praxistheologia.com

We. What is meant by this word? I’ve noticed that lately I keep hearing the word “we” in contexts that I’m fairly sure doesn’t include Me. “We the American people seek to secure our freedom from terrorism,” but I am a Christian sojourning in America, and my freedom was secured 2,000 years ago by Christ. “We in the United Methodist Church…,” but I am a minority in the UMC. “We” is everywhere from the news to the billboards. Truth be told I’m not innocent in this either. After all, I use “we” in exclusionary ways as well. I have to admit that when I say “We Christians” I don’t even mean all of my fellow Duke Divinity students let alone the religious right. This isn’t because I doubt their salvation, but because I understand the Christian life differently than some.
In the midst of all these overlapping circles of “we,” I’ve come to believe that “we” is nothing more than the proverbial tie that binds various groups to cycles of imperialist meta-narratives of power. In other words we is the word that social groups use to give or revoke power to classes of people. This is why poems retelling American Meta-narratives are so powerful –they illuminate hidden subtexts of power. e.g.: one reading of the Constitution’s preamble says:

We the people [who are at least upper-middle class] of the United States [because Iraqi's don't count], in order to form a more perfect union [for quixotic individuals], establish justice [except for non-whites], insure domestic tranquility [by building walled suburban enclaves], provide for the common defense [by killing anyone who dare look our way], promote the general welfare [except for the poor], and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity [except for 'illegal' immigrants], do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I’m not arguing for the stripping of “we” from the human language. Indeed, there are times when “We” makes perfect sense. Describing the actions of a family, or a small group is difficult and clumsy without we. These contexts for “we” do not denote, or connote power. What bothers me is the way groups use “we” in contexts that grant or deny power. As such I think “we” should be kept from theological writing, ethics and the pulpit at all costs. After all, the church shouldn’t be about about getting and maintaining power. Theology shouldn’t be about getting and keeping power; theologies of power ultimately reflect a Constantinian ethic where God’s control of history is occluded by the strategies of empire.

Rejoinder to Grete’s Comments:

However, I’m not sure how a church congregation or community or theological discussion could work without a “we.” Isn’t that stripping the body of Christ back down to a bunch of individuals? I understand that there is danger in handing the word to those with power (especially in the context of a power-hungry nation), but it seems to me that the Church could be about resurrecting abused words, not tossing them out the window.

Also, I don’t think the word “we” at its best “describes the actions” of a group; I think at its best the word “we” defines a group. And to take away the pronoun used to define the Church scares me.

I believe that when speaking of the body of Christ, the Church, that the only way to speak about it without succumbing to power meta-narratives or radical individualism is to speak of it as Christ did, His Bride, or His body. The body of Christ can speak of itself without “we.” The body stands as one, with many individuals and speaking of it as “the body of Christ” or “The bride of Christ” is no disservice to the body. I agree that the Church is about resurrection, even the resurrection of language. Yet there must be reticence to power. Even power that claims to resurrect words.

As far as “we” describing the actions of a group versus defining the group, I agree with you. It does define a group, and it can be used to describe that groups actions. “We went to the market.” But the question remains, why use a pronoun for the church at all? Besides, isn’t the defining of who or what is in the “We” that is church an act of power that is inherently not ours to wield?