Last week, Geography of Grace editor Scott Dewey was overheard to say that posts here need not always aspire to be profound. That took the pressure off for me, because few things I have to say can match the profundity of Oluwasayo, the pathos of contributors like Sam or Mary, or the eloquence of poets like Tad. But I’ve got something on my mind, and Scott gave me permission to lob a “thought bomb” onto this blog. You should find a grain of salt before you continue reading.
What has been bothering me is a curious expression that I’m noticing used by Christian people around me, in churches and urban ministry circles in Denver. (I haven’t noticed it being used by people who aren’t Christians, and I wouldn’t recognize the phrase in Spanish or Swahili, so my rant must be restricted to my limited context.)
Here’s the phrase that’s rubbing me wrong: “LOVE ON,” as in, “we just want to LOVE ON people.” Huh? As near as I can tell, this phrase is shorthand for something like, “let’s treat people kindly, out of our motivation as followers of Jesus.” And why not? It certainly is shorter to say “I just want to LOVE ON those kids,” than, “I want to treat those kids kindly out of my motivation as a follower of Jesus.”
But this may be an instance in which small is not beautiful. Or maybe it is: Couldn’t we go even smaller, and simply say, “love people,” rather than “LOVE ON people?” Does the word “love” really need a preposition to modify the way it is delivered? After all, we don’t LIKE ON our favorite foods, SERVE ON people, or WORSHIP ON the Lord.
To say LOVE ON someone sounds like something one might do TO them, as though love was some sort of substance that we could put onto another person.
In our CTM intensive courses, we talk about something called the “prepositions of mission.” We often learn to serve others by ministering “to” people on the margins of our cities, bringing some form of charity without a significant personal connection. This is a fine place to start, but it runs the risk of paternalism. Over time, relationships with those we serve cultivate a kind of ministry “for” others – doing things on behalf of those we care about, hoping to make their lives genuinely better, the way a mother cares for her children. But service modeled after the incarnation is characterized by a new preposition: “with.” To the degree that we join our lives to the lives of those we serve, the ministry flows both ways and makes us all stronger. To, for, with: our prepositions matter.
Which brings me back to LOVING ON people. Truthfully, I want people to love me. (I want you to like me, too, which makes me wonder why I’m even writing this crotchety blog!) I’m not sure I want anyone (or at least, not most people) to LOVE ON me.
If I’ve offended anyone, I apologize on you.
Jeff Johnsen
Doesn’t really know a preposition from a participle
Lives on Denver, Colorado
Plays on a guitar
And loves on his family
Comments (10)
UNPROFOUND COMMENT ALERT: I kinda like the sound of someone saying they want to "love on" me. Sounds cuddly. It's nice. :)
Posted by Lori Ventola | December 11, 2007 10:43 AM
Posted on December 11, 2007 10:43
I just wanted to thank on you for these excellent thoughts.
Posted by AnonymousBlogger | December 11, 2007 1:05 PM
Posted on December 11, 2007 13:05
"Love on" implies action to me. I think I've let the word 'love', by itself, turn into a kind of feeling or sentimentality. "I love Iowa," is how I feel about Iowa. Wheras, when I love on Iowa, I pick up litter along its beautiful, country highways (I've never done that, though).
Posted by Caleb Nothwehr | December 11, 2007 1:15 PM
Posted on December 11, 2007 13:15
Good point, Caleb! I think that's what people mean when they say it.
Posted by Lori Ventola | December 11, 2007 3:59 PM
Posted on December 11, 2007 15:59
Mission accomplished, Jeff, for starting a good conversation on this.
The term sounds saccharine to me so I don't use it. But here's why it doesn't bother me when people do: as a figure of speech, it does seem to have a shade of meaning more specific than the simple verb "love." At best, I hear it as shorthand for "lavishing affection on someone without expecting or demanding anything in return, because I have discerned that is the best of many ways I can show love to that person in this situation."
One image I get is of the woman in the gospels who anointed Jesus. She lavished affection on him... and in that moment it seems she was not expecting him to do anything for her at all. Jesus rebuffed criticism of her for her extravagance, saying that his followers would always have opportunity to do the same on (!) the poor.
The other image I get is of our Loving Arms community lavishing affection on teen orphans in Romania. Jeff, you may not want/need people to love on you in this way, but I can tell you that those guys are hungrier for it than they are for food, which is saying a lot. Every night at summer camp I go around the bunks of orphanage-hardened young men in their late teens, tuck them under their covers, put a hand on their shoulders, and say prayers with them. They cannot get enough. "The poor you will always have with you" to show this specific sort of love.
Of course there are other ways to love, and if we only loved this way it would be like feeding each other a steady diet of desserts. That's why we have so many conversations about empowerment vs well-intentioned disempowerment. We need our butts kicked on too.
Posted by Scott Dewey | December 11, 2007 4:25 PM
Posted on December 11, 2007 16:25
That was funny. It made me laugh.
Posted by Anonymous | December 12, 2007 7:00 PM
Posted on December 12, 2007 19:00
Jeff, great thoughts and comments. It may be an issue of symantics; it is interesting to see how different people interpret the term "love on".
I tend to agree with you. I don't like it; I don't use it. I'd rather be loved, or loved with, or loved in, then loved ON.
When it comes to my own "loving" I'd rather "love on" becasue I think it's more on my terms. It's giving people what I think they need. Love is always a verb, always connotes action of some sort. But, to love with or love in means that I get in the context of the other person. To love on feels like, I've got an answer, something you need, that is mine and not yours.
The whole image of the incarnation is not to LOVE ON; it is God with us, God in us, not God ON us. Maybe it reminds me too much of being SHIT ON, which we've all had enough of. When I try to LOVE ON or have been LOVED ON, I often feel like I've shit on or have been shit on. Still, I choose to LOVE ON, even though I know that I'd rather people love in, love with, or just love. I do it because it's easier to just love on, it's more remote then getting IN and WITH.
Totally, random and spontaneous thoughts!!! Blogging is a dangerous thing:)
Posted by Tad Monroe | December 13, 2007 9:45 AM
Posted on December 13, 2007 09:45
Your response captures an important part of what I was getting at, Tad: the term "love on" feels like it contributes to my persistent tendency to objectify (turn into an object) the person I am hoping to love.
This blog conversation got me thinking about Buber's famous book "I and Thou." We long for the kind of connection in which two subjects meet (I/Thou, in Buber's language), but most often (whether in prayer, service, marriage, etc) experience "I/It" connections, where the subject (me) does something to an object (you).
To speak of "loving ON" someone doesn't cause this problem, of course. But I suspect it inadvertantly contributes to it, if only in small degrees.
By the way, I've sure had lots of people wanting to love on me since I wrote this post!
Posted by Jeff Johnsen | December 14, 2007 1:11 PM
Posted on December 14, 2007 13:11
hey jeff, i laughed out loud when i read this. there was something about the way you said it that just hit it--to me it it is condescending. "we have the love and we're going to be good people and pass it ON to you.." i know people mean well with it and mostly come from good intention, i am sure, but i guess i just really am not that interested in someone "loving on" me when i am hurting. & when i am hanging with my hurting friends i never think of loving "on" them i just love them. it is a one-up, one-down kind of word to me. but i am way more crotchety than you when it comes to christian language, i am guessing (ask karl)... i have a christian lexicon of words that i can't stand. i have to admit, this wasn't in it yet but that was just because i hadn't thought of it & honestly most of the people i'm around don't really use it..now thanks to you reminding me it officially made it to my list. thanks for writing, i liked your post!
Posted by kathyescobar | December 15, 2007 11:23 PM
Posted on December 15, 2007 23:23
well, jeff...you sure have "loved on" or just "love" me and my family tons...and no matter how you say it, when it happens, i am sure glad we're covered in it.
Posted by sam | December 16, 2007 6:21 PM
Posted on December 16, 2007 18:21