger one was when they were away and I was taking care of their dog. They had this routine that if the dog did a poop she'd get a dog biscuit. I ran out of dog biscuits. So I'd mentioned this to our other brother in Seattle and he thought it was funny and suggested corking the dog. So I called the younger nephew and asked when they thought they'd be picking up their dog because we had this sort of emergency with no dog biscuits. You understand, this was all in fun and joking. I think I also called the other nephew once, but I can't remember why.
5. ? Okay. However, he has called me since as the conduit of news about mom. I guess this restriction only goes one way.
6. Oh thank you. I hate to put you out.
7. I found out from the local RCIL office that he could not legally evict me. The RCIL representative said that an eviction had to come from a judge, and since there was no rent agreement and I didn't pay any rent it is highly unlikely that any judge would order an eviction notice. However, getting the signatures and having a witness is a nice faux-legal step. At that point I DID NOT want to stay and do not intend to have any contact with that brother EVER.
8. Like I said above, he seemed to think I'm the apartment trashing type, which is pure idiocy.
9. I don't know what he means by undermining, but I think it means something like letting the cat out of the bag regarding how he treats his sons. I ended out calling family protective services because I had enough concern and would not have any more contact with them to be able to do anything if there really was a serious problem there. I don't know if they acted on it or not, but it's out of my hands now, and I am not reneging on my conviction that there is some unhealthy parenting going on there.
How would you respond to something like this? I was really shocked, and at least one person I talked with said my mom shouldn't have called my brother about the Dec. 21 incident.
On top of it, I was starting to get sick and when I went to the Dec. 21 sleep study they took my vital signs, and found out I had a fever. Before that I just thought it was my fibromyalgia acting up, but a fever isn't fibromyalgia; I'd been feeling unusually worn down and tired. On Dec. 24 I had a fever of 101.8 and I was on 2 rounds of antibiotics before leaving there and driving back down here. Not long after I arrived here I had another relapse, following the 2nd antibiotic, and may have at that point even developed pneumonia as a secondary infection. I'm still on prescription nasal apray and inhalant too.
The previous summer I'd told mom of some of my concerns about what was going on there and she told me that she'd had concerns for years about my brother's strictness with his boys. But after talking to my brother and since then she (and my other brother too) have sided with my brother. I think it's a matter of risks involved in pushing my brother too far. I told one person before leaving up there that I was the most "expendable" person in the family because I don't have a necessary role to play. Mom isn't strong enough to risk alienating either one of them, and my brother in Seattle isn't going to risk his relationship with our other brother, the one up north, over this. Mom's going to try to patch things up though, and my brother up north might try to too, to make it look like he's the big caring brother despite my causing so many problems. (He's so magnanimous!).
Women are supposed to respond to men being loving protectors, right? Yeah, right.
Here's hoping that you're family is doing better than mine! What a soap opera... talk about drama - we got it.
Till next time,
~ Meg
24. Truth: The Search Goes On
Truth is very illusive, it seems, especially when you consider all the various opinions about what it is. It would seem on the surface that if we collectively can't even agree on a definition of truth that we're destined to eternal darkness and separation from it.
Fortunately, however, despite the fact that collectively we can't agree on what it is, individually we are often quite certain we do know what it is, so it is quite possible that individuals might find it, even if we collectively can't. Does this mean we are to live out our short lives here on earth in individual microcosms of truth? Well, that last question is beyond the scope of this particular blog post.
But I do want to discuss 3 particular conceptions of truth. [WARNING: this is likely to be a long post, so feel free to take it in chunks.]
To begin with, however, I should say that there are self-declared understandings of truth and then there are actual representations of truth. Where there is a discrepancy, that is often called hypocrisy. For example, I say that X is true, but I act as if Y (which at least appears to contradict X) is true.
So let's say I'm talking about Charlie Brown (the comic strip character)here. I can know his version of reality by his words, by his actions and/or by his thoughts. Since I'm not God and also can not psychically read minds, I can only know my thoughts, not someone else's, although psychologists will probably scream out that there are all these blind spots and different mind-bending tactics we humans use that can even warp or hinder my understanding of my own thoughts.
With that caveat in mind, and because this is my blog, I will present my version of truth based on my thoughts and the other versions of truth based mostly mostly on deeds. That may sound unfair, but like I said, it's my blog. So this posting is going to be my (albeit limited) perception of my version of truth and 2 other versions of truth by other collective entities.
Now that we got that out of the way, let the party begin!
Although I did have an introductory philosophy class in my undergraduate studies, it was in my master's class on Philosophy of Education that I consciously remember identifying with idealism. Here is part of the definition from Britannica.com:
"in philosophy, any view that stresses the central role of the ideal or the spiritual in the interpretation of experience. It may hold that the world or reality exists essentially as spirit or consciousness, that abstractions and laws are more fundamental in reality than sensory things, or, at least, that whatever exists is known in dimensions that are chiefly mental—through and as ideas."
In my class we studied various major philosophical positions, especially as related to education and teaching, and we also were asked to analyze our own views.
During that process I learned that I was a minority in that class and, according to the professor, in teaching as a whole. Realism was much better represented in our class, which apparently also is more the norm (I'm speaking of early 1990s in the USA).
In my view the person ("man") is primarily soul and our body is just a temporary house for the soul and spirit. Other than that I believe that ultimate reality and understanding of reality comes from God, and while I believe He does not contradict the physical realm, we often don't understand the physical correctly and so it is best to trust Him rather than potentially erroneous understandings of the physical world. There are plenty of examples of how science retracts itself when it is discovered that they were wrong about something that is now "proven" incorrect.
My idealism has held me in good stead, (my Achilles heel?, my fatal flaw?) when faced with apparent conflicting pressures and views. I mean, I've been in situations that the only way I could stand firm at all was by holding to my beliefs and not letting myself just be pressured into changing. I can't tell you how strengthening it feels that despite everything I managed to keep my conscious relatively clear and holding to my beliefs. However, you should already understand that I am open to change, but not by pressure: only if I come to really believe that I was wrong and need to change, usually after significant experiences and even research.
Another example of this that some people might be able to relate to regards professional ethics (any profession). Usually professional organizations put together ethics statements, which are revised from time to time as issues come up and need addressing. A lot of companies that hire professionals want their allegiance to be with the company, but professionals can be slippery folk because they often have ethical standards apart from the company they work with. This is a very limited example, but maybe you can understand idealism a bit by it.
So my truth is ultimately based mostly on idealism.
Here's where you can take a break before I go on to the next view of truth.
*** And now we will pause for station identification. ***
Now that you're refreshed and ready to plow on with me, I'll present to you the second view of truth. In this view, the proof is in the pudding... or the ends justifies the means. Who cares how you throw the pudding together, as long as it tastes good, right? I just hope Fido wasn't helping and that you washed your hands somewhere in the process. But in this view, those things don't matter - only the end result.
I'm speaking here of the mission organizations working in Eastern Europe (I held out hope that not all were so bad, but any that might not have actively been involved in such politicizing of their work just turned a blind eye regarding the others.)
It's hard for me to imagine an alternative than these missions holding to an ends justifies the means view of truth - where the end is the truth and it is displayed as truth.
The Apostle Paul sort of addresses this in Philippians chapter 1, but there he is only talking about bad motives in preaching the Gospel, not about the tactics used when he says "...whether in pretext or in truth, Christ is announced; and in this I rejoice" (1:18, Darby translation).
My understanding of how missions in Communist countries (and I believe other "closed" countries too) is that anything is allowed as long as it gives them the opportunity to reach people in these countries. That's why they can lie to border guards, take money from the CIA, maintain military connections, etc.
In Vienna we were told to explain our work to local people we might interact with by saying we work for an international publishing company. That's a partial truth, but the publishing part was only a support for the teaching, which was the primary activity of the organization. They published textbooks for the courses being taught in Eastern Europe. But, hey! it's no big deal, and ultimately by telling little white lies we can continue our work.
And when you take little steps towards relativism and John Dewey's pragmatism (which is very American) it's easy to take another step and another until before you know it you've just slid completely down the slippery slope and there you are where the ends justifies the means.
But if they are able to show significant results ("ends") to their supporters back home, and claim that the process ("means") is secret because of the delicate nature of the context they're working in, then no one is worse for the not knowing. And everyone lives happily ever after.
My contention is, however, that this whole work there was permeated with this "ends justifies the means" pragmatism so that it really did become a modus operandi. Needless to say, my idealism was not well excepted there and we had a major clash of cultures: Americans against American (me).
Phew! Two down and just one to go. Go take another break.
****
The third view on truth that I'm going to address today is that of my family. Actually, it is only fairly recently that I have come to see this as a value in the family. I learned a lot by living up north by my brother for a few months.
This view says that might makes right. That's the Capalini view of life and truth, what I call a "Capalini-ism".
Now might can be many things, such as the obvious, physical strength, but also monetary strength, prestige strength, even credibility strength or being the most incredibly needy person in the family ("woe is me! I have it so bad that if you don't feel sorry for me and help me everyone will know you're a jerk!"). Right now I'm at the bottom of the various types of strength, but since I don't hold to this view of truth and I'm in a position where I don't have much to lose anyway, I'm perhaps not as phased by it as I "should" be (according to our family social norms). I definitely don't fit in too well at present, except as a fall guy or scapegoat.
It might seem sort of strange that all these years I didn't know that those were the rules of play in my own family, but remember, I was the oldest child and only daughter and I just went about doing what I thought I was supposed to do. I didn't make choices to place myself in the family strength-wise. So now I've had to rethink some things from the past and wonder if while I was out doing my thing I may have in some way set some family standards for strength that some others thought they had to compete against. Also, I don't know this for sure now, and Dad died a few years ago, but I almost wonder if he sort of set this wheel going that way by, for example, being proud of me doing this or that resulting in a chain reaction where the others thought they had to compete for his approval against me as the standard. I'm not sure about that, but I have a suspicion that there may be at least some of that. I really am not the competitive sort, except to perhaps compete against myself for personal development.
Anyway, taking us back to the present, my brother up north has physical strength. The thinking goes like this: I'm stronger than you so knock it off (accompanied by a display of physical strength). He also holds the purse strings of the family, except me, although I don't have any money anyway, because he manages everyone's finances. But it's mom that really has the most money, but besides that her claim to right-ness is her incredible needyness and she sets a standard against which others must compete for similar attention and sympathy. My brother in Seattle, I think , has a lot of strengths, but I'm not sure they're the kind that work well in this kind of "might makes right" system. As far as this ethic goes, his proximity to and care of Mom, gives him some extra power. After my back surgery a year and a half ago I think I had some of the "needyness" strength, that even for a brief time pre-empted mom's claim to fame on that front.
In this system, if you don't wield power along the lines mentioned here, then you don't have the right to determine "truth". However, if tables turn, then understandings of truth (the details of truth) will change with the position of the players, which is determined by their strength. Hence: might makes right. Or: The person with might determines what's right.
The end.
****
So to summarize, here are these players and their views of truth:
1. Me: Idealism: What is spiritual (esp. from a Christian viewpoint) is the ultimate truth.
2. Missions to closed countries: Pragmatism/The Proof is in the Pudding: Show me results and I'll believe. (How you got there doesn't matter).
3. My family: Might makes right: Whoever is the most powerful gets the right to determine what's right and true.
I hope you get a sense of clash of cultures here. Like the children's ball game I'm the "monkey in the middle". Aaaaaghhh! Get me out of here... I don't want to play this game. Stop the world... I want off!
Wouldn't it be nice if it were so simple in real life? *Sigh*
Pardon me if I take leave with that thought and have an extended reverie about the possibility of a different reality.
~ Meg
Fortunately, however, despite the fact that collectively we can't agree on what it is, individually we are often quite certain we do know what it is, so it is quite possible that individuals might find it, even if we collectively can't. Does this mean we are to live out our short lives here on earth in individual microcosms of truth? Well, that last question is beyond the scope of this particular blog post.
But I do want to discuss 3 particular conceptions of truth. [WARNING: this is likely to be a long post, so feel free to take it in chunks.]
To begin with, however, I should say that there are self-declared understandings of truth and then there are actual representations of truth. Where there is a discrepancy, that is often called hypocrisy. For example, I say that X is true, but I act as if Y (which at least appears to contradict X) is true.
So let's say I'm talking about Charlie Brown (the comic strip character)here. I can know his version of reality by his words, by his actions and/or by his thoughts. Since I'm not God and also can not psychically read minds, I can only know my thoughts, not someone else's, although psychologists will probably scream out that there are all these blind spots and different mind-bending tactics we humans use that can even warp or hinder my understanding of my own thoughts.
With that caveat in mind, and because this is my blog, I will present my version of truth based on my thoughts and the other versions of truth based mostly mostly on deeds. That may sound unfair, but like I said, it's my blog. So this posting is going to be my (albeit limited) perception of my version of truth and 2 other versions of truth by other collective entities.
Now that we got that out of the way, let the party begin!
Although I did have an introductory philosophy class in my undergraduate studies, it was in my master's class on Philosophy of Education that I consciously remember identifying with idealism. Here is part of the definition from Britannica.com:
"in philosophy, any view that stresses the central role of the ideal or the spiritual in the interpretation of experience. It may hold that the world or reality exists essentially as spirit or consciousness, that abstractions and laws are more fundamental in reality than sensory things, or, at least, that whatever exists is known in dimensions that are chiefly mental—through and as ideas."
In my class we studied various major philosophical positions, especially as related to education and teaching, and we also were asked to analyze our own views.
During that process I learned that I was a minority in that class and, according to the professor, in teaching as a whole. Realism was much better represented in our class, which apparently also is more the norm (I'm speaking of early 1990s in the USA).
In my view the person ("man") is primarily soul and our body is just a temporary house for the soul and spirit. Other than that I believe that ultimate reality and understanding of reality comes from God, and while I believe He does not contradict the physical realm, we often don't understand the physical correctly and so it is best to trust Him rather than potentially erroneous understandings of the physical world. There are plenty of examples of how science retracts itself when it is discovered that they were wrong about something that is now "proven" incorrect.
My idealism has held me in good stead, (my Achilles heel?, my fatal flaw?) when faced with apparent conflicting pressures and views. I mean, I've been in situations that the only way I could stand firm at all was by holding to my beliefs and not letting myself just be pressured into changing. I can't tell you how strengthening it feels that despite everything I managed to keep my conscious relatively clear and holding to my beliefs. However, you should already understand that I am open to change, but not by pressure: only if I come to really believe that I was wrong and need to change, usually after significant experiences and even research.
Another example of this that some people might be able to relate to regards professional ethics (any profession). Usually professional organizations put together ethics statements, which are revised from time to time as issues come up and need addressing. A lot of companies that hire professionals want their allegiance to be with the company, but professionals can be slippery folk because they often have ethical standards apart from the company they work with. This is a very limited example, but maybe you can understand idealism a bit by it.
So my truth is ultimately based mostly on idealism.
Here's where you can take a break before I go on to the next view of truth.
*** And now we will pause for station identification. ***
Now that you're refreshed and ready to plow on with me, I'll present to you the second view of truth. In this view, the proof is in the pudding... or the ends justifies the means. Who cares how you throw the pudding together, as long as it tastes good, right? I just hope Fido wasn't helping and that you washed your hands somewhere in the process. But in this view, those things don't matter - only the end result.
I'm speaking here of the mission organizations working in Eastern Europe (I held out hope that not all were so bad, but any that might not have actively been involved in such politicizing of their work just turned a blind eye regarding the others.)
It's hard for me to imagine an alternative than these missions holding to an ends justifies the means view of truth - where the end is the truth and it is displayed as truth.
The Apostle Paul sort of addresses this in Philippians chapter 1, but there he is only talking about bad motives in preaching the Gospel, not about the tactics used when he says "...whether in pretext or in truth, Christ is announced; and in this I rejoice" (1:18, Darby translation).
My understanding of how missions in Communist countries (and I believe other "closed" countries too) is that anything is allowed as long as it gives them the opportunity to reach people in these countries. That's why they can lie to border guards, take money from the CIA, maintain military connections, etc.
In Vienna we were told to explain our work to local people we might interact with by saying we work for an international publishing company. That's a partial truth, but the publishing part was only a support for the teaching, which was the primary activity of the organization. They published textbooks for the courses being taught in Eastern Europe. But, hey! it's no big deal, and ultimately by telling little white lies we can continue our work.
And when you take little steps towards relativism and John Dewey's pragmatism (which is very American) it's easy to take another step and another until before you know it you've just slid completely down the slippery slope and there you are where the ends justifies the means.
But if they are able to show significant results ("ends") to their supporters back home, and claim that the process ("means") is secret because of the delicate nature of the context they're working in, then no one is worse for the not knowing. And everyone lives happily ever after.
My contention is, however, that this whole work there was permeated with this "ends justifies the means" pragmatism so that it really did become a modus operandi. Needless to say, my idealism was not well excepted there and we had a major clash of cultures: Americans against American (me).
Phew! Two down and just one to go. Go take another break.
****
The third view on truth that I'm going to address today is that of my family. Actually, it is only fairly recently that I have come to see this as a value in the family. I learned a lot by living up north by my brother for a few months.
This view says that might makes right. That's the Capalini view of life and truth, what I call a "Capalini-ism".
Now might can be many things, such as the obvious, physical strength, but also monetary strength, prestige strength, even credibility strength or being the most incredibly needy person in the family ("woe is me! I have it so bad that if you don't feel sorry for me and help me everyone will know you're a jerk!"). Right now I'm at the bottom of the various types of strength, but since I don't hold to this view of truth and I'm in a position where I don't have much to lose anyway, I'm perhaps not as phased by it as I "should" be (according to our family social norms). I definitely don't fit in too well at present, except as a fall guy or scapegoat.
It might seem sort of strange that all these years I didn't know that those were the rules of play in my own family, but remember, I was the oldest child and only daughter and I just went about doing what I thought I was supposed to do. I didn't make choices to place myself in the family strength-wise. So now I've had to rethink some things from the past and wonder if while I was out doing my thing I may have in some way set some family standards for strength that some others thought they had to compete against. Also, I don't know this for sure now, and Dad died a few years ago, but I almost wonder if he sort of set this wheel going that way by, for example, being proud of me doing this or that resulting in a chain reaction where the others thought they had to compete for his approval against me as the standard. I'm not sure about that, but I have a suspicion that there may be at least some of that. I really am not the competitive sort, except to perhaps compete against myself for personal development.
Anyway, taking us back to the present, my brother up north has physical strength. The thinking goes like this: I'm stronger than you so knock it off (accompanied by a display of physical strength). He also holds the purse strings of the family, except me, although I don't have any money anyway, because he manages everyone's finances. But it's mom that really has the most money, but besides that her claim to right-ness is her incredible needyness and she sets a standard against which others must compete for similar attention and sympathy. My brother in Seattle, I think , has a lot of strengths, but I'm not sure they're the kind that work well in this kind of "might makes right" system. As far as this ethic goes, his proximity to and care of Mom, gives him some extra power. After my back surgery a year and a half ago I think I had some of the "needyness" strength, that even for a brief time pre-empted mom's claim to fame on that front.
In this system, if you don't wield power along the lines mentioned here, then you don't have the right to determine "truth". However, if tables turn, then understandings of truth (the details of truth) will change with the position of the players, which is determined by their strength. Hence: might makes right. Or: The person with might determines what's right.
The end.
****
So to summarize, here are these players and their views of truth:
1. Me: Idealism: What is spiritual (esp. from a Christian viewpoint) is the ultimate truth.
2. Missions to closed countries: Pragmatism/The Proof is in the Pudding: Show me results and I'll believe. (How you got there doesn't matter).
3. My family: Might makes right: Whoever is the most powerful gets the right to determine what's right and true.
I hope you get a sense of clash of cultures here. Like the children's ball game I'm the "monkey in the middle". Aaaaaghhh! Get me out of here... I don't want to play this game. Stop the world... I want off!
Wouldn't it be nice if it were so simple in real life? *Sigh*
Pardon me if I take leave with that thought and have an extended reverie about the possibility of a different reality.
~ Meg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)