Some of you hate grammar, probably most of you. It’s boring, it’s tricky, there are rules for everything, and most of them can be broken. I just happen to be the kind of person who diagrams confusing phrases and sentences in his head. So, Kathy’s post at the Carnival in my mind appeals to me.
The post concerns the ways in which Christians use prepositional phrases. Despite the boredom you might be feeling right now at being this close to a discussion on grammar, I think her points are approachable:
[If you need to refresh your memory on prepositions, take a look at this site. Wikipedia also has a rather exhaustive list of prepositions.]
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….the problem with the preposition TO is that it is very paternal & creates oppression….someone is more squared away than the other person and has resource, knowledge, put-together-ness that the other person doesn’t have....
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”...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.
...
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.”
...
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.
...
TO is paternal & can create oppression
FOR is maternal & can create codependence
WITH is incarnational & tends to create transformation (on both sides)
There’s a huge difference between saying, “Let me do that for you.” and “Let me do that with you.” The latter oftentimes requires a much greater investment of time.
Do you think our words matter that much? Does the bible call us to do things “with” people and not “to” and “for” them? Other thoughts?
Loading ...
February 14, 2008 at 14:58
It’s true, our words — even small words like prepositions — matter. They’re weighty, they’re powerful.
(I’m with you on the grammar-is-fun thing.)
February 14, 2008 at 15:33
Our words mean that much, and more. Kenneth Burke wrote volumes explaining why. I can’t do them justice (it has been too long since that college course), but he was right.
You are, too. The Bible calls us to do many things “with”, I think, but there is a time for “to” and “for”. And regardless, word choice is more important than any of us realize, so thinking more deeply about it never hurts.
February 15, 2008 at 06:43
This is interesting. I have never thought about what prepositions I use or are used toward me.
Upon reading this, my thoughts first went to the burdens we carry and how this applies.
Have you ever had a pastor tell you to carry burdens FOR him? I have. I know that is difficult to believe but it is the truth.
If only he had told me to carry burdens WITH him, I might not be so angry today. He got caught in sin and then made me look guilty and made me take the blame and made me carry his burdens. I was already in a severe state of depression and he exploited my condition to save himself.
You are correct – TO can create oppression,
FOR can create codependence, and
WITH is incarnational & tends to create transformation.
February 15, 2008 at 10:10
I think how we do and say things means a lot more than the supposedly weighty content of our words. We should avoid the tendency to over-scrupulize when it comes to words, and learn to pay very close attention to what others really intend by their verbs, and through interpreting people, help them express to you and to others their positive contributions as they would.
How often do we get angry and can’t find the words to say what we mean, to make ourselves understood, so that the anger diffuses? I think there is an element of charity in learning to look past words and even outside of ‘the moment’ towards other people so as to better dignify them, and that takes a lot of effort.
Sometimes, taking care of people requires you to do things for them. In my experience, helping somebody do something is only awkward if, deep down, for some reason I don’t respect them like I should. How could I help them to feel comfortable and productive in my presence if deep down, I’m uncomfortable with them? If I feel that somehow this shows both of us that they are helpless and I am not, and I’m not ‘okay’ with any change of paradigm between us, or, in an effort to obscure that self-doubt, I project my real discomfort onto them, and try to act so as to not inflame them?
Having something given to me or done for me by another person only has me feeling misgivings if I feel that they aren’t respecting me as a capable person.
“Let’s do this together”, can be an extremely effective way to patronize someone, even children, when all those good intentions floating around are interpreted as self-consciousness and forced gentility – and nobody wants that.
I think most of the time, this ‘watch your language’ stuff ends up being just a trick to try and retrain a person not to say what they most nakedly mean – which, a lot of times, is deeply conflicting with their altruism. It does the spirit no good to say what doesn’t come natural. I fear sometimes that all it amounts to is double-talk with the scent of subtle mistrust, masked as ‘virtue’ or ‘growth from new insight’.
Ultimately though, if all these intentions, pronouns, favors, etc. are only going to be a way to avoid injuring my very-human pride or that of other, this whole “do unto others…” thing is still about power, isn’t it? And, Incarnationally-’with’ each other or not, we all have to make our own lives, and sometimes that’s offering up the sour consequences of our pride and letting others the dignity of dealing with theirs.
February 15, 2008 at 14:07
I agree with Ladhood the Lesser. Saying that prepositions create oppression and codependence is a little bit much! At most they may be indicative of them and that’s pretty rare. Actions speak louder that words. It does no good to say “with” when your attitude and actions say “to” or “for.” Likewise using the “oppressive” or “codependent” prepositions when one’s actions and attitude are “with” you hardly matters … unless you want to make a sensitive issue of it. It does more harm than good to relationships and cheapens the meaning of words like “oppression” and “codependence” to conflate the casual use of simple prepositions with the actual problems of oppression and codependency. What starts off as a well meaning suggestion to use more “virtuous” speech easily turns into judgmental characterizations of people who unwittingly use the “wrong” forms of speech. I’ve seen it happen too many times. Please don’t go down that path.