I recently listened to a lecture by Sam Wells on the differences between working for and working with versus being for and being with. It was a theme that fit in nicely with David Brooks’s recent book, “How to know a Person.”
Working for the needs of the other generally assumes you know what the need is, believe you know how to meet it, and have the resources to help make things happen. Working with assumes the same but you, the advantaged one, work with the other, the disadvantaged one, offering guidance, support, and a modicum of supervision to assure resources are well used. Both ways have their uses and are frequently employed.
Being for assumes the other has all the agency needed to succeed, and in companionship with the other strives to remove systemic obstacles through lobbying, community organizing, engaging in grass roots demonstrations and the like. It eschews overt leadership roles in favor of leadership from the other. Being with is the simplest and most difficult. It means to enter a relationship of mutual trust and affection in which, in Brooks’ terms, leads to knowing each other without prejudice or expectation.
Each of these ways has its strengths and weaknesses but Wells pointed out, we are prone to use them in ways that emphasize their weaknesses, which is one reason why so many well intentioned projects go awry. Working for and working with imply that the other is disadvantaged, has little agency of their own. Working for/with generally makes little effort at getting to know the other in any intimate way but tends to rely on studies, observations, prejudices and untested assumptions. The dignity of the other is subsumed under good intentions. It’s also the most common tactic used by truly well meaning people really wanting to address serious social problems. Well meaning helpers are dumfounded when messages of “look what I’ve done for you” don’t resonate with gratitude from the intended beneficiaries. Regrettably, attempts at being for and with can too easily slide into crowning one’s self with a halo of sacrificial goodness while accomplishing little.
There is a common weakness. It is to reserve a place of superiority over the other, that no matter what else might be true, one is at least not as needy as the other. I wonder if that is part of the reason for the incarnation. Jesus came to us utterly dependent on his mother Mary, Joseph and the people of Nazareth. Even in his young adulthood he was a Galilean not a proper Judaean. Wasn’t it commonly said that nothing good could come out of Nazareth?
Being for and being with is how Jesus entered into his earthly ministry. He surrendered his oneness with God to become one with humanity. He was being with when he entered the waters of John’s baptism and invited his first disciples to “come and see.” He spent his entire ministry being with the people he encountered as one of them. Even his works involved being for and with. It was only in his crucifixion and resurrection that he revealed the fullness of his divinity and the redeeming work he had done for all humanity. He was, and is, being with us, being for us, working with us and working for us, in that order.
It should be instructive as a guide for our own engagement with the other, whoever it might be. It should but seldom is. Good may come of our efforts, but will not produce the gratitude we so often think we deserve. In David Brooks’s terms, it’s a gap that can be bridged only by getting to know the other as a person. He offers sage advice on how to get to know the other that involves listening without judgment, asking without prejudice, and sharing openly of one’s self with the other. It requires a kind of giving up of our own sense of power, position, or superiority. It also requires us to be willing to receive the gifts the other can offer us.
Being with/for and working with/for are important in the realm of daily life to the ways in which we deal with employees, bosses, customers, friends, casual acquaintances and family. It makes us more aware of how often and in what ways we are the one in need of what only the subordinates and disadvantaged can provide.
The practical application for congregations, pastors, and Christians in their everyday lives is to be with, be for, work with, work for insofar as one is able. There are limits of course. Each way has its legitimate uses, and unlike Paul’s boast, we cannot be all things to all people. Perhaps the best we can do is work for by donating money. That’s OK. There are also times of such urgent need that providing it as quickly, efficiently and effectively as possible leaves little room for developing relationships with any intimacy. What we are called to do is follow the way of Jesus with the people we encounter.
I’ll end with advising against making it too complicated. Keep it simple. You and I are not here to fix what we think is troubling others, nor to force help when it’s unwanted and unasked for. We are not saviors, Jesus is.
amen ! preach it neighbor !