 |
Prepositions are relationship words. They define how subjects, objects, and other elements of a sentence relate to each other. In the context of religion, prepositions reveal how we relate to God and to the world. Two prepositions, in particular, seem quite important in matters of faith and spirituality: for and with. We thank Jesus because he died for us. We ask God to do things for us. We say that God is for us and not against us. The word "for" places us in a receiving, passive position and defines God as the primary actor, the one with the ability to make things happen. For is a word we might associate with sovereignty. With, on the other hand, implies a more cooperative and intimate relationship. Emmanuel means God with us. Jesus identifies with us in our broken and needy condition. God invites us to co-labour with him. With is associated with solidarity.
Samuel Wells and Marcia A. Owen have written an excellent book which explores these two prepositions, with and for. In Living Without Enemies, they outline four models of engagement between those in need and those offering help.
1) Working for: When we see someone struggling with a task, we might say, "Here, let me do that for you." We initiate the engagement, we decide how to do the work, and we complete the task. The one being helped has little input because the task has been taken out of their hands. All that is expected of them is gratitude. Working for creates and reinforces two disparate roles: the helper is cast as a competent and generous benefactor (a hero) and the one being helped is cast as needy, incompetent, and passive. The balance of power rests entirely with the so-called benefactor. This model is prevalent in our Western world: professionals act on our behalf (doctors and lawyers), politicians pretend to speak for groups and individuals, leaving the ones being impacted by their decisions and actions without a voice, governments and aid organizations see a need and come up with a plan of action based on their expertise instead of in consultation with those actually living in the situation.
2) Working with: Instead of doing something for another person, we can choose to enter into a shared project with them. This type of engagement is less efficient than doing the work for someone and because of this, might seem a bit counterintuitive to those steeped in a capitalist context. In working with someone, we recognize that they have something to contribute, so we invite them to share their ideas and knowledge. Together, we develop a plan to accomplish a goal through partnership. The idea here is to empower the other, not just fix a problem. The relationship is more peer to peer, built on mutual respect and sharing resources.
3) Being with: Helping the disadvantaged cannot always be measured by work accomplished. Sometimes the aspect of presence is the most important work of all. Being with is not about starting programs or finding solutions; it is what Wells defines as "companionship amid struggle and distress." [1] He cites Jean Vanier's work with L'Arche "where people with and without disabilities share their lives together," as a prime example of being with. [2] Being with focuses on family dynamics, not power dynamics. It cultivates a sense of belonging through shared experiences, shared life, giving and receiving friendship, and embracing vulnerability. In being with, all are on equal footing, each person's value and worth affirmed regardless of their status or skills. To love and be loved is at the forefront of being with. It is solidarity through physical proximity as modelled in the incarnation. In Jesus, God took on human form and, as Eugene Peterson puts it, moved into the neighbourhood. Wells adds a gentle reminder that sharing in someone's life should not be done without their invitation.
4) Being for: This is a life dedicated to improving the lives of others even though there is little direct contact with those we are seeking to help. The cloistered monastic tradition is one example of this, seeking to serve the world through devotion to God, daily prayer, and faithful community, even though cut off from the world in many respects. According to Wells, many scholars fit into this category, doing important research and writing which helps shift the thinking of our time, bringing new information and insight to light. Even though much of the work is done in relative isolation, the motivation behind being for is one of generous service to humanity.
I found Wells' articulation of these four models of engagement very helpful. Though working with, being with, and being for all seem to have their place, I suspect working for harms more than it helps. It invariably sets up power imbalances and makes it difficult to develop any meaningful relationships. As one who does a fair bit of teaching and leading, I have to admit that doing things for people is so much easier and definitely more efficient than doing things with them. When I teach, I am tempted to ask leading questions instead of inviting honest reactions. I sometimes set out assignments requiring rote regurgitation of information instead of allowing room for original research and thought. As a pastor and leader, it is easier to tell everyone what to do, what to believe, and how to behave instead of journeying with people as the Holy Spirit guides them on their own unique path of transformation. It is even more difficult to be with people in the midst of their lives, no program or organized activity in sight, sans expectations or measurable goals. It is equally difficult to place oneself in the vulnerable position of receiving love and kindness instead of being the one offering care, of listening when one is so used to speaking, of following another's lead instead of always pointing the way.
I suspect that there is a connection between how we view God and how we engage with others. If we see God as primarily sovereign, in control, in charge of everything, predestining us for a certain life, working for us, then we will probably seek to be in control, in charge, doing what we think is best for people without ever consulting them. Simply put, we are modelling what we believe is godly leadership. However, if we know God as one who suffers alongside us, who serves and guides without exerting power over another's freedom, who is God with us, inviting us to partner with him, then our leadership and our benevolent acts and our engagement with others will reflect this. Our desire will not be to change the world but to cultivate loving relationships (with the result that the world is changed). The goal will not be fixing problems or managing behaviour, but fostering community. This may sound a bit un-evangelical (where is the good news of salvation in that?), but foisting a certain set of beliefs on people, insisting that it is the only true way, is really a power play, a show of superiority. The gospel of Jesus is never a ploy to gain the upper hand. The gospel of Jesus is about loving the world, even if it doesn't love you back, even if it refuses to believe, even if it kills you. The good news is not that we have the truth, but that Truth lives with us and invites us to partner with him/her in serving and loving and saving all of creation. And I am all for that.
-----------------------------
1. Samuel Wells and Marcia A. Owen, Living Without Enemies (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2011), 30.
2. Ibid.
Image from mixedmediafaith.com
Comments