The Foreign Service Journal, April 2016

10 APRIL 2016 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL other positions into a limited non- career appointment category. New hires came in under that pro- gram, but resistance both within and outside of MED led to a cessation of the practice after a few years. Michael Nesemann Regional Medical Manager Consulate General Frankfurt Mental Health Treatment: The Faith Alternative The FSJ has not lost its willingness to tackle delicate issues. This is evident from the January-February issue focusing on the supersensitive issue of mental health in the Foreign Service. In “Foreign Service Members Weigh In,” some members tell of how their con - ditions of service caused them psycho- logical problems, support for which was often not forthcoming. These accounts confront us with some of the harsher realities of the Foreign Service life, and resonate with me. I, too, experienced such conditions of service: difficult and dangerous postings, small- minded supervisors, a son’s mental ill- ness, break-up of the family and eventual mandatory retirement. Yet I neither applied for psychological treatment nor felt it would be desirable. Perhaps I was aided by the links I discov- ered between my Foreign Service experi- ence and theology, which I describe in my book ( Theology and the Disciplines of the Foreign Service , 2015). If so, this leads to a further point. The inability to find conventional treatment within official structures is unfortunate. But, sadly, even if found, such treatment is not always successful; in my son’s case it failed despite a years-long effort. An alternative and potentially more effective remedy lies in religious faith, with its healing prayer, worship and fellowship. Given the FSJ’ s secular orientation, I can understand why it did not feature this approach. But should it not be noted? Rev. Theodore L. Lewis FSO, retired Germantown, Maryland The FS Profession Debate As we start a new year, a few of us who are Foreign Service officers serving at the Foreign Service Institute want to weigh in on articles that have appeared over the course of the past year in the FSJ and elsewhere featuring commentary about whether the U.S. Foreign Service consti- tutes “a profession.” Some commentators reached the con- clusion that it does not, and a piece in the October FSJ (“Working with the U.S. Mili- tary: 10 Things the Foreign Service Needs to Know,” by Ted Strickler) went so far as to assert that the Foreign Service “could be described as a pseudo-profession, with elitism passing for professionalism.” We disagree. Today’s Foreign Service is increasingly professional and elite—as we want America’s diplomats to be—but not elitist. The Foreign Service does reflect many aspects of a profession, including its rigor- ous entry process, peer-reviewed progres- sion and training programs that provide foreign affairs practitioners with the knowledge, skills and attitudes they need to perform at a professional standard. We do agree, however, that the area of “long-term learning” deserves further attention, and we are happy to say that this essential element of professionalism is developing robustly at FSI. Senior-level leaders across FSI are working to tie lifelong learning more clearly to professional advancement and career opportunities. Foreign Service education is an exciting field to work in right now, as we collectively develop