442. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 49 (Gilbert, pt. 1)

I'm venturing a short post  before I go to bed tonight.  Now that my legs are sort of recovering a bit from overdoing it last Friday (being out too long running errands - I have spinal problems, but I had been doing pretty well, so this caught me off guard), I'm catching a chest cold, and I'm on Metheltrexate, a biological medicine for rheumatoid arthritis that weakens the immune system, as one of the major side effects.  So I'm just learning how to deal with these kinds of things.  I'm afraid of letting this little chest congestion get out of hand, so now I have to pull out all the stops to get it under control.

Anyway, this next article is...

Gilbert, Bertram C. (1972, April). Value education. Military Chaplains' Review, 1(2), 49-51.

***

Some of us have justified this aspect of ministry by calling it a kind of "tent making" which puts us in a position to go about our Father's real business.  Others have considered it a duty in which we as citizens have a special talent and a special training.  Still others have considered it an entree with men and women who might not otherwise relate to us.  In any event we have been the Army's primary specialists in moral education. (p. 49)

I'm not going to deal with the obvious issue about chaplains in the Army, because I've talked about this enough, but I'm going to use this text as a jumping off point to wonder what the Vienna mission staff (which was completely comprised of U.S. reserve chaplains) were thinking vis a vis their socialization roles at the mission.  Did they think of their socialization responsibilities there as being central to their ministry, a ministry to the staff they were socializing, or something else?  How did they view it? 

Obviously it couldn't have been exactly like being in the military, but it was different enough from the usual run-of-the-mill mission that an off-the-cuff answer seems inadequate in this situation.   And then you don't really know how much influence they really had.

***

One can hardly expect a soldier to believe he is really free to speak his mind when he has just had a straight talk lecture by his sergeant on "obedience" and when he is one of 500 in a marched-to theater. (p. 51)

Amen! Preach it brother!  I can relate totally, because the same basic thing - translated to the mission context, of course - happened to me.  And that's why I shut up for a year and a half, and I think it wasn't until after I went on the women's ministry trip to Romania and I never made any effort to talk to anyone to try to prolong my stay or discuss issues or anything, but they saw that maybe I could really do something (teach, etc.), that something was going on that I wasn't talking, and they had thought that I was submitting, when I wasn't, I was just sort of biding my time.  I didn't feel free to speak my mind any more than the soldier that had been in the marched-in theater.  This guy has a mind after my own heart. 

But the thing is that it's the atmosphere, and how authority structures are set up.  In Vienna there were clear lines, even if they were approachable.   I mean, there was an open door policy, but it was always clear who the authority was, probably similar to in the military, although we didn't have ranks, per se.

So with this in mind, really the whole time I was with the mission I didn't feel free to "speak my mind" because I was thrown off guard so early on to just sort of watch to figure out what was going on and then it just unraveled to get worse and worse from there to where I completely lost trust in them and I was sent back to the U.S. and after that I never would speak my mind to them.  It was just too late at that point after they sent me back to the U.S.   Nevertheless, that doesn't mean I lived in a deaf-mute world in relation with them; no, it just means I lived in a more shallow level  in relation with them, because that's the amount of myself I allowed to be vulnerable to them for the rest of the time I was with them.  But that's all they wanted from me anyway, so they didn't notice that I withheld anything.  (They wanted me to be a secretary, and they certainly never ever gave any indication that they wanted any of my other gifts that might have been applied in Eastern Europe, until towards the end I did a little teaching in Eastern Europe.)  

So then at the end they finally understood  and my mentor, my boss', boss' secretary kept telling me the story of the little boy who refused to sit down in class and finally did, saying he was still standing up on the inside.  I was making moving preparations by the time they realized this though. 

If the Vienna mission is out to change lives, I hope it does a better job on the mission field than it did with my life.

441. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 48 (Ettershank (b), pt. 1)

I had to cancel my appointment with the optometrist this morning because it's so far away and I didn't think I could drive that far with my bad legs.  That's the thing with being in a strange city where no one knows me either.  I go to a really small church and it's hard to develop a support network when you're sick all the time.  And since I had the setback over the weekend, there was no time for me to call to get a ride to the appointment.  So there you go and that's how I end out having to miss it. 

It was set up in the first place because I wanted to have her check my eyes because of one of the biological medicines I'm on for rheumatoid arthritis.  So I have to reschedule... again.  I had to reschedule once already because another doctor rescheduled on me making me have to change her appointment.  So now I feel badly about having to change her appointment again, but there's nothing I can really do about it.  My legs just aren't up to driving 50-60 miles round trip, especially city driving.

***

This next article is:

Ettershank, John P. (1983, Fall). The chaplain's allegiance to the military. Military Chaplains' Review, 12(4), 41-46.

***

I ________, SSAN ______, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the Unied States, as indicated above in the grade of ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend The Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; SO HELP ME GOD.

A number of us have taken that oath at least twice: once when being sworn into the Army of the United States as a reservist or National Guardsman and then later in our career when we were integrated into the Regular Army. (p. 41)

This is how the article begins, and, as the text insinuates, the initial paragraph is the oath the military chaplains take in the Army, or it was at the time of publication.  I assume the variation of swear vs. affirm was to give allowance for those faiths who refused to swear by anything, so affirming would be acceptable to them, that their "yea be yea" (James 5:12).  So their merely affirming to something would be the same as the next person's swearing to it, which many Christians would agree is ideally how it should be anyway, but for these people that's the only way they will have it.  They just don't take oaths, so the government had to make this accommodation and it recognized the fealty of their word, and that it actually was as trustworthy as an oath, so it was willing to add "(or affirm)" in there. 

Of course, these things often don't come without much anguish either, so as to how the "(or affirm)" came to be there I am speculating some and I may be leaving out quite a history.  It's possible.  The U.S. military can be quite unforgiving in these kinds of things so it's possible that even this didn't come without a lot of anguish or activism.  Or maybe these people had to prove themselves on the battlefield surreptitiously first somehow. 

In the former USSR this issue of taking a vow was one of the major issues in the religious groups that held to no vow taking that caused them particular grief and suffering.  These were smaller groups, mostly around the lower Urals and around that area, maybe just to the west and east from there.  The Seventh Day Adventists were primary among these.  Even though these weren't proportionally great in number, they did have a group presence and they did have a tough time and this oath issue was a major part of the problem, largely because of the universal military conscription.  And the Soviets were less inclined to consider changing "swear" to "affirm" to account for their ethical and spiritual sensibilities. 

But where have I gotten myself in all this banter except that my 45 minute stimulator session has already ended and I should go get breakfast?  I'll be back to pick up and bring us back to Vienna in a few minutes.

 I just want to say that I'm coming up with these discussions like this about the church in Eastern Europe (when it was the Warsaw Pact and Communist Eastern Europe, mind you) on the fly because it is something I knew so well just on the tip of my tongue that I could talk about it very easily and fluently and discuss the nuances and issues and differences in regions and different parts of countries and the like.  I've become rusty now, so you can imagine how much I knew back then, so I wasn't just some upstart that came to Vienna as a secretary, right? 

So the kind of very unexpected and startling reception I recieved the first few months, although it made me step back and sort of stopped me from being open regarding how much or what I knew (any more than they were genuinely open with me I felt), it did form a backdrop from which I could understand and interpret a lot of what happened in Vienna.  So I have every reason to believe that they didn't know that I'd be doing that kind of thinking.  I don't know, for example, if the other wives who were sent back to the U.S. thought of their experience as similar to how the Soviets treated believers in trying to get the believers to change their way of thinking.

But back again to Vienna and the article.  The issue here, of course, is one of allegiance.  When I was living in Russia in the 1990s I wanted to get a dual citizenship.  I had a Vid na Zhitelsva (the Russian version of a Green Card, for those of you in the USA, otherwise, a permanent residence visa).  Russia was actually okay with that and it wouldn't have been a problem to do that as far as they were concerned.  But the U.S. wasn't.  If I had taken a Russian citizenship, in addition to the U.S. citizenship, which I had by virtue of having been born in the U.S., and the U.S. found out about it, the U.S. would have annulled my U.S. citizenship.  So I rather begrudgingly chose the U.S. citizenship, but it was not a happy choice.

So the U.S. government saw a conflict of allegiance (in general, not just in my case, because this was a general policy) in carrying both a U.S. and Russian citizenship.  This wasn't (looking at that particular moment in time) true of all national citizenships, because certainly there are many countries that the U.S. allows people to have dual citizenship with and they do not apparently see a conflict of allegiance there.  But with Russia they did.  Of course, we know the political anamosities that historically have separated the countries to make this understandable, but I'm using this as an example.  This was around 1994.

So when are allegiances unacceptable and conflictual?  Christians are ambassadors for Christ and while I believe that whatever we do we should do all to the glory to God, our first allegiance has to be to God and His Church.

Also, I don't see myself as an American (despite my U.S. passport), so much as a resident of the world and citizen of heaven.  This is not just a matter of politics, U.N. style, as it is a matter of being a part of world humanity. 

In recent years, with the decline of my health, I've had to pull back from focus on anything more than taking care of my immediate needs.  In fact, I've missed a lot of my family's milestones because I can barely keep up with my own needs.  But I still feel guilty and wonder if I could have done more and how I can rig things to do more in the future, especially now that mom's gone (even if my brothers and I have rocky relations).  So I may not appear to hold to this belief, but I do; I just am not able to act upon it as I once was.  I hope others are filling in for me.

Before I'd become ill I'd begun to learn about some alternative and creative possibilities to pursue alternatives to what we have now.  There is something called "Peace Force," which I think is a fantastic idea and has had some success, for example.  A variety of means are needed for a variety of situations though.  And since we live in a fallen world, it's not like we're going to necessarily solve all the problems this way, creating a nirvana or something.  I'm not an idealist like this.  But I do think that we need to try some alternative things that the church can be at the forefront of to make a difference and this can be a great way to show Christ in action.

But the military is going to make the chaplain take something - an allegiance or affirmation or whatever you want to call it - and there's probably no way you can get around this.  So the chaplain who feels called to the Army better feel comfortable with this, because I think that this oath is like being unequally yoked:

2 Corinthians 6:13-15

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

¹³ Now in a like exchange—I speak as to children—open wide to us also.
¹⁴ Do not be ^[a]bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? ¹⁵ Or what harmony has Christ with ^[b]Belial, or ^[c]what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?

The goals and intentions of new chaplains (the ones taking the oaths) are good, certainly, as they are concerned for the soldiers and want to have a spiritual impact on lives and maybe even institutions.  So I wouldn't necessarily question that, nor the need, as certainly, there is need, although we might quibble over the exact need(s).  If you go into the lions den - take an oath to join a secular organization - you'd better pray to remain whole.  And search your heart that you're not testing God unnecessarily by taking the oath and making this compromise.

At this point the U.S. puts Christians to shame, because they are more particular than some of us are regarding who we will be yoked with (or allow our citizens to be yoked with in dual citizenship). 

[I'm not saying whether I agree or not with the U.S.'s particular choices, but you must admit that it (the government) does understand that when you have an enemy you don't become unequally yoked with it and allow citizens to maintain dual citizenships.  Doing so would not be in national interests.  In Christian terms, we might say that it undermines our testimony.  In either case, the yoked entity ends out with influence that is otherwise undesirable, at least from the standpoint of the U.S. and the Christians, continuing with the same case studies.

So, of course the U.S. government would like the Christian to vow to join its chaplaincy.  In this case the Christian is compromising and the govermnent, being a secular entity, and, as such unequally yoked with it, undermines it, even if subtly.

I don't see how you can get around it, really, and to deny it, it seems to me, is to put your head in the sand.  I doubt that the government could ever get away with wholesale undermining of the church, at least as I know it today in the USA, although I don't know at some point in the future what may hold.  That doesn't mean that there can't be true Christianity going on in military chaplaincy efforts, because God can still use us even if we're out on a limb working in situations we are way out of wack in.  So even if all those other things I just said are true that doesn't mean God can't work through chaplains, or enlisted men or volunteers on the bases or overseas ministries to bases there or whatever.  So we may all be idiots but God somehow manages to find a way to work with us and He knows our hearts and He helps direct us down the path He has prepared for us.  So that's God's sovereignty and His grace too.  But...

Romans
5
²¹ That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

6 1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

² God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
 ...
⁶ Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
⁷ For he that is dead is freed from sin.
⁸ Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
⁹ Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
¹⁰ For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
¹¹ Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
¹² Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
¹³ Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
¹⁴ For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
¹⁵ What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
¹⁶ Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
¹⁷ But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
¹⁸ Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
¹⁹ I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
²⁰ For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
²¹ What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
²² But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Although a lot could be said about these verses, and I will let the reader make his or her own application.  If you aren't familiar with the gospel message, you can see it here in this passage.  The heart of the matter is that before Jesus came we were slaves to sin.  And that's how we all are before we become Christians.  Then we went through a spiritual rebirth when became Christians and the steps the Christ went through in his death on the cross, burial, resurrection, etc. are our spiritual experience too. Once you become a Christian you still have to learn to walk faithfully, as this passage indicates, but we have the Holy Spirit in us to help too.   If you haven't asked Christ to come into your life and forgive you and let him come and help you start a new life, this would be a good time to do it.  You can just go through these verses and pray them.

 So for the rest of us that are Christians (or are two obstinate to become Christians), I just wanted to point out that, picking up from the paragraph before the Romans passage, we should be careful not to fall into the "What shall we say then, shall we continue that grace may abound?"  or "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace?" mentality.  That is, think twice before becoming unequally yoked.  

***

None of us has ever sworn or affirmed to the military per se.  As our oath of allegiance states, our promise is to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America... Suffice it to say, I firmly believe we as commissioned chaplains owe allegiance to the military. (p. 41)

I think some of my above comments about my feeling like a world resident (but heavenly citizen) would apply here. 

It could be seen as a bit better to swear to the country instead of an armed force because it is less militaristic, and rather points to why the military might even be engaging in anything if it is engaging, and then also takes the law back to the original source.  So then it is actually more forceful and the vow extends even outside the military boundary because the source is outside the military.  So you're locked in and no escaping it, but it's more patriotic than militaristic. It would probably be easier (conscience-wise) for chaplains to wave the patriotic flag anyway than join a gun-toting full-dress parade.    So patriotic is the way to go with chaplains, I think.  Other than that, the Constitution applies to all the military branches as well, so it unites all of them together as well.

I think the chaplains in the Vienna mission also would have been the kind to believe they owed allegiance to the military.  It's just a hunch I have, really, but they just struck me as the type that felt good about their connection to the military.  Whether it was their access to the camp store or getting us into the former Hitler's Bird's Nest, at that time a U.S. military retreat center, for our bi-annual retreat, and just their demeanor.  I think they would have agreed with this author.  I am saying "they", but I actually didn't know the junior H.R. department staff as well as the director; I have no reason, however, to think he was any different than, the department director.

***

"All of our churches have adequately prepared us theologically to perform the religious services, rites, sacraments, and ordinances required by the U.S. Code." (p. 42)

I just want to say that this at first reading just now (it was underlined from my first reading in the 1990s in Minneapolis) didn't seem to add anything new.  But then I made the comparison with seminaries in the former East Bloc.  The seminaries there were mostly the ones that were government authorized, so they had to more or less compromise, depending on what country, what denomination, etc.  Some groups tried to hold underground training or one sort or another, of course, but it would have been very difficult.

But the thing was, that these groups generally did not like the government meddling in their affairs.  It's not like they had a choice in the meddling, although they tried to wheedle their way around it so they'd come out with things as much in their favor as possible.  But to voluntarily carry courses meeting U.S. code requirements!  I must admit that I'm more than a little curious as to what they'd think.  Some believers were so pro-American, though that they might not have cared.  I think this was largely a byproduct of the carelessness - or worse - of Western missionaries (the ones that I didn't want anything to do with when I was living in Siberia, for example).  However, to leave it only to the missionaries would be naive too.  There were others also having an influence.

***

The chaplain must not only possess and apply theological teaching, but also be skilled in the military arts. (p. 42)

I trust the chaplain at the Vienna mission had no intentions of applying any of those skills while with the mission.... If he is a non-weapon bearing member of the military during time of war, what is the purpose of him/her learning the military arts?  Either s/he is or s/he isn't - which is it?  Or is it just so s/he can "relate to" the soldiers better? 

How much more unequally yoked are you going to become, Mr/s. Chaplain?

***

"We were thought of as soldiers but respected and treated as chaplains." (p. 43)

I think that's mincing words. If you think of someone one way, then chances are you're going to treat him/her that way too.  How do they know they were thought of as soldiers if they weren't treated as soldiers?  The text answers this somewhat, but it's still pushing it, I think.

If in all honesty the author was able to succeed in being "thought of as a soldier, but respected and treated as a chaplain," then that would mean he did a reasonable job of balancing his being unequally yoked, since it would appear that his chaplaincy role and persona took the supremacy over his duties as a soldier. 

I'm not saying, though,  I agree with it nor that I think the measuring stick is reliable or valid or that he should even be there in the first place. 

***

This next quote is under the heading "A Humanizing Force"

I'm going to avail myself of one of those prerogatives right now.  I don't believe we serve in a de-humanizing environment.  I think the system, especially in Initial Entry Training (IET), de-personalizes individuals; this is of particular interest to TRADOC chaplains...

Once the system, through the reception station, gets trainees to look alike, the training battalion begins its work to make them act alike.  Conformity here becomes the norm: close-order drill, marching, movement in formation, performance-orientated skills with pupil-coach methodology.  Closely inter-twined with act-alike is the subtle approach towards thinking alike; unanimity; united in opinion.

And what is the trainees perception of the process? Hear it said: 'No one cares about me; only my attitude and my performance matter!"

This is a stressful time for the tranees.  They have no appreciation of what this de-personalization process seeks to accomplish.  Its purpose is to surordinate personal interest for the welfare of the group, the squad or the platoon, and to cause concern for the welfare of others.  It seeks to create interdependence instead of indepencence. (p. 45-46)

This is socialization, of course, a subject I've dealt with at some length on this blog before.  Here we have the methods and the goals both.

One thing I must say is that this author pushes here (in sections I didn't quote) for chaplains to transform this program that the Army wants to be dehumanizing - to make everyone alike - to make instead everyone wanting to look out for the group's interests, but not necessarily everyone alike, so that individuals soldiers can keep their individuality.  So he's sticking his neck out and this is Christian because it reflects how the Body of Christ is set up as all being made up of different members.  It's borderling sabotoge, but it would be for the Army's interests, if they can pull it off.  (This was written in 1983, so I'd have to look in historical records to find out.)

Okay, so getting back to the text and comparing it to my experience at the Vienna mission.  To refresh you memory - in case you read earlier posts - new members to the mission just came straggling in one by one, so you didn't have large groups of cohorts like the military did in their boot camps, so I have to right away adjust the scenario for that.

In Vienna, there definitely was a strong interest in wanting newcomers - all newcomers as far as I knew - to have a group perspective and have that be their point of reference for the duration with the mission.  The point of reference might be stronger, however, to a particular department, but there always had to be a commitment to the large group no matter who you were, even those missionaries living in Eastern Europe.  So that was definite objective of socialization.

Subordination was also an objective, but I never really understood that very well because I was moved around a lot, I always did what I was told, yet I was so often in trouble.  I never disobeyed a senior.  Yet I knew that "they" wanted me to live with the other secretary, for example.  But it wasn't as if my boss had ordered that and I had disobeyed, for example.  And most of the time I felt as if what they really wanted was for me to just bear all and completely trust them for everything, but even then I didn't know what I'd gain.  So I could do that and just make a fool of myself.  So the authority issue as stated here was very important in the Vienna mission, but I never got it.  I do know I never went in running in tears to my boss early on when I was having all the stress at work, and I think that's what I was supposed to do.

In the Vienna mission, you would never, ever have heard that no one cares about you.  For one thing, it was too intimate of a situation.  For another, it was too concerned about security and they couldn't risk anyone having a problem.  They wanted everyone to be like a big family and be able to come to one another for help if they needed it. 

Despite the caring atmosphere of the mission, the first months the new missionary is there can be difficult and, while I don't know about all the department and specialties, I think it can feel like de-personalization, depending how how much of a difficult process it is for the person.  Since I've discussed this at length elsewhere I won't belabor it here, but the mission does put together (and I think on the fly puts some together once you're there too, once they see your weaknesses, etc.).   The person has to make some moral decisions and takes a crash course that puts them into the underworld in which the mission operates.  I guess that's more or less it.

***

I guess that's it.  It took a long time to do this one too, partly because I got a crown put in in the middle of it.  Since I'd been resting all weekend trying to recuperate from Friday's overdoing it and making my legs take a turn for the worse.  So I just made the one appointment and dropped off a prescription at the drug store.  That wiped me out just doing those two.  So I'm not doing anything the rest of the day. 

440. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 47 (Fioramonti, pt. 1)

It's getting late, but I'd try to squeeze in another short post.  I'm waiting for the banana and fruit pulp to defrost a bit to make my bed-time Yo-Na-Na to go with my first round of bed-time meds.  I used to make smoothies, but I've been making these lately.

My first doctor appointment tomorrow morning is on the south side of town and I don't think my legs are up to driving that far.  I already had to reschedule that appointment once, so I feel badly about it, but I just can't see myself trying to make it.  It's frustrating, but I guess they should understand.  It's not like I planned this and I didn't know my legs would go haywire like this.

***

This next article is:

Fioramonti, Mary E. (1993, Spring). The Army chaplaincy and change. The Army Chaplaincy, 18-20.

***

The only section I'm interested in in this article is in the section titled "Use FM 22-102, Soldier Team  Development as a Guide." (p. 20)

The language in the section seems to mix development of teams/groups and development of individuals, but be that as it may, I'm particularly interested in this section under the above heading:

Every soldier goes through a formation stage.  The challenges to face include belonging and acceptance, settling personal and family concerns, and learning about leaders and other soldiers. 

The next stage is development.  A soldier learns to trust leaders and others, find close friends, decide who is in charge, accept the way things are done, adjust to feelings, and overcome family vs. unit conflict.

The final stage, sustainment, is where a soldier begins to assist and trust other team members, share ideas and feelings freely, sustain trust and confidence, share missin and values, experience feelings of pride in the unit and cope with personal and family problems.  (p. 20)

Presumably, if the H.R. staff at the Vienn mission, who were also U.S. military chaplains, and therefore trained in the kind of thing described here, the H.R. department could have included this kind of reasoning in their planning of socialization experiencees for new missionaries to the mission.  Let's see how it might have applied to my experience.

Did it look like they included some kind of acknowledgement that formation might be an issue for me (as with any new member)?  Their initial overwhelming fawning over me could be thought of this way, I think.  At least I suppose that's one way one could look at it.  And people did help explain the basic necessities for getting set up and where things were, such as getting registered with the police or opening a bank account (so I could access my money!).  On the other hand, I was thrust into a totally irrelevant (I thought) peer group, was given drivel to do which made me feel useless in the mission and like I was wasting my supporters' money.  And I was having some unusual stressors at work, such as problems with the computer, too, that I was certain was rigged, so I didn't complain about it, any more than I complained about reading computer manuals for weeks on end.

As to development there has to be a basis for the trust, at least that's how I operate, although maybe I'm strange in that way and the masses of humanity don't require this kind of thing in order to develop that trust.  Since everything possible was done in what I suppose might very loosely be considered my formative period at the Vienna mission to undermine my trust in the mission, it was impossible for me to learn to "trust leaders and others" as in the development stage in this article.  My double life fooled the leaders enough, though, that they didn't know this.  (By double life, I mean that when they sent me home to the USA I learned to keep my real thoughts hidden so well that it was like living a double life; it was the only way I could figure out how to survive there and keep my conscience.)

As to sustainment, well, it hardly seems necessary to even go there, because I practically failed formation and most definitely failed development so there was nothing to sustain.  You can only sustain what has been developed. 

One interesting question arises from this, though.  When the mission sent me back to the USA, were they hoping to get me through formation or development, or both?  I have a feeling that is was development that it would have been generally used for, because I was told that two other wives of well-appointed leaders were also sent home more or less similarly to me.  So I assume that they would have been past the formation stage, and maybe they were being groomed for a more visible position, in which development (where trust, etc.) would be significant issues.

The thing is that first of all, all the details surrounding my early months in Vienna had too many problems in Vienna and then the being sent back to the USA and how that was handled was just too much for me to even come close to ever considering it as "development," as used here in this text.  Before I left Vienna a few people tried to make it sound like I'd be back soon and things like that, but you could tell that people were tiptoeing around it, like something was not right and other people at the mission knew it too even before I left Vienna.  Of course, I never should have agreed to return to the USA, but I've discussed that elsewhere about what my options were and that I was shocked and didn't really believe them until it was right upon me that they were really going to do it.  And it's had impact on the rest of my life, so it's one of the worst things I've ever done.

So what they really needed to do was to take away the individual's free will.  That's, at least, what they would have had to do with me to make me reach the development and sustainment stage.  Just brainwash me or something.  That's what it would take, because short of that I'm not going to allow unwitting takeover of my thought processes and values, and I think that that's exactly what the mission would have been happy to do, although they would have some counseling sessions with mentors and bosses or the H.R. director to help push you over the edge or explain the nuances or overcome any lingering doubts.  But the thing is that my basic values and beliefs have come to me via study and serious thinking and, while I might not be a particularly great theologian or anything, I do mean that I don't just go along with any old thing that crosses my path either. 

I was sorry I never reached the sustainment stage.  But I never, ever could have shared my ideas and feelings freely (which I would have had to do at that stage).  That would have been a recipe for disaster and if they knew what I was feeling I can't imagine what would have happened, but I suspect that my mission term would have been cut short. 

Well, I guess that's all I have to say about this article, so I'll end here.

439. Military Chaplaincy, pt. 46 (Seidel (b), pt. 1)

I'm sorry, in the shuffle of things, I forgot that I hadn't finished going through the military chaplaincy file.  It's so hard to keep up with things and it's doubly frustrating when I want to do things but half the time I don't feel up to doing most of the things I want or half to do.  So right now at least I can do some things at the computer (some of the time - I have to lay down some too).  There's all this stuff at home to do, too, and, of course, that says nothing about what I would do if I were healthy and could get around like a healthy person. 

But we all have our limitations, and I've always been able to somehow make the best within the limitations I have.  But that doesn't mean there isn't an adjustment period.  So every time there is a change there might be a bit of adjustment, depending on the situation.  Maybe you can relate to what I'm saying.  It's just that I've been through it in some pretty extreme situations, from Vienna isolated where I had to figure things out on my own (as I thought, anyway), to Siberia, to dealing with family where I thought my father was part of my problems but would never admit it and I couldn't trust him completely. To employment problems that have left some family members to this day as pegging me as lazy or just dealing with living alone in a strange city with all these health issues and trying to rise above it. 

It's really hard, I admit.  I don't really want people to feel sorry for me, but sometimes it would be nice for mom or a good friend, for example, to put their arms around me and let me have a good cry.  I'm only human after all!  But I'm the epitome of the strong person that just forges ahead in the face of all sorts of adversity.  And by the way, I don't need anyone, especially if I sense at all that there might be any ulterior motives or hidden agenda in a potential assistant.  Or sometimes it's just that they naively try to associate me with a position, for example, such as, "I'm so glad you finally made it to the land of Capitalism and came to your senses about the wickedness of Communism." 

Whoa, Nellie!  This is referring, of course to my rescuing from Russia (I originally moved there when it was the USSR still) in 1997, in which my father played a part.  The thing is that 1) I never did like Communism.  and 2) I never did like Capitalism.  So please do not ever try to associate me with either one of these.  (Without going into reams of boringly repetitive materials from earlier posts, I think Communism errantly assumes humans are fundamently good and will of their own free will share everything.  Balderdash.  On the other hand Capitalism is sheer greed and anyone who has any understanding of sin knows that the love of money is the root of all evil.  So how can Capitalism be good, especially from a Christian standpoint? 

Just don't try to ask me, then what kind of economic system I do believe in, because I do not claim to be an economist.  I'll leave it up to the economists to try to come up with something that more closely resembles scriptural Christianity.  Of course, some might say that the early church practiced early socialism or comunism or something of that nature.  If they had the new nature and the Holy Spirit living in them, then that deals with the issue of humans not willingly sharing prossessions with each others.  The problem is, however, that, unfortunately, Christians still can sin, so even this is going to be problematic.

The other issue was that the missions I went to Vienna with were more or less openly right wing.  While I was in Russia I joined Americans United for the Separation for Church and State which seems to be represented more by liberal than conservative churches (as well as other religions), although they deal with issues across the board.  But Conservative and Fundamental Christian churches tend not to like them and the very concept of separation of church and state.  For example, conservative churches tend to want prayer - Evangelical prayer, to be specific, or the Evangelical version of the Lord's Prayer - in schools.   I think I would have been persona non gratis at the Vienna mission on the basis of my membership in this organization alone, had they known.  I would have been the enemy or at the very least not someone they would chose to divulge anything more than the route to the W.C. to, which in Austria, was usually right near the entryway, anyway.

What am I trying to say?  I guess it's just that one of the things I've had to deal with in my transitions is that when people have helped me it seems they inevitibly have preconceived ideas about me when they do help me.  But those ideas often misrepresent me.  In the USSR they were not in my best interests no matter how you look at it, although I was able to turn some things around and make some good come of it eventually.  Other times when people helped me I didn't understand; it seemed like I was being set up for something that missed the mark of where I was and what I'd become.  It's like people were thinking of me as I was years prior and not in the then and now.  I inevitably ended out tearing myself free of these shackles, as I ended out feeling them as, and I was very much misunderstood and not a lot of good came of it.  It smelled to me like it was related to dad because there were themes like there had been themes for years since the whole debacle leading up to my move to Russia.  But no one believed me any more. 

This was way after Vienna, so I'm getting ahead of myself.  When I left Russia, I knew I had to change my profession.  I changed profession after I left Vienna, so that I got a Master's degree in Adult Education and teaching certification in teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.  I tried to get into a doctoral program in sociology with a focus in peace studies, but I wasn't accepted (presumably because I didn't have a sociology background). 

Then I was accepted into a doctorate program in Adult Education, but I was interested in social justice issues, and I didn't realize that adult education in the US was so business and corporate-oriented and even ESL and literacy is so top-down focused and concerned only with making learners conform to society rather than create and have an impact, be a force for good in society, etc.  So I couldn't stand it.  That's not what I'm about.  And I got stuck with a professor that I had a feeling he might make me look bad with sexual inuendos.  A couple other doctoral students told me about rumors going around.  The thing was that I put out a post on the list serve that I wanted adult education for community development and there wasn't a program.  He'd been brought on staff the year before I came as a student, but nothing had been done yet.  So I didn't want my reputation ruined by him either, and I was being told by these two professors that I would be a professor and I was looking around at the schools and I was gagging, thinking, where do I want to be a professor?  and I jumped ship.  I wanted to direct a community program and/or do applied research (participatory, community-based, evaluation, needs assessment, etc.)

After that I had to take time out to get treated for Hepatits C which I most likely contracted in Russia in 1992 in a blood transfusion.  (Ironically, I'd gotten tested for AIDS on a trip to the USA after the operation in which the transfusion was administered, but I hadn't heard of Hepatitus C to get tested for it.]

Then I was accepted at another doctoral program I felt very excited about, but it was in Canada, and I didn't get a grant of fellowship there and I couldn't work there, because I was not Canadian.   I mapped out a nearby U.S. city and I thought I did pretty thorough study of the districts, current nonprofits and activities, the demographics, etc., etc.  I put together a plan and whatnot, but I just couldn't get funding for it.  I even found a building and had professionals come out and run estimates as to how much it would cost to fix it up, make it handicap excessible, etc.   I was really excited about it.  I know I could do it.  If my health were up, it would have been a fantastic thing to get started with inheritance monies and just prove to people, because people never believe what I can do, until I go out and prove it to the world.  So that's why I'm a loner and I like to do things on my own, because no one seems to believe in me, I guess.  And if people believe in  me, they ignore my conscience.  But my conscience, is who I am.  How can you just ignore a person's conscience?  In Vienna they did it?  They did it without a care in the world.  My dad even did it.   The Komsomols did it, but that's a no brainer.  The professors at my doctoral staff even seemed to do it.

Conscience.  Is it something that you can just take and try to make over to your image?  (like the Vienna mission) Is it something you can try to humiliate? (like the Komsols) Or is it something to just ignore and deny exists? (as dad seems to have done, not wanting to admit I changed)

All I wanted was ministry to a people I felt called to reach with the gospel.  That was my initial conscience. 

***

I wasn't going to do that... it just evolved.  That's one way to look at my life from 1987-2000.

Returning to the discussion of our texts... in my haste to just jump back in, I overlooked the fact that I hadn't finished with the Military Chaplaincy file yet.  So I'd better finish that one and then we'll go back to the Discipline & Justice File.

This article is:

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

***

"Given the biblical antagonism against selfishness in all its forms, it is not surprising that christian [sic] psychologists and theologians began to react to the unfortunate equation of a good self-image with self-love.  Paul C. Vitz in his book Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship, writes:

... Certainly Jesus Christ neither lived nor advocated a life that would qualify by today's standards as 'self-actualized.' For the Christian the self is the problem, not the potential paradise." (p. 49)

So the issue, remember is not just the teaching and what I think of it, but how it relates to my experience in Vienna.  In my experience and memory of them, the leadership - my boss, the secretaries who were mentoring me (my boss', boss' secretary in particular) and the infamous H.R. director who was the reserve U.S. military chaplain - could sort of pull these kinds of things out of a had and tweak them or focus on particular aspects according to the situation at hand and as they thought, it seemed to me at least, in their best interests. 

And when they went in counseling mode it was hardest for me to trust them because I was always certain it was a lure.  The emotional aspect of things was a lure, because they were not going to deal with things point blank.  I mean, they weren't going to deal with the kinds of things that were bothering me, at least, in a direct manner.  I think I I broached my issues directly to them they'd somehow come up with a cannon that would shoot me straight back home, and believe me, I would NOT pass go or collect $200.    I'd be out of there so fast I wouldn't know what hit me. 

The mission leaders, H.R. director included, would probably have agreed with this quote, although I knew that while I was with the mission there was one woman staffer that wasn't full time on the woman's ministry team, but did a lot of trips with them and she didn't agree with some of the staff that had nice homes in the suburbs.  Some of them, and I only saw a few, actually, were pretty well appointed I must say for missionaries.  So she really thought that missionaries shouldn't live so high on the hog, and she was somewhat disgruntled about that. 

That's not exactly the same thing, but I think it might be related to what this passage is saying.  So there may have been some variance of conviction regarding how exactly this passage might be applied in daily life.

As for myself, well, it's no great secret that my "self-actualization" was at level "0" by the time I left Vienna, so maybe I was at the perfect place for God to work in me.  Maybe that's a good way to look at it, that I hadn't seen before, and maybe I need to actually thank the mission for breaking me to make me more vulnerable for God's work.

I'm not sure if what transpired after I left Vienna, though, might be understood as God's leading necessarily.  But that is getting ahead of myself, isn't it?

At any rate, I don't think that at time in my stay in Vienna can you say I had self love.  I never really was caught up in myself, I don't think.  Even outside the mission, when I was going to the Austrian church, I worked under the auspices of the church's leadership.  But in the Austrian mission I just met nonsense after nonsense so there wasn't much for me to follow.  I'm not into a lot of games.  So I don't put up with that kind of stuff.  You either want me or you don't. 

***

"It is self-acceptance, not self-exaltation of self-depreciation (nor indeed self-love) that is commanded in scripture. Self-acceptance is taught in scripture because an adequate self-concept is necessary to function successfully in life.  Any pastor or chaplain who has been involved in counseling has noted that those who struggle with strong feelings of inferiority have a difficult time living a satisfying life.  The same may be said for those who are conceited.  Both have a very difficult time relating to other people.  Speaking of the need for an adequate self-concept, Lawrence J. Crabb has said, ".. people must accept themselves as adequate in a truly significant role if they are to honestly  regard themselves as worthwhile and so to enjoy the fullfillment of being a real person, he must be able to help him develop a realistic, accurate, and adequate self-image." (p. 51)

This passage follows a paragraph discussing Romans 12:3 " For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you."  So the context specifically is not to consider our role or position in the church as greater than you should.  The journal article is taking the liberties to expand the application of this verse beyond the original intentions.  I don't want to completely preclude that use of the verse, but I must admit that it is wanton use of it without any mention of the original limitations.  Things like that tend to put my guard up.  You really can say anything with Scripture if you want to.

Now let me show it in context so you can really see what the verse is saying:

Romans
³ For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. ⁴ For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, ⁵ so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. ⁶ We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your^[a] faith; ⁷ if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; ⁸ if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead,^[b] do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.

So the author is making it to be anthropology (the theology of man) whereas I think it's really eccleseology (the theology of the church).  Romans 3:3-8 is a microcosm, one of several places in Scripture, showing us what the church should be like.  And the church just happens to be made up of people, so of course it has to describe the people that make up the church. 

But the author of this text takes out one verse and chooses to make that one verse be anthropological - actually, not even that, he makes it psychological, so it's not even a religious study, but a secular study.  So he uses a religuous basis, a weak one only tangentially drawn out of context and uses it to support his secular thesis. 

At least the vast majority of the Vienna missionaries didn't do that, except for.... you guessed it... the U.S. military reserve chaplains.  My contention is it's because they were raised on drivel like this.  They had spent too much time in the military and instead of being salt and light they themselves had been affected by the military and came away less salty and shiny than when they went in.

Consistent with everything I just said, the author ignores why Paul admonished the Romans to not think of themselves more highly than they ought, etc., by ignoring the very next verse, which says that we all have different gifts and members and we need each other.  We're not an island!  Now this is what I'm talking about.  It's simple, and get past all the psycho babble and gobbledy-gook and if you're going to use Scripture, get down and roll up your sleeves and really do it, not to just pull out one verse and take it out of context!!

***

"What is Our Self-Image?

The self-image is a collage of images, feelings, and value judgments pertaining to oneself. (p. 51)

I guess I just put this reference sake.  I know my self-image is all over the place and that's why I feel like it's hard for people to relate to me; because I've had too many unusual experiences between Vienna and Russia and a few others thrown in and it really feels lonely, believe me.  I miss Grandmother, because she was the one that I really could talk to, but I think dad was going to sway her about my problems in the USA because she wasn't going to believe me about those for long in opposition to what he would tell her.  It's very lonely.  If it weren't for the health care I might well be better off in Russia.  I might have friends, at least teacher friends, if not among Christians.  The Orthodox might accept me; same with the Quakers.   One of these days I should try to make it down to the Quaker meeting here.  It's close to where I used to live though, at my old condo, so it's like 20 miles (42 km) away.

***

A person's self-concept is also the product of his own evaluation of his experiences.  All of us react to our experiences by making value judgments about them.  When we succeed in accomplishing something something we desired to do, we feel good about ourselves.  When we do not succeed, we place a negative value judgment on ourselves for failing and feel bad about ourselves.  If we usually accomplish what we desire, we tend to have a positive self-image.  A number of failures to meet our own goals would tend to produce a negative self-image. It is, however, extremely difficult to talk about value judgments as being strictly individual because our goals and values are so heavily influenced by other people. (p. 52)

The part about being influenced by other people has been a real stickler with me.  I've tended to chose the people I might let influence me and if I think people are way off and don't understand something, such as family back home not understanding what's happened in Vienna, then I sort of cardone off a part of me, or I might become silent or just drift off or look for work where I might be able to reach my goals, and the like.  So my family has on one hand been through the most of anyone with me, but on the other hand, they misunderstand me up the wazoo.  If I felt like they wanted to understand I might be willing to open up, but I feel like they'd just deride me, especially since the only ones left now are my brothers. 

I think the way other people's judgments influence me the most now is by the fact that now I have ended out at a time in my life alone.  I can't contribute that completely to these judgments, because my moving around had a very large amount to do with it too, but I think friends sort of lost faith in me and began to misunderstand me more and more as I moved around more and  more so that it became harder and harder to keep friends.  So that was a kind of judgment perhaps.

Otherwise, I have tended to have been a person of strong conviction and I've often run against the crowd in difficult situations or poked my head into difficult situations and being sure of my values haven't necessarily wanted to change with the values of the new group or setting.  Sometimes I've ended out tweaking my values a bit as I've thought through things.

So, in the end, I think that I'm not the type that's directly very vulnerable to direct influence in the area of values.

The author is probably thinking of things like being influenced by parental upbringing and at church and the like.  Well certainly as a child I was influenced by my parents and also at church and then in my formal schooling.  So those things I would say did have affect on my values. 

***

Even later in life a person's self-image is significantly affected by others' responses to him.  Particularly in a highly competitive professions such as the military... A low efficiency report or missed promotion can be devastating to the self-image." (p. 53)

Of course, no matter what I thought about whether I could work with the mission or not, by the time the end of my two year commitment had come my self-image was on the floor.  Missed promotion?  I had been demoted and sent back to the US and tossed around like a hot potato and you'd think I was spy or something.  Even though I didn't show it on the outside, I was a shambles on the inside and it all came to light once I returned home to the USA after my term with the mission was up. 

***

"Physical attractiveness is a major source of human worth.  After describing the powerful influences of physical attractiveness on children, Dobson states: "Most of the major choises made by adults are influenced one way or another by the attribute of beauty."

Intelligence is another quality highly values by our society... For most people it does not matter whether these values are right or wrong.  What does matter is that the majority of people hold these values.  One therefore can feel worthy and significant only if he conforms to these values." (p. 54)

In these realms I pretty much had it going for me.  Well, I wasn't a genius, but I'm relatively intelligent, and I'm pretty good looking.  I don't think I ever got overly caught up in the physical attractiveness, because, for example, when I learned many European women don't shave their legs I was all for it, and no or minimalist makeup was fine with me.  So I was an easy care person and not one to spend hours in the mirror gawking trying to get everything perfect or trying to run down the boys or anything.  But on the other hand, I was naive, when I should have been a little more cautious.  I didn't really think about the psychology of men and what they might be thinking or how I need to deal with them even if I hadn't been otherwise thinking about men until the issue came up.  So my problem was naivety mostly, I think, and maybe not being able to stand up for myself; being timid against men. 

I think that's partly because men in my family all had the upper hand.  So even if someone taught me to "just say no" (well for sex or something I did manage to say no, but before that I mean), I had no close precedent for that.  In fact just a couple years ago I asked mom if she ever disagreed with dad and she couldn't think of one time even!!  So how on earth was I ever going to learn to stand up to men based on the examples of the men in my family.  Well, as an teenager it was mom and dad, because I was the oldest, so my brothers were still just learning from dad and they were 2 and 4 years younger than me. 

As to intelligence, well I have 2 master's degrees now, a couple graduate certificates and I've presented at several professional conferences and published articles, so I must have some intelligence.  I need some intelligence to get my points across in this blog, and I couldn't do it without intelligence.  But I don't think intelligence alone is enough, either.  I think there also needs to be a certain insight, maybe wisdom, hopefully spirit-led perception and ability to communicate it. 

I must tell you though, lest you think I risk thinking of myself more highly than I ought, that I feel like this is sort of my last harrah.  I feel like I have to do this, but I don't know what else I can do.  You have to understand that my health isn't good, so I'm at home too much of the time and I'm unreliable for much of anything.  I'm just telling you as it is, really. 

***

The weaknesses that cannot be changed are best acknowledged for what they are without excess significance being allowed to transform them into fatal flaws.  Most people seem to want to work and worry about correcting their weaknesses.  A much better solution is to concentrate upon the development of strengths.  James Dobson calls this 'compensation' and says; 'compensation is your child's best weapon against inferiority.' compensation works for adults too." (p. 56)

I don't like the psychological lingo here and I'm not prone to particularly like the approach but there is some similarity, I think, to my approach, that I have used just through natural (I think) reflexes or how my personality works or something.

Basically the issue is that there is a weakness that is hindering you from doing something.  I think the weakness can be within the individual/a part of the individual or contextual  or otherwise external to the individual, but the effect is basically the same, right?

My approach is to try to figure out how to make lemonade or how to rethink the situation to make the best of it, maybe come up with a better solution, etc. 

Even now with my health limitations it works because I revise my interests and activities around what I am able to do.  So you have to take a creative, problem-solving perspective.  You have to be somewhat flexible and willing to accept a certain amount of change, which might be difficult for some people, I think.

It's been easier for me, though, because it's just me.  It's lonely, though, so I'm not sure I'd recommend that.  But if you have supportive family and/or friends they should be willing to work with you in that. 

***

Because a person's self-image is constructed primarily from interpersonal relationships (particularly with his parents), his self-image may be modified through the same process. (p. 57)

Well, there's no doubt my parents had an incredible impact on my self-image growing up.  Not only did we just have the usual family times, but our family did more than the usual family together, including a lot of camping and the like.   But the adult years are where we hit rocky roads and it's just because of the problem between my interests and dad's work.  And then my brother who lived there near them gets all hot under the collar about how dad was so upset trying to get me out of Russia and everything, but he doesn't understand everything else and how I had troubles getting jobs here and it wasn't until I became a librarian that I could get a job and all those problems were still fall out related to dad.  I'm not sure exactly how it works, though, so don't ask me to explain it, but all I know was I knew when I left Russia that I had to change professions and in fact I didn't start getting good career jobs until I changed professions. 

Dad loved me and maybe he was conflicted over me.  It hurt when he said he didn't believe me any more.  (After I dropped out of my doctoral studies, when I was being treated for hepatitis C and was in the hospital having had a very bad reaction to the Interferon.) Then that was it.  Then I couldn't talk to him for sure about anything.  I'd lost him.  I think when I dropped out of my doctoral studies he was off the hook, whereas before that things could still point back to him as my problems stemming from him.  But once I dropped out of my doctorate that was the point he felt he could free himself of this burden and he said he didn't believe me anymore.  That's how I understand it.

(I'm not sure if that last paragraph is clear so I'll try restating part of it.  Maybe Dad didn't like it  that my problems in Russia were pointing to him, meaning that it was because of him that I was invited over there and the problem was bad enough that I still had problems leaving in 1997, over 6 years later.  When I was making the appeal to try to get out of Russia it was to try to make it to a study program.  So when I dropped out of the doctoral program, which actually was not the original one even, dad decided to drop this bomb that he didn't believe me, which would sort of clear him of any responsibility.)

***

I can't quote this whole paragraph, because one line is cut off in the copy I made, but the author discusses how interpersonal relationships that become facilitative are characterized by feedback and feedback loops the evaluation and re-evaluation going on.

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

This may be what my parents wanted to inculcate into me, and did a reasonably good job, I think.  But I have absolutely no reason to believe that the H.R. director at the Vienna mission desired this for me.  What exactly he wanted, I'm not sure, but the things I would hazzard guesses on are far from this description. 

What he was practicing was pseudo psychology in the service of security. 

***

I guess that's all for now.  This has really taken a long time.

438. Discipline & Justice File, Pt. 1 (Arvey & Ivancevich, pt. 1)

You might have been able to guess that we were at the end of the addresses by the fact that we had reached the end of the alphabet.  (Although it is possible that I could have had a few others stashed away out of order somewhere here and there.  But I didn't.)

I'm still working on the family cookbook, but it's hard to work straight on that, so I can switch off, or at least try to fit in working on this blog as I can.  Working on the files will obviously be more difficult then doing the addresses, so I may not be able to do as many posts.  We'll see.  All I can say is I'll do my best.

***

The first article is from this journal article:

Arvey, Richard D. & Ivancevich, John M. (1980). Punishment in organizations: a review, propositions, and research suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 5(1), 123-132.

***

Although there are differences among psychologists concerning a definition of punishment, we will adopt Kazdin's concise definition, which captures the concept effectively: "Punishment is the presentation of an aversive event or the removal of a positive event following a response which decreases the frequency of that response" [1975, pp. 33-34]. There is a key point embedded within this definition.  A relationship or contingency exists between some defined response and some aversive consequences or stimuli (e.g.,  a leader's sarcastic remarks for poor performance, or an organizational fine for tardiness).  That is, the random or noncontingent administration of adversive stimuli on behavior does not represent punishment." (p. 123)

I found it rather difficult to completely understand Kazdin's definition.  What is the final "that response"?  I want to believe that it means something like it decreases the frequency of the individual's errancy and therefore need for punishment, but I'm not sure that's what it says.

But continuing farther along in the paragraph, where I feel more sure of the understanding, the point is clear that if you're going to be punished it should be clear what it's for, the timing should be reasonably aligned, etc. 

Then you turn to my case in Vienna where I experienced all these negative things from the mission, but most of them the mission would deny being responsible for in the first place, which is quite convenient. but if they were to be held responsible they would fail this punishment test terribly. 

There might be a couple things I'd know I was straying on, like going to the Austrian church or wanting to live by myself, but these things I had agreed to before I left the USA. 

Let's go on.

***

A second punishment circumstance involves the removal of positive outcomes or reinforcers after a response has been made.  For example, punishment may take the form of the withdrawal of privileges, being ignored, or not being considered for promotions. (p. 124)

I've said before here that the first month or two I was in Vienna I was fawned over and it was so much it seemed suspicious to me.  I did not play up to it but just was myself and carried on with the things they had me do, getting established, etc.  I didn't get a big head from their fawning, at any rate. 

But later on after I was moved around and things were unsure (to me)  there was talk of me being involved in work in Russia that maybe was a lead on. 

I felt like privileges were taken away from me fairly early.  This is because I was put in a stupid position doing the stupidist work possible in that position and they never gave any indication that they would recognize my gifts or had any real intention of using them or of taking me serious.  So from the very get-go of my time with the Vienna mission I experienced these "withdrawal of privileges."

***

This next section of the article is called "Beliefs about the Effects of Punishment"

In general, punishment has not been viewed favorably by organizational psychologists for several reasons.  First, it is thought that the use of punishment by an employer will result in undesirable emotional side effects (e.g., anxiety, aggressive acts or feelings toward the punishing agent, or passivity or withdrawal).  In addition, employees, might attempt to escape or avoid (e.g., turnover, absenteeism) or show aggression toward (e.g. sabotage) the punishing agent.

The empirical evidence concerning these presumed effects is particularly weak.  (p. 125)

The thing with applying these to the Vienna mission is, first of all, it was a closed system.  That is, if a newcomer had a hard time adjusting to the new ways and the discipline s/he might encounter if s/he was slow to socialize, for example.  Then the mentor would be right there to help her/him through all the bumps and bruises, but it would be very difficult to run away or something.  And it's difficult to explain to others what you're experiencing, especially while you're right in the throes of it.  So the Vienna mission is a special case that would end out dealing with all these things internally.  Of course, if anything is going on that shouldn't be, then there's no room for organizational accountability, but that's a different issue.

***

Same section:

Second, the use of punishment is thought to be unethical and nonhumanitarian... This thinking confuses the notion of punishing to achieve justice ("paying back") in contrast to punishing to change or modify behavior.  The first perspective views punishment as "past oriented" whereas the second perspective views punishment as having "future oriented" effects." (p. 125)

I couldn't possibly have experienced the "past oriented" type of punishment at the hands of the mission, so we can forget that right away.  It still remains unclear whether I had done anything against their norms or not and if so against which ones. 

If they developed this punishment plan for me, that seemed to me to be inadvertently planned and carried out, then they have to believe that everything that I couldn't figure out, when I wasn't really sure what they wanted of me, that they had clear ideas of what they wanted and against these standards they were able to decide when and how to punish me. 

But, to be honest, I can't see any delineation of that kind of thing happening, when punishment was being turned on or off.  And it's supposed to be reasonably close to the transgression so that the transgressor knows to amend his/her ways, and I can't say I ever got that.  Most of the time, it was just a way of living, like being transferred from one position to another. 

And as to the "paying back" some might say that I'm doing that now, I suppose.  The mission doesn't know how they ruined my life, but the thing is that even after I lived in Russia and I saw the churches there and the Western missionaries coming in that didn't know any Russian.  So I'm fed up and I'd like to reveal some of these things so that they can clean up their act. 

I'm just one person, but I'll do what I can, as little as it might be.

***

As Skinner argues in Beyond Freedom and Dignity [1971], the environment plays an important role in controlling behavior.  Therefore, it makes sense for us to understand and change environmental circumstances to achieve some kind of managed systematic control. (p. 126)

Since the Vienna mission was a closed system, as I said earlier, they had mastered this pretty well, and they'd paid attention to the details, as I've discussed in other posts, so I won't belabor it here.

***

Taking the opposite view, Park [1972] has called attention to the notion that high-intensity punishment may create a level of anxiety and impose a situation where adaptive learning (e.g., learning to discriminate between a correct and incorrect response) will not occur. (p. 126-127)

The whole situation in Vienna was complex, and the various negative signals and stimuli I was receiving as directed at me personally as well as just a part of the mission, and there certainly could be what some might consider "high-intensity punishment [which created] a level of anxiety]"

One situation, early on, for example, is when the mission sent me back to the USA.  Now this would be heinous, of course, if this is punishment, but I think we really must consider the possibility.

The mission would have had to have seen me with my friend who came over with her junior high students not long after I arrived in Vienna, then I was attending the Austrian church, and basically I was not focusing on being 100% with the mission and I wasn't breaking down doing a little homesick thing or the like.  And I was quietely doing their stupid work reading the software manual to learn the computer software and not complaning.  So they couldn't get my goat.  So nothing could get to me.  So I was just there doing their stupid work and they probably were giving me the stupid work to get me to crack.  But it didn't work.  Well, the stress of all the things at the office did take a toll so I was having to take measures to deal with stress, and that didn't include talking to anyone about what was on my mind.  Well, I had had a lot of stress the few years before that, and I didn't have the greatest personal strategies for dealing with stress.  I've since grown a lot in that area. 

So they couldn't say that I had stress from the mission, so they said I had "culture shock."  Well, things would have been a lot easier for me if I had just given in and done what my 6th sense thought they wanted me to do from the very beginning, but then I wouldnt have been true to myself.  And the promises that were made me before I left the States (they were made by my sending mission, but the housing one was discussed with the Vienna mission).  So, in all reality, there is no way I could have lived like they wanted me to.

And then, of course, their looms the HUGE issue, which I've discussed before, and that is the issue of putting anyone before God.  I really felt like they wanted you to trust them before God.  So when I first got there and I'm having all these problems and no one's saying anything, I'm not going to just come out and trust them because then it's a relationship by force, right?  What's the big deal?  Why does force have to be involved?  Why can't we just sit down and talk like two rational people?  Why are you giving me this stupid work to do?  It's a waste of my supporters' money?  I trust God, but I'm not just going to come out and trust you after you've pulled that kind of bull crap.  What is this?

So that kind of thing isn't punishment, because I hadn't done anything yet to deserve it, right?  So that is socialization.  So then I bomb socialization and go right into punishment and there I stay, I guess the rest of the time I'm with the mission.  I don't know, that's one possibility.

***

 In addition, while aversive stimuli of high intensity levels may be the most effective in suppressing undesirable behavior, these aversive stimuli may also have the effective of suppressing other desireable responses.  The available research appears to suggest that perhaps moderate intensity levels may be the most functional in organizational settings. (p. 127)

In my case the "high intensivy levels" drove me away or closed me up to the mission, so that for the large part of the time I was with the mission I was living a double life - what I was really thinking and how I acted, because I learned during my time in the US to do that.

I'm not exactly sure what they should have done differently but they definitely should not have started me out with such stupid work, because that just put me on alert to try to figure out what they were up to (I think they underrated my intelligence), and they should not have sent me back to the U.S.  I'm assuming they really wanted me to work with them, of course.  If they didn't because of my dad, then that's a totally different story and we have to change everything here.

***

Hamner and Organ [1978] suggest that punishment might be most effective when it is dispensed in an impersonal manner where the focus is on the act and not the person. (p. 127)

It wasn't like in the military where a person is belittled as a person, but even when a situation was direct (e.g., a change of position) it was presented sort of dog-eared, usually by the head of human resources, who was reassuring to me as a person.  But it was rediculous, each of these moves and so many of the other things, they all added up that it was degrading in the end so that the year after I left Vienna I was such a broken person it was horrible.  It was just the whole composite of everything, and after all that I'd prepared to make that my career and everything, it was just humiliating.  I was just like that proverbial worm by the end.

And the h.r. director was so hypocritical, I could see right through him.  That expression and all was so phony, really, so degrading.

***

Proposition 5: Punishment is more effective when clear reasons are communicated to employees concerning why the punishment occurred, what the contingency is, and what the consequences of the behavior are in the future.

This certainly seems reasonable and logical enough and most people, I think, would probably agree with it.  The problem for me regarding my situation in Vienna was that it was hard to distinguish what might be punishment and only after you identified punishment could you try to deal with the other stuff.

But even if I were to take a stab at trying to identify what might have been punishment during my time in the Vienna mission, I'm not sure the Vienna mission leadership would agree.  They might say they didn't punish me, or not those punishments.  There are a couple issues here though.  First, they might not want to admit if something was a punishment or had punishment elements to it and, second, the items they might admit to.  That is, they might not agree with what I thought were punishments, but instead present completely different punishments they had for me. 

After I left Vienna I got a very kind post card from my boss and his boss, the director of the mission.  Would they do that if they thought very badly of me?

***

It  appears that the effect of punishment is greatly enhanced if subjects have an alternative desirable response available.  Moreover, if employees receive positive reinforcement for performing this alternative response, punishment is even more effective.

There were some cases that I did have clear "alternative desirable responses" but they went against what I'd agreed before I arrived in Vienna and against my values (to fit into the local culture).  So the alternative desirable responses I think that might have relieved some of the pressure (which perhaps could be seen as a kind of punishment, but only tangentially; it could also be looked at as social/crowd control) are: live with the other secretary from Alaska and go to the English-speaking church. I didn't see how either of these was a security breach and I refused to give in.  Well, I gave in regarding the church the last few month, but I didn't like it, despite being involved in it. 

Otherwise, I didn't have a clue and it was very difficult.  It was hard to figure out sometimes what that "alternative desirable response" might be.  I think sometimes I just ignored the signal because I didn't know what to do with it. Like I knew when I was being moved to lesser positions.  I didn't really know what exactly I'd done to get there, although I always had a nebulous feeling that you had to completely trust them and give them your soul, which I couldn't do, so I couldn't go to the leadership to really find out what was going on, from their end, I mean.  By that time it was way late in the game and I wasn't interested in sticking around so I didn't care too much about what their thoughts were, although now it might be interesting, if they'd be really truthful.  But in that world where they lie through their teeth to get around in those Communist countries (that was back in the days of Communist East Europe remember).  These guys had a whole image of themself that was made of half truths, so that's the kind of thing you'd expect from them if you were to ask them about how they treated me.  So it's probably best to save your breathe for something else.

***

Managers have control over numerous potential punishing stimuli that range from overt and formal actions such as discharge and financial penalties to less overt behavior such as assighment of employees to underable tasks, subtle verbal statements, and ridicule.

Organizational psychologists have developed a reasonably well-defined taxonomic system of positive reinforcers that are available and used in organizational systems (e.g. recognition, praise, bonuses). What is needed is the development of a taxonomy of aversive stimuli in organizational settings.  That is, what supervisory actions result in aversive situations for employees? one strategy for developing a taxonomy is to ask employees to relate situations where they felt punished in organizational settings and indicate the role their supervisors or managers played in the situation. (p. 130)

Regarding the first paragraph, I've talked about that kind of things at length in various places in this blog.  Some of the things, though they set up before my arrival to be socialization, not punishment.  But the thing is, and I've said this so many times here that I'm beginning to feel like a robot or something, but I was not going to just be taken by ambush to be part of them, because it's a whole-person identity and faith thing, and I don't let them just take me over like that, as if they're God.  So I never did totally give in.  I was treated so horribly that I didn't want any more of it and as much as I wanted ministry there was absolutly no way I could trust them after how they'd treated me.  You'd think they might try being nice.  Maybe they could have lured me in.  Well, they were nice at the very beginning, but it was overkill, so that seemed strange. 

My whole time with the mission was a virtual lesson in catastrophe: How not to do things.  At least how not to do things in dealing with me.  Maybe it works with other people, I don't know, but it was the worst nightmare I could ever imagine.

***

That's it for this article.  We'll see if anything else in this file is informative next time.

437. Addresses, Pt. 7

I've felt really crummy all day.  I overdid it yesterday.  I didn't do anything I shouldn't have, like lifting or anything; it's just that I had too long of a day, was out too long, etc.  So today I've been extremely wiped out.  My legs have not been good and my feet have been tingly and my feet have not had good sensation.  So I really do need to be careful on how much I do and I need to understand that even if I'm feeling reasonably well there still are these limits on my health.  (I have several spinal stenosis, have had a couple of spinal diskectomies and fusions, in the thoracic and cervical, in recent years).  Plus I have several other conditions, like fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis.  The will is there, but the body is weak.  So today I'm paying for it... big time.

Back to the addresses.  I've also been proofreading recipes for the family cookbook and sort of switching off between doing things, but I'm too tired right now to proofread recipes I think, so I'll do the addresses.

Slavic Gospel Association
P.O. Box 1122
Wheaton, IL 60187
(312) 690-8900

SGA (European Office)
Postfach 110
A-1052 Wien, Austria

St. Vladimir's Press (Russian Orthodox)
575 Scarsdale Rd.
Crestwood, Tuckahoe, NY 10707
(914) 961-8313

Savez Baptisticka Crkva u SFR Jugoslaviji
4 Julia 32
47000 Karlovac

Slovacka Evangelicancka-Krscanska Cerkev A.V.
Karadzecevy
Novi Sad, Yugoslavia

Srpska Pravoslavna Crkva
Fah 182
7 Juli 5
11000 Beograd
[Yugoslavia]

Slavic Missionary Service, Inc.
P.O. Box 307
South River, NJ 08882
[One of the missionaries that worked with the Soviet emigrants with us in the Russian Emigre Center worked under this mission.]

The Slavic Mission
Box 15037
S-161 15 Bromma Sweden
08-25 29 75

Society of Central Asian News
30 Bucknell Ave.
Lancaster, PA 17603

Slavic Missionary Society
Box 1
Somerset, NJ

Scripture Memory Fellowship
PO Box 24551
St. Louis, MO 63141
(314) 569-0244

Seminarul Teologic Baptist
Stradu Berzel nr. 29-raion 16
Februarie
Bucuresti
Romania

Slezska Cirkev Evangelicka A.V.
(Selisian Evangelical Augsburg Confession)
Na Nivach 7
73701 Cesky Tesin
56 656

Slovenska Cirkev Evanjelicka A.V.
(Slovakian Evangelical Augsburg Confession)
Palisady 46
80001 Bratislava
332-842 or 331-237

Trans World Radio
560 Main St.
Chatham, NJ 07928

Taking Christ to the Millions (TCM, Inc.)
6337 Hollister Dr.
PO Box 24560
Indianopolis, IN 46224
(317) 299-0333

Underground Evangelism (U.E.)
PO Box 1 (King St.
Bedworth, Nuneaton, Warwickshire
England CV12 8LG

UE
800 W. Colorado Blvd.
Los Angelos, CA 90041

Deutsches Mission Centrum (UE)
Postfach 1410
D-6360 Friedberg, Hess, W. Germany

Mession Chretienne Pour les Pays de l'Est (UE)
B.P. 165
F-67404 Illkirche Cedex
France

Ukrainian Evangelical Baptist Convention of Canada
787 Toronto St.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Canada R3E 1Z7
"Christian Herald" [This was a periodical normally published by the Soviet Baptists, but the Soviet government made publication difficult.]

Ustredi Bratsrke Jednotu Baptista
Na topolce 10
14700 Praha 4 podoli
Czech
430-974

Uniunea Comunitatilor Crestine Baptiste din RPR
Nicolai Titulescu 56/1
Sector 8
78152 Bucuresti
Romania
17 37 05

Underground Christian Missions, Inc.
1819 N. La Palmas
PO Box 1076
Hollywood, CA 90028

U.B.S. / Europe Regional Center (1984)
63 Carter Lane
London EC4V 5DY
England

Voices of the Future
250 West 57th St.
Ste. 1428
NY, NY 10107
1 (800) 223-1336
(friendship tours for young people)

Vsysoyuzny Sovet Yevangelskikh-Khristian Baptistov
Pokrovsky Malyi Vosovsky
PB 520
Moskva
227-89-47

United Bible Societies Bulletin
Bible House
Balinger Str. 31
PO Box 81 03 40
D-700 Stuttgart 80
W. Germany

Wahlspruch des Brusewitz-Zentrums
Postfach 100441
Bad Oeynhausen DDR
(retreats, seminars, etc.)

Word to Russia
PO Box 846
Bryte, CA 95606
(916) 372-4610

World Missionary Press
Box 120
New Paris, IN 46553
Gospel materials in foriegn languages

World Fellowship of Slavic Evangelical Christians
PO Box 35220
Chicago, IL60635

WEC, Intl.
Bulstrade
Gerrards Cross
Bucks SL9 8S2 England
(0044) 753-8845-31
(0044) 41-339-0172 (Mr. Strepett)

Youth With a Mission (YWAM) - Slavic Ministries
7085 Battlecreek Rd. SE
Salem, OR 97301

 Zjednoczony Kosciol Evangeliczny
ul Zagorna 10
Warszawa
29 52 61

That's it for the addess for now.  The other addresses have to do with either things like refugee work, individual contacts, that I decided not to share here,  and addresses for things that might be logistally useful, such as embassies to get visas, and the like.

But the average person isn't going to have a list like this by any shot of the imagination, and wouldn't have had during the 1980s either, and I expect that if anyone in the Vienna mission had anything like this list it might have been maybe the director and his secretary.  Otherwise, no one would have had this kind of knowledge and this kind of knowledge would have been strictly discouraged as part of the need to know secrety rule.

But what do you do with someone who comes with this kind of knowledge?  I certainly didn't have any of the addresses or phone numbers memorized or anything, but I had a mental map of the general layout of what what going on in missions in Eastern Europe.  It would be hard, you must admit, to take that away from me.  So if they wanted someone to come to Vienna as a tabula rasa... well then, they should never have accepted me, because there is no way I could ever be that tabula rasa.  I already knew too much before I came.