A few years ago I did a bit of studying comparing Martin Buber and Paolo Freire, both of whom have something to say about education. Part of what I found was regarding their use of pronouns, which has stuck with me, in both cases, as being a useful reminder in how to relate to other people. I was reminded of this in one of my recent posts, in which I said that the mission basically treated its members as objects without self-determination; certainly, I felt that way at least.
I won't go into a lot of detail here about this, except to draw it to your attention and apply it a bit to the Vienna mission.
Freire is concerned with hierarchical relationships and this comes out in his philosophical use of pronouns. For him, having an I-thou relationship indicates hierarchy and, as such, is bad or wrong. In contrast, an I-I relationship is more egalitarian and good or right. His frame of reference is the great disparity of wealth and poverty in Brazil in the 20th century.
Buber, on the other hand, is troubled by I-it relationships, wherein someone relates to the other as an object (like how I described the mission as treating its members) and as such is bad or wrong. On the other hand 'wordless unity' describes a valuation of the other person as a person, which includes an attempt to understand them and accept their position, while at the same time not necessarily agreeing with them (which might indicate treating oneself as an 'it'). Buber's frame of reference was the atrocities of Hitler's prison camps as a Jewish internee.
I think that what these two men have to say have is important. But I wouldn't say either serves as an exact template for my views on how people should be treated and related to.
Regarding Buber's understanding, I think that people should always be related to as "I's", although I think that there are times when I don't think it's enough to just allow the other person to have their views. (I haven't studied this in a while, so I could be overimplifying Buber's philosophy, however.) I'll just deal with the Christian to Christian and Christian to non-Christian relationships in my comments here. I think that there is good biblical backing for me in my understanding that the unbeliever must be allowed to make their own decision regarding Christ, for example, and also Christians would otherwise not believe they should be held to the same standards as Christians, anyway (although a lot of non-Christians act more Christ-like than some Christians). So this relationship would more or less mirror Buber's I-I relationship. However, Christian's are to hold each other accountable in a way not so with non-Christians, and, as such, can not accept the position that we should just accept another believer's position at face value. That is, we are supposed to compare it (and their actions) to Scripture and admonish one another in love (Colossians 3:16), where needed.
Regarding Freire's view, I think that there is some truth to this in how the Bible says we are to relate to one another both Christian to Christian and also Christian to non-Christian. That is (regarding the Christian to Christian relationship), we are not to view ourselves as higher than others (Romans 12:3) and we are to recognize our need for one another (I. Corinthians 12:14-26). Even in our relationship with unbelievers the "pride comes before a fall" (Proverbs 11:2) rule still applies. However, Christians are to give deference to church leaders (e.g., I Peter 5:5) and secular authorities (e.g., I Peter 2:15-25), although that deference is not unconditional, but is subject to any Scriptural limitations that might apply. (Also, note that the I Peter 5:5 does not say to obey in the case of being asked to do something that might be sin, just to obey whether your boss is kind or not.)
So, in general terms (with exceptions, as noted above), Christian relations should be as such:
Christian to Christian relations should be mostly one of mutual respect (Buber's "wordless unity") and valuation (Freire's I-thou). Exceptions are holding one another accountable (differs from Buber) and recognizing differences of responsibility (but subject to Scriptural scrutiny) (differs from Freire).
Christian to non-Christian relations should also be one mutual respect (Buber's "wordless unity") and valuation (Freire's I-thou). the exception is recognizing differences of responsibility (but subject to Scriptural scrutiny) (differs from Freire).
This is how I experienced the Vienna mission, in contrast:
Vis a vis Freire: I was viewed as a "thou" (in hierarchical terms) at the very bottom of the all-encompassing and very demanding hierarchy.
Vis a vis Buber: I was viewed as an "it" with virtually no say in anything, and anything and everything that I did say could be used by the mission to undermine my "I"-ness. So I was an it being acted upon by the mission with no self-determination voice, no voice at the table at all.
I'm not sure how others experienced the mission, but that's how I experienced it. I was, in short, an inconsequential object to the mission. At least that's how they treated me.
