Faqspeak

Having googled “faqspeak”, I am surprised to have retrieved no hits for its use as a word. Therefore I offer it as a neologism. What do I mean by “faqspeak”? Exactly that. Well, almost. 

I hereby coin "faqspeak" (pronounced 'fak-speak') to  describe the phenomenon by which a speaker habitually begins each point of an exposition with a question. As a rhetorical device, asking a question then answering it can sometimes be effective. As a rhetorical habit, where it shapes most of an entire discourse, it not only annoys by its repetition, but undermines the art and effect of exposition. 

Effective exposition contains an element of drama. The thesis (or protagonist) may enter in the first scene, or be introduced after the stage is set. Subtext and subplot artfully carry the argument along, adding nuance, color and, most important, multiple levels of access in understanding motivation and purpose. The denouement closes the story leaving the audience convinced it is the only way it could have reasonably ended. The speaker established dogma with drama.

By contrast, "faqspeak" constitutes a coarse opening for a simple assertion. By controlling the question, the speaker crudely controls the range of response. Faqspeak sounds defensive because it is. I remember first noticing its use in the press conferences of a bush-league Secretary of Defense trying to explain why we should topple the regime of a dictator who did not pose an immediate threat. He did not explain anything: he merely answered his own questions. Repeatedly.

Many catechisms have long used the FAQ format it to reinforce recitation in a pedagogical setting. Cyber-wizards in the early internet days brought it to the mainstream in a technical support context. Somehow it morphed into a marketing tool to push information rather than to document user-originated inquiries and user-oriented responses. The kudzu-like spread of faqspeak found in corporate and political messaging today means to induce catechetical recitation of corporate and political agendas. We let powers that be (or wannabe) ask our questions for us.

My challenge for myself is to eschew the temptation to control the conversation by avoiding faqspeak. Used occasionally, it can be effective. This article uses it exactly once. Used habitually, it reduces what could be an eloquent description or explanation to a series of talking points. (Do not get me started on PowerPoint presentations.) Talking points do accommodate our short attention span, but they excuse us from the responsibility of thinking something through to the point where we might understand it.

Adding “faqspeak” to my own vocabulary helps me recognize it when I hear it and label it when I use it. I intend to catch myself before using it and to replace it with a more thoughtful (if not brief) explanation of what I am trying to communicate. This means letting listeners ask their own questions and answering only questions other people ask. It means waiting for others to form a response to my questions and to form a response that is not a question itself. That strikes me as a more effective, humane and satisfying way to conduct discourse.

Where have you heard faqspeak? Does our vocabulary need this new word?

Our Horse for a King

I am reading several Psalms in my devotions that are heavily themed with God's majesty and royalty. It made me think of a statement I read recently that among King James' motivations for providing a new translation of the scriptures 400 years ago was the intention to reinforce the authority of the monarchy. I don't know what word choices or interpretations reflect that, but it caused me to consider the disconnect between how some passages are understood differently read in a democratic society, as opposed to under monarchical or dictatorial rule. What do we miss and misunderstand by not living under the same kind of government the KJV was specifically meant to shore up?

My readings this morning also reminded me of God's reluctance to let Israel have a king in the first place. They pleaded like a six-year-old child: "but everyone else has one!!". God warned them that a king would draft their young men into armies and appropriate their property in taxes, which results the scriptures dutifully record. But other than the bureaucratic, militaristic and economic burdens in His warnings, God did not warn them of one consequence. They would no longer view Him as they did before. Having a king would diminish their relationship with Him.

Stories in the Old Testament, before the time of the kings, concentrate on patriarchs and prophets. But in those stories, God also came to the people in personal visitations and close encounters (Immanuel - God with us). Even in the exodus from Egypt, God made Himself known in a pillar of fire or leading cloud that all the people could see. For all the thundering and roar of Sinai, people witnessed God's presence directly. Not that it always made that much of a difference to them.

In God's plea with His people to forgo a king, might there have been a grieving plea not to interpose a figurehead between Himself and them? Like a wise father who sees his child run off to join the me-too of his generation, did God not restrain Himself from lamenting the mutual loss that would come from inserting a government between Himself and Israel? When a king became the only leader Israel would follow, did then the Messiah not have to be prophesied to be a king among his other identities? And did not the anticipation of a kingly messiah not obscure the arrival of an unlikely messiah in the actual incarnation.

Immanuel did come near again, disguised, but Himself nonetheless. But what did we miss in the distraction of demanding a king?

Really Good Parents

This post is in response to a Facebook post of the type that I run into every couple of weeks. It is titled "Angry Mom Shreds Common Core by Writing This on Her Son's Test".

I don't know whence Angry Mom gets her information about Common Core, or her Anger. But this is my response....


Dear Really Good Parent,

I mean that. You are a Really Good Parent.

You want what is best for your son. You want him to do well, to be well, and, well, even to exceed you in his character and his fortune, I would bet.

You are a Really Good Parent.

Being a Really Good Parent, however, does not make you a Really Good Educator. Nor would being a Really Good Engineer make you a Really Good Educator. Even having been a Really Good Student would not make you a Really Good Educator.

I can tell you were probably a Really Good Student because you can solve that arithmetic problem from the Common Core a lot faster using the way you learned than by using one of the modeled procedures in the Common Core. You learned a long time ago that 7-takeaway-6 is 1 and that 2-takeaway-1 is 1 and that 4-takeaway-3 is 1. You memorized a lot of simple addition, subtraction, multiplication and division problems that led to harder problems where you had to carry, borrow and remember decimal places. You internalized those methods so well, you probably don't even have to think about how you solved the problem, you just did it.

I learned those methods, too, and even learned "the New Math" along with it. I internalized the procedures and can do those problems really fast. Just like you.

Doing those kind of problems relies heavily on being able to manipulate symbols and to process logic. Those are fairly abstract capabilities. I would guess that being able to process logic and manipulate symbols contributed to your being a Really Good Engineer.

Here's the thing: not everyone can process logic and manipulate symbols like you and I can. Those are two powerful capabilities that are not common in the population.

Developing those capabilities is not really a matter of practice, trying harder, technique or virtue. Developing those capabilities is more about how you perceive and process your world - in short, how your brain is wired. Of course, a person not wired for those capabilities can practice, try harder, google a technique and clean the chalkboard erasers for their teacher and they may be able to demonstrate some progress. But, because that is not how they perceive and process their world, it will not help them when it comes to learning new things.

When we learn new stuff, we first revert to form.

Most Really Good Students are those who are typically wired with those capabilities to process logic and manipulate symbols (especially math and engineering students). The majority of students have to rely on other capabilities to succeed - like spatial reasoning, kinesthetic experiences, or story telling. And this is the good news: those students can also be Really Good if they are presented with learning opportunities that address their learning styles.

Really Good Educators know that.

Here's something else: Really Good Parents only have to apply their Really Good Parenting over two or five or maybe eight children. They get a long time to practice and even a few years to learn who their children are. Over that time, they can make mistakes, make up for their losses and often be forgiven by their children because they have taught their children how to love and respect others' differences and shortcomings.

Really Good Educators have to hit the floor running on Day One with 15, 20 or 30 children. They have to ensure that everyone has the same opportunity to learn. Not just the Really Good Students like you and me. They have to address multiple learning styles and even learning disabilities in the course of their work. They didn't have 6, 10, 15 years to learn about any of those children or watch them grow up.

The approach to subtracting in the homework problem you didn't like relied on the position of numbers on a number line and on movement to represent addition and subtraction. It used space instead of symbols to represent the problem. (Remember that numbers are abstractions and numerals are only one of many possible representations. Counting on your fingers is another representation.)

Think about how you felt when you couldn't make sense of a problem represented with space and movement. That is how most students feel when presented with columns of numeric symbols and told to "borrow one from the hundreds' place". They don't get it and say "this problem is stupid". For those students, saying "4-takeaway-3 is 1" may be no more meaningful than saying "Roses are red, violets are blue". They are words and words can be arbitrary. (Roses can also be yellow. Or blue. And what, exactly, is 'violet'?) When those students are confronted with a problem that requires manipulating symbols and processing logic, they often conclude "I must not be good at math".

Your son, like you and me, might be very successful at processing symbols and logic. Even so, it doesn't hurt us to learn alternate strategies. Other students who are better at reasoning in space or motion won't be hurt by learning to manipulate numerals. Few people operate in a single mode. All of us can probably benefit by alternate ways of seeing. Or hearing. Or grasping.

Real Good Teachers help children become Really Good Students by giving them alternate paths to a goal. They help them become Really Good People by seeing (or grasping) that those who take alternate paths are not valued any more or less than they are.

States and districts adopt Common Core because they want everyone to get the opportunity to succeed at a set of baseline learning outcomes. Some students may do it faster by one approach over another, but everyone gets the chance. No one should be held back because they learn differently or require alternate paths to achievement.

Common Core is an exercise in respecting others' differences and shortcomings when it comes to reaching a common goal together.

I am thankful for Really Good Parents and Really Good Students, because I teach, too. I am also a parent. I am especially thankful for Really Good Educators who rise to the challenge of recognizing and responding to a room full of diverse capabilities every semester that measures out their career.

My hat is off to all Really Good Parents and Really Good Educators who are committed to helping all children become Really Good Students and Really Good People.

Point of View

One of my daughters emailed me last night asking if I had gotten to "the museum part" in Wally Lamb's book I know this much is true where he talks about how we curate the pain and injustices that people have wrought on us. I emailed back "no" and she found it herself shortly after.

When I went to bed that night and opened the book to continue reading, I came upon "the museum part" within a few pages. In the scene, a psychiatrist responds to the protagonist in a therapy session with "You are merely giving me a tour of ... your museum of pain. Your sanctuary of justifiable indignation.....You are a meticulous steward of the pain and injustices people have visited upon you... a scrupulous coroner."

The book is very good. And it has given me many opportunities for reflection.

I went to church this morning. The homily was on the Gospel passage, the story of the Prodigal Son (or the Prodigal God, as Lloyd John Ogilvie would have had it.). But the Epistle lesson was from Paul's second letter to the Corinthians. I read the Epistle text like I had never read it before.

The perspective of the passage is instructive. It is not written in the second person. That is not because Paul was ever sheepish about speaking directly to his audience. He never shied away from an assertion. This passage, however, is written in the third person. I believe that perspective is critical to understanding what Paul means to say.

When this passage is generally read or preached, the message delivered is "because you, sinner, are a new creation, you should be able to bring your life into line with morals, expectations and rules by dint of your transformed life in Christ." This is a key passage in the message "you are not what you should be - so change!" (And don't make any excuses.)

I have heard, received and internalized this message as the following: If I am a new creation in Christ, then I have the power - the obligation - to change myself, or to let myself be changed. To become more acceptable. More normal. The unspoken corollary is that if I cannot (or will not) be changed, then I must not be in Christ in the first place.

It is true that we are renewed and transformed when we encounter the astounding love and grace of God. We do change. But that is not what this passage is about. The metaphor of a "new creation" echoes the original and sudden "Let there be..." moment. The changes that actually occur in our life take time. They are the result of long process and often do not take us where we or others expect.

What has happened immediately in Christ is that our sins are forgiven and no more held against us. This is exactly what the passage addresses. Read the passage again, and pay attention to the third person perspective. In the second person, one would expect to hear "You are a new creation.... (so shape up!)" But Paul goes in a different direction.

In the third person, Paul discusses how we look on one another and how we look on Christ. How we "regard" someone else "from a human point of view" and once knew Christ from that same view. But now we regard one another as a "new creation". "See"! (that is, "see the other person") "See" others as "in Christ". What does "seeing others in Christ" amount to? Holding them to higher standards? Judging them more severely because they are "new creations"? Paul does not go there with this language.

"Seeing others in Christ" means this: In Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them. That is the significance of the new creation. It is a creation where accusation and offense have no place. To "see others in Christ" is to count others' trespasses against them (or, our own against ourselves) no longer.

A gracious and merciful "let there be reconciliation" moment through Christ resulted in the new creation. The "newness" is simply that we are forgiven. We are impelled, then, to treat others as forgiven new creatures. Reconciled. Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. That treatment goes beyond the church. Paul is explicit. "... in Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them". This is where the third person is significant. Paul doesn't say "you are a new creation, etc". He says "the world".

"their"

"them"

In Christ, the supreme fact is that God has reconciled the world to Himself. We carry the message of that reconciliation. The message is "God no longer counts your trespasses against you." If God does not, how can we. It remains only for the world to reconcile itself to God's grace and love. Nothing impedes our office as ambassadors of that message more than to maintain our own "sanctuary of justifiable indignation" or to curate others' offenses against God or ourselves.

I haven't finished the book yet. I still have several hundred pages to go. While I don't always care for "happy" endings, I always like redemptive ones. I am hoping by the end of the book there will be one less museum of pain.

Behold, how they love one another

Justin Lee, founder and head of the Gay Christian Network (GCN) has just published a new book, TORN which addresses the unsuccessful (to date) conversation between the Church and GLBTQ people and the effect of that conversation on the gospel's impact in the world. I haven't read Justin's book yet, but I have heard him speak and have witnessed his courage and diplomacy in tackling the divide between the Church and GLBTQ people in other venues.

As part of the book's release, he has asked bloggers from whatever side of any fence (including those straddling said fence) to dedicate a post to the effort to bring the conversation to some level of sanity. His appeal and links to other bloggers' contributions are found here. This is my contribution.

It would be tempting here to rehearse demands for recognition and tolerance. But a demand is not a dialog. And demands would assume the ability of one party to represent a whole. Any true dialog must begin at a place where we can find common ground.

GLBTQ people in general and Christians in general already share a lot of common ground. First, and this should be obvious, we share a common humanity. We share a range of characteristics and experiences to which neither group can claim any more right of ownership than the other. Second, we claim a common environment - the world in which we live and its resources. Sharing the same world, we are neighbors in it. Third, we share the fact of the communities in which we live, even though we may live in multiple, different, overlapping and sometimes conflicting communities. Despite that, we share the fact of communal inclination. Being communal is a part of being human. But living in a communities is a different dimension than either specific humanity or non-personal environment. Both GLBTQ people and Christians live their lives in the context of communities.

Those basic areas will suffice for now to describe what Christians in general and GLBTQ people hold in common. I don't think that should engender any argument.

Christians who are GLBTQ have even more in common with other Christians than GLBTQ people in general do.

With respect to the previous list, GLBTQ Christians and other Christians share the notion that our humanity is in the image of God and that our person, our "self", is a gift from God. 'Gift' is a strange word. We use it often to mean a special favor, like a birthday gift: something obtained and gifted with our uniqueness in mind. We also think of a "gift" as a grace broadcast over all peoples. It is both and neither. What is significant is that GLBTQ Christians share, with other Christians, the idea that what makes for the human in general and the "I" in particular has been designed by God for reasons that are both loving and unknown. That view inspires a wonder and a worship of our Maker and Lover for the gift of our Selves.

Behind the "God made me the way I am" rhetoric is a real truth that it does us no good and brings God no glory to consider ourselves defective. Even original sin, while crippling, is not the result of a defect. It is the result of a free will, which is no defect. GLBTQ and other Christians can share that conviction. Our dialog can begin in the agreement that what God made is good, and that "it is he who has made us and not we ourselves", as the Hundredth Psalm puts it. That, at least, should be a starting point.

Christians who are GLBTQ and other Christians also share a view of their environment and resources that they, too, are ordered by God, magnifying that wonder and worship for a God who makes himself known in this world. It is not just a religious motivation that is important here - that is merely an aspect of humanity. What is important is the personal and universal witness of God's attention to and provision for our needs in giving us the gift of Life. Even for the sparrows.

And orphans.

And outcasts.

And strangers.

And who is my neighbor, anyway?

While GLBTQ people are not sparrows or orphans or otherwise incapacitated, they are strangers to the Church, at least for now. GLBTQ Christians are often strangers in their own churches. I don't think it would be hard to find agreement among any group of Christians that strangers should be made welcome and that the alien should find hospitality among God's people. Our dialog can continue in recognizing that celebrating God as the giver of Life means a respect for all life in this world and sharing our piece of the world and our resources with all. What has God provided us that we are prone to withhold from others?

Finally, GLBTQ Christians also share with other Christians in the communion of the Church. As the Nicene Creed asserts, there is one holy, catholic and apostolic church. It includes all who dare hope in Christ. Period. That statement does not draw out any controversy until we take it upon ourselves to attempt to identify who  "all" might mean. That is to say, until we take on a job we have not been asked or possess qualifications to perform.

Our communion is in the Body and Blood of Christ, not just in the physical act of "take and eat", but in the existential reality of being members of one Body and being the benefactors of a transcendent blood-sacrifice. There are mysteries which can neither be argued or explained. The dialog we pursue must validate "one holy, catholic and apostolic church. It must be a witness to "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all". A dialog that begins in what we hold in common must lead to a unity and a love which bears witness to the world of our Lord. That is what is at stake.

The sanity, to return to Justin's plea, can only come when we celebrate our differences in unity. We the Church have learned to do this in other areas. It was hard. It took time. But few would return to the days of forced conversions, inquisitions, witch-scares, scarlet letters, segregation or the dismissal of women. Let it be said of the church, without condition, without discrimination, and by all who desire to come, "behold, how they love one another."