In my writing, I use the word “we” quite frequently. I sometimes make statements about what “we” believe, and I ask questions that are for “us” to answer. Though I have known instinctively that there are times when it is appropriate to say “I” and other times when I feel it is right to say “we,” I had not really thought about this distinction in a systematic way until recently.
Much of the conversation around my writing takes place on Facebook. One recent discussion of
a post involved almost one hundred and fifty comments, and became a wide-ranging discussion about the nature of Truth and personal experience. Over the course of this conversation, it became clear that several individuals were offended by my use of the word “we.” They did not agree with some of my statements, and they felt that I was attempting to speak for them. “Use ‘I’ statements,” they insisted.
This exchange gave me an opportunity to reflect on why I use the word “we” at specific times, rather than couching all of my writings exclusively in the language of personal narrative. I have come to a deeper understanding of why I use the words that I do, and for this I am grateful.
It seems that some individuals – particularly
UniversalistLiberal Quakers – interpret my use of the word “we” to include them personally. When I say that “we believe thus and so,” they feel affronted. How dare I speak for them? If you are one of these Friends, let me assure you: I do not presume to speak on your behalf.
The English language, like most European languages, has only one word for “we.” It is an
ambiguous word, because it does not indicate whether the addressee is included as subject. There are many languages in which there are two different words for “we.” The first word means “we, including you.” The second word means, “we, not including you.” I find that those who are upset by my writing often assume that “we” includes them as the addressee.
I have realized that my writing often relies on this ambiguity. As a matter of fact, I do not want to make a firm decision about whether “we” includes the reader, or not. Instead, my use of the word “we” is meant to be invitational. The reader, I hope, will feel free to judge for herself whether or not she is included in this “we.” At best, I am inviting others into an emerging community of those who are being saved by the love and justice of our Lord Jesus Christ. Though I am aware that many who read my blog may not yet wish to be a part of this particular community, I seek to leave the door open. “We” can include you, if you so choose.
I am clear, though, that I do not merely speak for myself. I speak out of a tradition, out of a community, and out of the worldwide Body of Christ. I am articulating a way of discipleship that is rooted in our (including you?) faith in Jesus as risen and present Lord and Teacher, Savior of the world. This is not something I made up. It is not merely my personal experience. I seek to express and embody the witness of the universal Church of Jesus Christ.
I get it wrong sometimes, without a doubt. And I rely upon my brothers and sisters in faith to correct me when I stumble. But this correction happens within a framework of love and trust in the risen and present Savior, to whom we (including you?) have dedicated our lives. It is because of what Jesus has done for us – because of his Holy Spirit – that we are able to care for one another, and to hold each another accountable.
If you have not had this experience of Jesus – if you have not been personally convinced of his love, presence and authority in your life – I hope that you will take my use of “we” as an invitation. Rather than a statement about your personal experience of God, it represents the witness of a confessing community that has taken refuge in Jesus. We (including you?) know from experience that
he stands at the door and knocks, waiting to include us all in his unlimited life and beauty. More than anything, he wants to make us a part of his holy “we.”
Much of the conversation around my writing takes place on Facebook. One recent discussion of a post involved almost one hundred and fifty comments, and became a wide-ranging discussion about the nature of Truth and personal experience. Over the course of this conversation, it became clear that several individuals were offended by my use of the word “we.” They did not agree with some of my statements, and they felt that I was attempting to speak for them. “Use ‘I’ statements,” they insisted.
It seems that some individuals – particularly UniversalistLiberal Quakers – interpret my use of the word “we” to include them personally. When I say that “we believe thus and so,” they feel affronted. How dare I speak for them? If you are one of these Friends, let me assure you: I do not presume to speak on your behalf.
