to for or with

an important part of communitas collective is keeping it real and keeping it current!!  this week at the refuge we are having our monthly "advocates" meeting; it is a gathering for people who want to cultivate a spirit of advocacy and learn to journey in the trenches with hurting people.  it is an amazing group, so much compassion, heart & desire to love well.  the reality for a lot of us, though, is that we want to learn to walk alongside others & let people walk alongside us but we don’t have the greatest models to draw from.  there’s the clinical side that’s focused on "super tight boundaries" and there’s the "fear-of-being-sucked-into-the-vortex-of-people’s-pain-and-struggle" that can sometimes be very real that freaks a lot of people out and causes us to not want to engage.

i do think that incarnational living is tricky.  we can toss around the word like it’s nothing but the reality and implication of it is quite another thing.  i am constantly reminded that the ways of Jesus are so counter-intuitive to so much of what we’ve been taught in our american (and yes, church) cultures about self-protection, convenience, and strength & power.  we can talk about "messy" but  most of us aren’t crazy about living in it!  

way back when i first started blogging i wrote a post  on the carnival blog about why prepositions matter.  of course, one blog post can never cover all of the ins and outs of complex issues, but it  does set the stage for an idea we are going to be fleshing out at this month’s advocates meeting at the refuge–incarnational relationships aren’t providing help or advice "to" or "for" others; rather, they are engaging in the real journey "with" others.  

here’s an excerpt of what i wrote:

in christian circles, the preposition TO has become the most prevalent.  “i have something i need to give to you.”  i have wisdom i need to impart to you.   “here’s the advice,  biblical truth, kernel of supposed life-changing knowledge i have to give to you”.  the problem with the preposition TO is that it is very paternal & creates oppression.  it is an up-down relationship.  someone is more squared away than the other person and has resource, knowledge, put-together-ness that the other person doesn’t have.  the person on the other end usually ends up somehow feeling like a project and a loser.

the preposition FOR is another easy reflex for most of us.     it’s when we want to do things for a hurting person.   “here, let me makes these calls for you”  “i don’t want you to hurt so let me fix this part for you” ”your anxiety is giving me anxiety so let me do what i can to take care of this anxiety for you.”  “let me get what you need right now for you.”  the preposition FOR is extremely maternal and creates co-dependence.  helpers get sucked into helping and also end in a one-up role where they are the ones who need to take care of the person, make things happen for them, or stay in a role where they are always just only “serving” people and it always stays on those terms.   it’s again a one-way relationship, just a little nicer and with more perks for the hurting person.  this  is the one i am best at.  i am the mother hen, the get-it-done person, the adult child of an alcoholic please-let-me-try-to-make-this-feel-better-for-you person.    that is my natural tendency & i am always aware that this is my reflex if i’m not aware and intentional about staying away from it.

lots of churches and communities, more than ever, are getting a missional focus. i think that’s beautiful.  i do think a lot of communities realize they’ve been consumerized and are trying to shift back to some of the things jesus talked about.    however, i am going to toss out a challenge here.  i still believe there’s a “serve the poor because we have something to give TO them or do FOR them mentality.”    i know tons of people are doing all kinds of fantabulous things for people without resource.  but i also believe that many of  these relationships are still one-up, one-down kinds of relationships.  many helpers aren’t really into being in relationship WITH “those people” beyond a self-satisfying helping moment.

the preposition WITH changes everything.  it means “i am with you in this moment, will stand alongside not walking ahead of you but alongside you.”  “i am in the same boat, i struggle, too, my struggle may just look different.”  “i want to share life with you, not just take care of you or tell you what to do”  “you have some things i need to learn from, too. let’s learn from each other.”  “i will let you into my life”  “i want to be friends.”

okay, there’s no question:   WITH is way scarier.  it means i let others in and don’t hide behind my do-good-ness.  it means i make myself vulnerable and let others into my life, my experience, my heart instead of just take care of them and keep a safe distance.   the professional, clinical culture has permeated the church and some of us have been taught that is having “bad boundaries.”   we have been taught that good boundaries is helpers help when it works for them and help-ees need to do what help-ers tell them to do and then everyone’s happy, right?  neat, tidy, clean.  i help, i tell, i give.  you receive, you listen, you be thankful.

nope, incarnational relationships means messy, unpredictable, hard, confusing, and sure to tap into your pain, history, fears, and annoying, frustrating places.   i am not saying that WITH relationships can happen with every person. as a pastor, i sometimes need to stay in a role for a particular reason that’s really healthy and good, not just for me, but more for the other person, too.  i have found,though, that this is quite rare & i think more leaders hide behind it as a protection because so many have not been taught how to do "with" relationships.   i also believe there are millions of serving moments that are amazing and important and necessary and i don’t want to minimize how critical “serving” is.

but here’s what i am going to push on:   we default to TO and FOR because they are easier ones to pull off.  they protect us.  they keep us safe.  they keep the focus off of us and onto the other person.  in the end, we don’t need “them”, they just need “us.”    i believe that incarnational relationships, with each other relationships, create true transformation.

TO  is paternal & can create oppression
FOR  is maternal & can create codependence
WITH  is incarnational  & tends to create transformation (on both sides)

at our advocates gathering we’ll be processing and considering some of these thoughts together.  i really look forward to it and believe we have a lot to learn from each other on the journey.

which of these is your natural default?