CTa Intro A "The Chaplain"

There is perhaps no other position that requires the occupant to carefully serve in the often misunderstood relationship of church and state than that of public service chaplaincy.  It may well be in the military setting, public hospital, corrections, or emergency services that the chaplain experiences firsthand the attendant challenges and tensions.

BALANCING THE DEMANDS OF TWO MASTERS

The chaplain serves in a unique place for several reasons a few of which will follow.  As you read through the list you will note that each has the potential for misunderstanding and tension. 

Chaplains Serve Under Two Authorities

The Public Service Chaplain who is officially recognized by an agency, say a police department serves under the authority of that department but also under recognized ecclesiastical authority.  That in the practical means that such a chaplain must meet and satisfy such requirements as may be required by both entities.

Ecclesiastical Authority:  Clergy service in the public sector can only be recognized by public sector entities when recognized ecclesiastical authority endorses said clergyman.  In most cases that means that the chaplain has met his faith body requirements for ministerial recognition, met such experience requirements as levied by that faith body, and then received their endorsement for service with a particular agency.

Public Agency Authority:  The chaplain then will most often have to meet the requirements levied by the public service agency in order to serve that agency.  For example a background check is often required, specialized training, and even serve probationary time.  This leads directly to the next point.

Establishment Clause:  If the chaplain serves without an endorsement from a recognized ecclesiastical body the public service agency runs the risk of being seen as establishing a religion.

Misunderstanding:  Owing to the drift of culture toward secularism, one should not expect that the unchurched members of the department will understand the ecclesiastical elements of one’s chaplaincy, not should one expect the opposite to be true.  Such can lead to tensions.

Chaplains Serve in Unique Places

Once granted entrance into the institution or department, the chaplain serves in places that for a number of reasons must restrict public access. 

In the case of the Law Enforcement chaplain two come to mind.  Chaplain service may be conducted in a danger or threat environment.  As well chaplain service might expose the chaplain to sensitive information that if broadly known might compromise an active investigation.  Simply stated you cannot have just anyone and everyone seeking to serve in sensitive places.

There is another unique quality that needs to be considered and that is the chaplain must become acquainted with those he serves based upon a trust relationship.  Such comes with two qualities.  First is contact time.  As someone once said, “Ministry by purposefully loitering.”

The second is understanding.  The chaplain in order to serve effectively must be someone who is on some level acquainted with qualities, mind set, department environment, family life, emotional issues, and as well someone who understands the relationships within the department etc.

CHURCH STATE TENSIONS

In the course of serving in the public arena, care must be observed to not violate the conditions of one’s ministerial recognition and endorsement.  In an environment in which one entity may not understand the other, there can be issues such as the following.

§  Freedom of religion issues

§  Ethical issues that lead to problems

§  The chaplain can become overburdened with requirements of both entities

§  The prioritizing of ecclesiastical standards and practices (church) over the standards and practices of the department (state) may not be understood

§  The religious approach to service at most times is within but at times it may be necessary to prioritized over state interests

§  The tension when a chaplain is asked to perform services outside the conditions of his ordination and ecclesiastical endorsement

§  Issues that bear upon the establishing of a “state religion” issues are important to the discussion

KEYS TO PRIVATE SECTOR VS PUBLIC SECTOR SERVICE

There can be difficulties when the chaplain does not make a clear distinction between serving as a member (e.g. in a congregation) and serving as a guest (e.g. in a department).  Consider the differences as follows using the notion of member or guest.

Private Sector (Congregation/Church) vs. Public Sector (Department/State)

Consider the following comparison of the two sectors and the difference in relationships and roles that are a part of each one.  In the following the word “church” is considered to be the local congregation and not the regional or national denomination.

§  The Church is situated in a private setting while the Department is in a public setting

You probably want to check with your denominational attorney on this.  I think that even when the local congregation rents out a public building for meetings, it is considered to be a private setting.

Also since your church is a private entity, you may not know this but you can trespass a person from your church property when that person is disruptive or a danger to the congregation

§  The Church is subject to limited outside scrutiny and oversight while the Department has broader outside scrutiny and oversight.

There is little government and media attention and oversight of a Church while the Department is subject to much oversight and scrutiny by its critics, the ACLU, and the media.

For example you can restrict the media’s access to church property.

§  The Church and you as a pastor have limited potential for lawsuit while the Department and you as a member of your Department have greater potential.

Generally speaking except for negligence as in not doing diligence in background checks on child care and youth workers, most churches never have a lawsuit.  However, even in small departments it is not uncommon for there to be some sort of court action.

§  The Church has wide speech parameters and can be open about their position on sensitive issues while the Department has much more narrowly defined speech parameters and often must be closed about sensitive issues.

As to speech the pastor can bring whatever message he deems appropriate within the guidance of doctrine and church polity.  However, such is not so in your department and wise is the chaplain who is careful in how he packages his doctrine in the public square.

My personal policy while serving in the military chaplaincy was anything that was mandatory got a general prayer unless the senior officer present requested otherwise.  Non-mandatory activities were a different matter.

However, let me suggest that you have freedom of religion rights as well.  Even so we need to respect those to whom we have been called to serve.

§  The Church has greater freedom to take action which might be viewed in the public sector as discrimination as it seeks to live out its doctrine

For example you may choose to discriminate against someone who does not comply with church doctrine.  However, your department does not have that latitude.  As long as the person can meet qualifications such as height, weight, strength, intelligence, etc.

This washes both ways as a church might be able to hire a blind pastor but a police department would not be able to hire a blind police officer—well I suppose they could if he could pass the driving test and qualify on the range.

§  The pastor in the Church has limited potential to offend while the same pastor if a chaplain must be careful in order to reduce the potential for offense.

SUMMARY AND CLOSE

Besides the member/guest question, there are other questions that one might consider when sorting through all of the issues involved in serving under two authorities.  Among them are the following. 

§  Who is it that you are you serving?

§  Where is it that are you serving?

§  How is it that you serving (approach/demeanor)?

§  What is it that you trying to accomplish?

§  When is it that you are serving?  

Final Definition

Chaplaincy:  “Service (ministry) born of a relationship with an Ecclesiastical body and then with the State”

CTa Intro D “The Foundations of Judeo-Christian Truth/Reality Examined”

(Note:  There are two items to note:  1.  If your belief does not fit into the broad category of Judeo-Christian belief, may I suggest that you read the following for an understanding of those who embrace such.  However, may I also suggest that you consider fitting your religious truth system into a similar presentation format and forwarding it to me.  2.  The material in this section serves as something of an introduction the the next two sections)

Returning to the subject of the previous blog, consider again the external versus internal origins of truth only this time focusing upon the Judeo-Christian belief.  Certainly there elements common to both.  Rationally discovering trends and systems of truth is not the private property of Judeo-Christian Theology.  However, there are at least two distinctive which will be considered below.

TERMS TO CONSIDER

Before giving consideration to a very general overview of the History of Truth/Reality the following terms are offered as a starting place.

§  The Great Enlightenment

§  Rational Optimism

§  Skepticism

§  Pessimism

§  Pragmatism

§  Modernism

§  Post-modernism

In broad brush strokes, Judeo-Christian belief held predominance in the West even into and through the Dark Ages.  Then in the period between 1650-1750, rationalism began to offer other alternatives to the faith view.  The result was that in time this rationalism took precedence to

The following quote by John MacArtheur, pastor, commentator, and author will put some of these terms in perspective.

 “The belief that mankind, on his own, could formulate the perfect philosophical system—one that would fully explain all of reality—reached its peak during the Enlightenment.  Human reason, it was thought would eventually discover the answers to all of life’s questions, and thereby solve all of society’s problems.  The assumption was that through intellectual achievement and the growing body of scientific knowledge, humanity would eventually bring about a utopia.  Hence there was no need for religion, which had kept people in stifling darkness for centuries.  There was no interest in divine revelation or salvation, since man believed he could save himself from his problems.

“But the optimism of the Enlightenment has faded to black in recent times.  The unimaginable slaughter of two world wars, the unfathomable evil of the Holocaust, and the terrifying reality of nuclear war quickly shattered the unrealistic idealism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  In its place, skepticism and pessimism began to take old, as feelings of uncertainty (about life and even reality) became more and more widespread.  Increasingly, the very concept of truth itself came under fire, especially the possibility of knowing absolute truth... 

“The skepticism of the twentieth century culminated with the rise of postmodernism, a worldview that is still in vogue today.  In contrast to the modernists, whose rationalistic optimism flowed out of the Enlightenment, postmodernists reject the notion that ultimate truth is knowable or even exists.  Rather, they contend that the “truth” people believe are merely societal norms created by the culture in which they live.  Thus there are no timeless truths, only ephemeral preferences.  Whatever works for people is truth for them; pragmatism and relativism reign supreme. (Ironically, the only thing postmodernists are absolutely certain of is that nothing is absolutely certain.  As a result, they are forced to defend an illogical position—namely that it is a universal, comprehensive truth that there are no universal, comprehensive truths.)

MacArthur, John The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, John 1-11 (Chicago:  Moody Press, 2006) pp. 351-53.

AGE SUGGESTS THE DURABILITY OF JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRUTH

Far older in age than Modernism and Post-Modernism, which will be consider a bit later, there has existed the belief in Judeo-Christian truth.  Most certainly there are those who argue against age as a validating factor in order to favor some notion of progressive thought as being superior.  However, consideration must be given to the durability of truth as compared to the more recent thought fads that seem to be in vogue.

THE BROAD ACCEPTANCE OF JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRUTH

When consideration is given to the numbers of adherents to Judeo-Christian truth, it is apparent that it has been embraced by a higher number of people than any other religion.   Even today, when all Judeo-Christian faith groups are totaled something over 2.1 billion label themselves as Christian or adherent to Judaism (Judaism alone has on the order of 13-15 adherients).

USER FRIENDLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRUTH

It is Judeo-Christian truth that requires no particular level of intelligence or education for understanding and yet when mined for deeper truth, their depth is inexhaustible.  The fact is that these Scriptures and the truths and principles contained therein come of transcendent revelation and are nothing short of miraculous in nature.  That transcendent revelation contains two elements which are supernatural in nature.  

Judeo-Christian Truth is Transcendent

The first supernatural element is that its origins are from the exterior of the universe or the previously mentioned box as we know it.  Indeed it finds its origins in the Divine.  

Judeo-Christian Truth is Accessible

The second supernatural element is that it is revealed to the believer on his level of comprehension.  That is to say that the Scriptures are made available to everyone upon his level.  That is exactly why the child who is learning to read can comprehend the Scriptures as can the intellectual.

Thus the mystery and the miracle of Divine revelation is that such revelation is made available to all people of all times on their level.  Take for example the simple statement "God is love." From the earliest days of a child's understanding, through the developing years, the productive years, the retirement years, all the way through to last days of one's life, that statement can be understood, the only difference is in the depth of understanding.  So it is with other elements of Judeo-Christian faith.

UNIVERSAL JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRUTH

Too basic Judeo-Christian belief is universal in that it applies to all.  That is to say that it may find cultural application but the basic tenants and principles present are universal. 

OBJECTIVE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRUTH

This is a truth that is objective in that it does not depend upon circumstance.  It simply exists without regard to time, culture, and the individual.  It is as eternal as the God whose character and nature it reflects.  While nuances of application may vary over time, according to culture, and in the individual, the basic elements of its existence does not!  Thus love is always love, murder is always murder, deceit is always deceit, etc.

The best way to describe such truth/reality is that it is not so much a belief in God as it is a belief with God.  In other words, it is completely compatible and consistent with the nature and character of the Divine, the God who is!

CTa Intro C “The Qualities of External Truth”

If truth is external to the group or situation, then as noted, one can safely assume it comes from outside the system(s) discussed in the previous section.  Therefore, it is not subject to the limitations of the notions of truth found within the individual or groups mentioned.  If it is an external truth, then it may be possible to argue that said truth may be a constant and external but differs as it is seen in various parts of the system.  In other words it is a question of consistency. 

Rather than seeing it as an inconsistency of truth, it is to be considered as consistency of application.  For example, take the universal truth that murder is wrong.  Such is consistent across culture after culture and through the ages of time.  However, what is not consistent is how it is applied.

OPEN TO THE SPIRITUAL DIMENSION

When one considers internal truth, it is highly dependent upon the five senses, what can be observed through those senses, and the rational processing of same.  It seems to leave little room for that which is outside of the box of human understanding (The Truth Project from Focus on the Family, Colorado Spring, CO). 

Problem is that such a view leaves little room for the spiritual dimension, the intangible, and dynamics that one might encounter outside of the aforementioned box.  Thus for the one who seeks to live in the box when matters from outside the box are encountered, there is a great deal of explaining away.  For an example of this explaining away read David Hume’s treatments of reality.

When one chooses to not be limited by putting everything into an understandable box, then it opens up the possibility of the spiritual to include adding a God dimension to reality.  Such allows then for the following characteristics and qualities of truth.

 QUALITIES OF EXTERNAL TRUTH

External Truth Is Universal

Truth or as noted reality which is not dependent upon the individual, human group, or faculty is by its very nature universal.  Said another way, genuine truth is truth no matter where in the universe one might seek it, find it, and apply it.  It is truth in outer space and truth in inner space.  It is truth at all times of the day.  It is truth whether recognized and accepted or unrecognized and rejected.  It is truth whether rightly understood and applied or wronging understood and misapplied.

Thus one can legitimately argue that the truth that is external to the box and thus independent of what is in the box is universal.  The problems arise when such truth is not understand and thus misapplied and then labeled as not being universal.

External Truth is Objective

When one thinks of the Law and the courts one thinks of the statue of justice and that she while holding the scales is blindfolded.  So too truth that is external is objective.  It is has, as they say, stood the test of time. It is truth for the powerful and the popper, the religious and the reprobate, the intelligent and the imbecile, the conservative and the liberal, and the list goes on and on. 

Truth is indeed blind to the situations and the people that populate those situations.  One’s understanding is not essential for objective truth to be observed and practiced.  However again when distorted and misapplied it can be seen as subjective truth—reality is that subjective truth is not truth as I understand it.

External Truth is Transcendent

The outcome of there being external truth then is a question.  What is the origin of such truth?  Certainly one is tempted to return to man’s  involvement but such is to revert to a humanistic view which cannot be divorced from man propensity to egotism, control, and greed and thus such perceptions are at best unreliable in their sum.  However, transcendent truth best answers the question and thus genuine truth finds its origins in the Divine.

External Truth is Immutable

The notion that truth is temporary or a moving target is the property of internal truth and in particular of the situation ethicist.  The external truth that we are looking at here does not mutate or we can say change.  It can embody and be reflected in such things as time and space, however, it is not subject to the restraints and constraints of same for it exists outside such things.

PERSONAL OR CORPORATE VALUES

The outgrowth of the previous discussion then centers down to one’s personal or one’s corporate values (when one is in a group).  Of course and at risk of sounding fatalistic, one’s values drive one’s behavior.

Closed Value System

If one embraces a view that all exists in the box of one’s understanding and experience, then such an one embraces a closed value system with such things as intervention and accountability only within the box.  That means that one’s values are driven by the group, culture, etc. in which one finds himself.

At this point it might be well to introduce another term, that of morality.  This will be further discussed later but for now if one’s values derive only from within the box then such is a morality driven value system.

Open Value System

If, however, one embraces a view that that all truth and reality does not exist within the box then such an one embraces an open value system and such things as intervention and accountability can come from beyond the box of human understanding and experience.  This is more of an ethics approach, another term that will be discussed a bit later.

ETHICAL/MORAL CONFUSION

Looking at the notion of ethics and morality in the current cultural context yields the observation that the terms have become synonymous.  Problem is that they are not and in fact related to the discussion to this point.  In fact, accepting an historical definition of these words yields the point that these are actually contradictory terms since the existence and reality of ethical truth transcend any and all situations.

Ethical Truth is Objective, Universal, Immutable, and Transcendent

The one who contends for ethical truth generally directly or tacitly believes that ethical values are only possible because the value systems that we recognize are open systems with the Divine as continually contributing to the processes involved.  The one who contends for moral truth either directly or tacitly believes in a closed system without the involvement of the Divine.

Moral Truth Only Reflects the Mores of a Particular Culture or Sub-Culture

There is the view of truth and thus reality that its origin is internal to the culture.  The outcome is that such truth--such moral truth has its origins and is validated by the opinion and action of the culture.  That is to say that if at least 51% of the culture believes some notion or participates in some practice, then those things are considered validated as moral truth.  In this case, societal mores are taken to be authoritative.

An example might be what constitutes larceny.  If 51% of a given culture holds that a person stealing funds of a lesser amount or for some reason perceived as noble, is not larceny then such a standard would be a moral standard or truth prescribed by that culture.  Of course the outcome would be that the behavior of the Law would be to conform to that moral standard. 

Exclusive and/or private truth is another form of moral truth.  Those who hold this notion believe that they are in possession of special or truth exclusive to them or their group.  In some cases there is limited access and in others it is made available to others.

The behavioral outcome is that for some there comes a notions of superiority since they have been vested with this special truth.  There can be an attendant license to behave on a level which is not consistent with ethical or even moral truth.  This may be seen in some religions whose members have been taught that they may lie or even kill in order to achieve the greater good as defined by their beliefs.

Self truth.  Those who hold this position believe that the individual is the origin of truth.  Some even postulate that there is within all an inner light of some sort that reveals truth.  Such belief is most often tailor made to one’s personality and moral tendencies.  When people employ the phrase, "My god would never..." and then they go on to list their agenda they are reflecting this notion of self truth.  

The problem is that such people seldom if ever create a god that is unrealistic to their morality.  In fact, most often they create a god that does not challenge nor stress their own level of self-centeredness.

OUTCOMES

QUESTION:  What is the outcome for a culture that seeks to embrace and even force the acceptance of these and other truth systems?

There is no common basis for deciding truth.

For example the person who holds ethical truth, who then relies upon an external authority, might then refer to the authority of Scripture or in some cases the authority of church tradition as taught and practiced throughout history.  

Though there may be some commonality with those who hold moral truth, at some point there will be a departure.  For the reasons this is so refer to the discussion in the articles, "Cultural and Personal Chaos" and "Checking the Descent into Unethical Chaos." (Article found at http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/)

There cannot be an agreed upon standard of authority.

With differing truth convictions the standards for deciding reliable authority differ.  As previously mentioned one such authority is found in "I feel that...."  Others rely upon externals either culture or transcendent universal authority.  Factor in the closed /open values systems argument.  Again there is a great potential for division and as well disconnect when arguments are tendered based upon such differing views of the origins of truth and the place of the Divine in those views. 

There can be no agreement as to correct and incorrect action

As noted above the ethicist argues that there are objective universal truths, by most considered to be transcendent which establish and maintain the dividing line between right and wrong.  Of course the moralist counters with the notion that the difference between right and wrong are established based upon cultural mores.  Again the individualist would discount both and establish right and wrong based upon standards that might well be unique to him.

There is not enough in common to enjoy a common faith experience nor expression

This will be discussed in subsequent posts.

SUMMARY/CLOSING THOUGHTS:

Mankind has been given the freedom to choose and so each person must decide for himself whether he believes that truth is external to himself or is it the light within.  Further he has been vested with the authority to make a choice in the matter.  As well in making that choice, he has been vested with the power to decide whether he accepts an open or closed values environment.

If all is internal to the entities mentioned above, what can the person who hold such a conviction offer as validating proof and thus confirmation that it indeed is a genuine truth, one upon which one might stake his life?  How might such a person without relying upon personal feelings and/or cultural mores validate his truth claims?  If the self is considered the ultimate authority, then it is to the self that one must answer self as the ultimate authority.

If a person decides that truth is external, then the decision has to be made as to how external. Is such truth then to be the product of society, sub-culture, ethnic group, or of a transcendent God?  If one stops his view at society or any of the other moral externals then it is as previously noted, that entity, say society must be trusted to not only provides the origin and foundation of truth but also provides the ultimate authority for action to include the determination of right from wrong and sanctions associated with such.

Finally, the one who hold that there is universal, objective, transcendent truth views God to be the ultimate authority.  Responsibility for rest with Him for being the final and ultimate arbitrator of right and wrong.  While societal systems and cultural system may exist and serve to keep order and provide safety, as to ethical truth and such sanctions as come from disobeying same God is the final and ultimate authority to which one must give account for his rights and wrongs.

Each person who draws a breath of life has been vested with the power to choose who or what provides his ethical/moral compass but what he has no control over is the outcome of that choice!

CTb I "Dynamic Diversity"

CTa Intro B "The Foundations of Truth and Reality"

A fair place to begin the discussion is this.  Upon what foundation does one build his truth claims?  Asked another way, what is the origin of the truth in which you believe?

A follow-up question is this.  Since truth is only as reliable as that upon which it is based, how reliable is that origin and the foundation upon which you base your claims to knowing “truth?”  If the foundation is not sound, can the truth system built upon that foundation be sound?

Within the various cultures, sub-cultures, social groups, right down to the individual there is a tension which has to do with the origin and foundation of reality or as we might say, the bottom line truth.  The position one takes on this question sets the stage for the following material.

The discussion may we be summed up in the last question.  The foundational presuppositions upon which a person builds his truth systems will determine the integrity, validity, and veracity of that system.

EXTERNAL OR INTERNAL TRUTH COMPARED

The initial question is this.  Is truth’s origin external or internal?  That asked another way is this.  Does the origin and thus the authority for truth lay in that which is external to the individual, social group, sub-culture, or culture or does it lay within?  In the following discussion attention is to be focused upon the existence of truth and not upon application.

The Relationship of Truth with Reality

Though words and there meaning are important to this discussion, it is beyond the prevue of the present to discuss the relationship between truth and reality.

Internal Truth and Outcomes

Internal truth is that truth or those values which derive from within the individual, culture, sub-culture, or referent group.  Among the outcomes if truth is internal to those things mentioned are the following two.

First, internal truth tend to divide.  When a value derives from within, it has every potential to conflict with other truth that has derived from within.  History provides example after example of how the values of one group conflicts with another.  Even today should you encounter street gangs you will soon discover that there are common values however, more important to the discussion is that those gangs, referent groups, have values that divide them from other street gangs.

Certainly one of the greatest of divisions is between those who hold to an internal origin for truth and those who hold to an external truth position. 

Second, internal truth can be destructive.  Since it is an internal truth it is far more likely to include and even give license to those who hold a position of special truth.  Special truth as with other internal truths lay the groundwork for division, bias, discrimination, imposition, and other beliefs that are destructive to those who are not a privy to that kind of truth.  The most graphic examples would be Communism and Fascism as found in Adolf Hitler and the 3^rd Reich.

Truth and Situational Ethics

One of the distortions of truth is that truth is dependent upon the situation.  The notion reduces truth to little more than an unreliable moving target.  The outcome of that movement was and continues to be that those who participate in the various exercises involved received a message.  Truth is to be decided by the interactive processes of the group. 

External Truth and Outcomes

Consider then, the other position that one might take as to the origin of truth.  This is a position that the foundations of truth are not within the individual though there are great implications for the individual.  One might observe that is well and good but truth is found in the group.

If there is a lesson to be learned in the above referenced section on situational ethics, it is that truth does not reside in the group.  Especially given the disconnect and even conflict between the values of various groups. The foundations of truth than are not in the group or the sub-culture though there are great implications for the group or sub-culture. 

While here, consider as well, this position then disallows for there being special or private truth the introduction to which only a limited few are granted entrance.  Well if not in the individual and not in the group, then one can safely assume that it is in the culture or collection of cultures.

Once again seeking the foundations of truth in this category will leave one wanting for answers.  The reality is that truth(s) are not in the culture nor in the collection of all cultures though truth has great implications for any culture and all cultures.  One might argue that such an observation is a bit grand but then consider that one need only find one exception to discredit the notion of universal truth within culture.

There is however the other option and that is the notion that truth has it origin external to all of these things and thus the origin of truth is considered to be external.  Such truth or as some call it reality, shares certain qualities.

CT B "Arriving at Character Based Sensitivity and Diversity"

The Background of this study came from a number of past experiences!

Early in my career as an Air Force Chaplain, I became increasingly uncomfortable with the approach to "ethics" (actually it was an approach to morality) titled "situational ethics."  We would go through these scenarios discussing what we would do and why in some effort to clarify our values (values clarification).  My sense of discomfort increased to the point that based on ethical grounds my participation became quite limited.

Later I am pleased to say the USAF changed course and began to teach a character based model of values clarification and leadership.

In this same period of time, every member of the Air Force was required to attend a Sensitivity and Diversity training refresher every year.  Again it seemed to me that there was a better way and then it came to me that it was all a matter of character and how one person treats another.

Add in some short term training courses that focus upon ethics, discussions with others, some personal study, hearing speakers treat the subject, writing a major academic paper in this area, and reflecting upon these things and the result was that I discovered that almost all of what was being taught could be reduced to four basic concepts which should be agreeable to anyone no matter where they fall on the religious-secular, theism-atheism, conservative-liberal, etc. scale.  These are the four words which were in the previous post.

These are the four concepts will underpin and be supported by the notions, thoughts, and ideas presented in the following materials.

CTb II A "Introduction to Cultural Competence"

Introduction to Cultural Competence

A Beginning Place

While there is much emphasis upon Sensitivity and Diversity, the key to functioning is one’s capacity to interact with the varied people with their varied personalities that make up various cultures and sub-cultures.  Thus the subject of Cultural Competence will be approached with the following in mind.

1.  Cultural Competence is best approached from an ethical understanding of the mores of the culture and/or sub-culture in one’s area of influence.

2.  Cultural Competence are skill and action, actually interaction, words. 

Therefore,

a.    It is important to examine one’s own prejudices and biases.

b.     It is important to understand that it is not so much what the biases and prejudices one may possess but how one interacts with others who may or may not be different. 

c.    It is therefore important to see these concepts as interactive skills.

WORDS HAVE VALUES AND FEELINGS ATTACHED

The vocabulary of this area of study is not without a value of some sort and some degree of feeling attached.  Depending upon the person with whom you are talking there are words within the English language that at once have varied meanings and bring forth some degree of emotion.  Sometimes these words prompt feeling because they violate our sense of ethical justice.  Other times it is because of our sense of moral justice (more about this difference later)

 Here is a short list of some of the words that will bring these responses.

• Diversity
• Sensitivity
• Imposition
• Discrimination
• Morals
• Bias
• Prejudice
• Modernism
• Ethics
• Bigotry

Now to be sure there are definitions, meanings, personal meanings, and intended/unintended consequences to the words just listed and others like them.  

These Words Have Definitions

While it is not possible to examine every word, consider the following definition of “Discrimination.

“1. An act or instance of discriminating…”  (http://dictionary.reference.com)

Another definition of the word is as follows,

1620s, from L. discriminatus, pp. of discriminare "to divide, separate," from discrimen (gen. discriminis) "interval, distinction, difference," derived noun from discernere (see discern). The adverse (usually racial) sense is first recorded 1866, Amer.Eng. Positive sense remains in discriminating. Related: Discriminated. Also used 17c. and after as an adjective meaning "distinct." (http://www.etymonline.com)

These Words Have Meanings

One definition goes on to include what today is the most commonly thought of use of the word. 

“2. Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.”  (http://dictionary.reference.com)

Of course as with people words are known for both the family in which they are found and the company those words keep.  In this case the family (synonyms) includes such words as, “choice, differentiation, discernment, distinction, divergence, selection, respecting” and I am sure there are many more.

As to the second point, the company the word, discrimination keeps, it is found in the second definition above in that it has been given a negative value as it keeps company with such words as racism and sexist. 

An Observation of Definitions and Meanings:  The pertinent observation is that definitions are largely without feeling.  Meaning on the other hand and as you will note in a later example, will most often have an emotional component involved.

Such a treatment could be given to most all of the words on the list as each of them has a definition which may or may not line up with the meaning of the word.  However, there is more and we see it in the word just considered.

These Words Have Personal Meanings

So far the discussion has been largely impersonal and emotionally sterile in tone.  However, these are words that have also been personal in experience and meaning.  Therefore, the people we contact on a day to day basis, may not be able to articulate a definition or even be able to discuss them in terms of meaning.  However, the one thing they would be able to do is to discuss them in terms of personal experience, life impact, and implication for those they care about be they family or some other referent group.  Thus the emotional component!

The Words Have Intended/Unintended Consequences

When one considers the notion of discrimination as it is understood in today’s culture, it suggests that it is just and equitable to disadvantage one groups in order to advantage another. 

The point is that these terms and related behaviors have consequences in the day to day lives of people.  The prime example is racial discrimination.  At its very core it assumes the side of a racial minority who though better qualified is passed over for a white man who might be less qualified. 

Of course this is the unintended consequence of the whole notion of affirmative action in that it did not stop with putting both men on an equal footing but proceed to advantage the racial minority over the other.  Such of course is racism but in the reverse of what it was, thus reverse discrimination.  Again, because these things impact lives, families, life-styles, and so much more, there is an emotional component to them.

CORE VALUES ARE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

Recently a class evaluation for this area of study read as follows,

 “…there are bigots in chaplaincy; the presenter’s theology was reflected in presentation.  I was offended.  Rather have a non Christian do this part of the program.”

This is presented because within the narrative there exists several presuppositions.  However, those differences are not what prompted the evaluation.  It was written because “I was offended.”  So the first presupposition that is essential to the discussion is that of the emotional component.

I suspect that it was not the discussion of how words such as listed above may be defined nor such meaning as was attached to them but the personal experience and thus the personal meaning they had for the evaluator.

Presupposition One: Labeling

After the emotional issue the next concern was that there was “name calling” or "labeling."  Such always interrupts communication for it casts people in roles that may or may not be true.  Even if true it interferes with connection and interaction.  Difference and conviction in terms of beliefs, positions, doctrines, and other differences, does not constitute bigotry.   However, such a jump apparently was made in the thinking of the evaluator.

The lesson:  Chaplaincy is all about relationships.  It is incumbent upon those involved to be aware that these are emotional issues and that care must be exercised in how one presents and interacts with others.  However, such presentation must not compromise one’s deeply held convictions.

Presupposition Two: Amoral Discussions

These matters cannot be discussed except that one’s philosophy, doctrine, and theology be a part of the discussion.  They can be discussed on a moral level but that soon breaks down since the national culture and even the local culture is comprised of multitudinous sub-cultures with their own notions of mores.  For the one with ethics, any discussion that does not include objective reality/truth falls short of what is foundational thinking.

Presupposition Three:  Core Values Always There

A non-Christian does have core beliefs that would not be reflected in the presentation.  I suspect that by this time in that evaluation much of what was being written was a reflection of the emotions and if quarried the evaluator would see that all have core beliefs that are reflected.  The example here presupposes that the amoral or non-religious are devoid of philosophy, doctrine, or theology.

Observation of the Evaluation

As one goes about serving others in the various venues of life, unless one simply meets the symptoms which are the manifestation of the basic needs, there must come a point at which one deals with the deeper issues that caused the symptoms.  As they say, to do otherwise is to “…put Band-Aids on cancer….”

One must have at least a moral framework, if not an ethical framework from which to serve others.  To do otherwise is to do less than serve.  Consider the following example.

The National Association of Social Workers:  Even social workers, not known for their religious/conservative views still hold the following to be important.

“Social workers shall function in accordance with the values, ethics, and standards of the profession, recognizing how personal and professional values may conflict with or accommodate the needs of diverse clients.”  (from the National Association of Social Workers’ Standards for Cultural Competence in Social Work Practice)

 It is interesting to note that this is the very first of the standards presented.

CONCLUSION/SUMMARY

To interact with the subjects in this area of study is to enter a very, very sensitive area.  This is so because the implications impact people’s lives, where they live, how they get along with others, and their opportunities for getting ahead.  That being the case whether it is the meanings people give to these words have a great impact upon how one might functions in and among the interaction in one’s personal life, in one’s life of service to others, and even in one’s relationship with oneself.  

Therefore it is of utmost importance that these things be handled with,

§  Respect for other people, their thoughts, and feelings.  Just because one respect these things in another does not mean you necessarily agree with them.

§  Honor for other people.

§  Honesty with other people.  One cannot deny who they are and what they believe and long be respected.  However, being honest does not mean that one “rolls over” another.

§  Permission.  Asking permission honors and respects the other person and even in the most difficult of situations, one does well to gain permission.

 Finally, my hope is that you will journey thought these things with me and that as you do so, your responses to my blogs will teach me as I attempt to share with you.