rst discussion

Service and Abuse

Christians are all too painfully aware of human failure and sinfulness. These are especially serious when they cause suffering inflicted, intentionally or not, by those who claim to act for God, for the church, or for good causes. Unfortunately, this has happened all too often. Because of this, it is crucial to distinguish “good” and “bad,” positive and negative implications of the meaning of service.

Service is supposed to mean offering support and assistance to others in order to make it possible for both giver and receiver to achieve authentic human fulfillment. It should be both freely given and freely received. It should be carried out in a way that honors the human dignity of all parties. It should not lead to the undermining of human dignity or freedom. If it does so, it has turned into a form of abuse. Such abuse may take several forms.

Service may be a means of oppression and exploitation. That is, the requirement of serving may be imposed arbitrarily upon a vulnerable or exploited person or group – and then justified as being something virtuous. The poor, marginalized, and, especially, women have suffered such oppression, often being taught that it was “God’s will” for them to sacrifice themselves for others at the cost of their own welfare. Slavery is an extreme example of the oppression caused by enforced service (servitude). The history of European colonial expansion in the Americas is another. The Christianity that was preached to the indigenous peoples emphasized the suffering of Jesus, and his meekness and obedience in serving others. In other words, the obedient, serving, suffering Jesus was held up as a model for the already oppressed people to pattern their lives after. Just as Jesus had submitted meekly, the conquered peoples were told to be meekly subject to their overlords and to accept their hardships as God’s will; they could be assured that God loved them and would reward them in heaven for their virtue and submission. Thus the meaning of the gospel was distorted into a justification of their suffering and a strong persuasion for them to submit to their lot in life. Unfortunately, Christianity has too often overemphasized expectations of service from those who are already culturally and socially conditioned to deny their own well-being and autonomy for the sake of serving others. In contrast to this, service is something that should be freely given, not forced, coerced, or extracted from someone to the detriment of their human surviving and thriving.

If imposing expectations of service can be a form of exploitation – denying human dignity and well-being – the correlative problem is inappropriate subservience on the part of the one from whom the service is expected or demanded. Unfortunately, it is often the case that the “victim” is powerless to change the situation. But it can also be the case that this person passively submits to being exploited in this way, perhaps because it gives them a feeling of being somehow important. Knowingly and culpably failing to resist abuse of oneself makes one complicit in that abuse.

There are additional, more subtle problematic implications. Deeds performed in the name of “doing good” can sometimes be performed from motivations that are quite self-serving and self-centered. Serving may be a means boosting one’s own ego and feelings of self-worth and importance. It can also be a means of manipulating and dominating others: doing something for them in order to make them feel beholden, to impose one’s own agenda on them, or to influence them toward choices or actions determined by the “giver.” (Have you ever had the experience of someone “helping” you in a way you do not want or giving unwanted advice because they think they know better than you what is good for you? You might have felt as if they were trying to control you or to impose their wishes on you.) This sort of “service” may be more about the giver projecting their own views and desires on the one served (even when great personal sacrifice may be involved) than about what is really in the long-term best interest of the recipient. Serving may even go to the extreme of undercutting the recipient’s self-determination and self-agency by taking away from them the opportunity of deciding and acting for themselves. The recipient is prevented from exercising their own personal strengths and autonomy. These distortions have the impact of undermining the dignity, autonomy, freedom, and authentic self-actualization of both giver and receiver.

Another possible problem is a misplaced attitude of “superiority” on the part of one “doing good” or rendering service. It is as if the giver feels that they are somehow “better” or more fortunate because they think they have something that the receiver needs and does not have. Conscious or not, there may be a feeling of regarding the recipient as somehow “less than” and the giver as their “savior.”

All of these are distortions of what authentic service is supposed to be. Service should never be a means of oppression, exploitation, manipulation, self-aggrandizement, or passive submission. True service should never be an abusive undercutting of human dignity. True service happens when both the giver and receiver see each other on the same level of their common humanity, acknowledge their interdependence, and honor each other’s dignity. Service should be an enactment of human solidarity – celebrating the worth of each person, recognizing their unique gifts and contributions, standing with them in their need, and powerfully resisting their dehumanization.