Just Words?

Recently, at work, I was giving a very brief presentation about the upcoming changes to the Roman Missal, explaining the reasons for it and what those changes would be. The woman with whom I was speaking responded in anger and shock. She thought the new translation was ridiculous because of the cost of the replacement of books, and didn't see why the words of the Mass really mattered anyway.

"They're just words!" she exclaimed in self-righteous sarcasm, rolling her eyes to make sure I got her point.

All I could do was just shake my head at such a juvenile response, for indeed I did get her point; that I shouldn't waste any time tossing any more pearls before swine. Just words? Really?

When are words "just words"?

Words are powerful. What's that old adage?  Oh, yes, right: "The pen is mightier than the sword." If the pen is writing mere words, how in the world can they cut so deeply and have effects that last throughout history, affecting people from generation to generation? Anyone ever heard of the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution? Or the famous 1st Amendment guaranteeing "free speech"? If words are "just words" why have an Amendment protecting them?

Anyone ever heard of Martin Luther's theses? Were those "just words" or didn't they create a schism that exists to this day and continues to splinter?

How do people end up being sued for libel over "just words", especially when their crime destroys reputations and lives? How can so many priests, like Fr. Gordon MacRae, among so many others, end up in prison as the result of slander if that slander is "just words"?  How many people have gone to the electric chair, guillotine, firing squad, or some other equally unpleasant way of death, innocent or guilty, when the verdict of "GUILTY" is just a mere word?

Words can destroy people - they have that power.

They also have the power to get unqualified people elected to the Presidency by the fluke of media propaganda. But...it's "just words". So I guess that result is meaningless.

Words have the power to begin wars, to free slaves, to install Kings, to change history - and even re-write it such that people will believe the lies simply because it is in print.

Words have the equal power to reveal Truth even in the face of the worst deception, and in so doing, set people free from intellectual bondage.

Words can encourage, elevate, support, uplift, inform, educate, and bring tidings of great joy to a world lost in darkness. Words revealed the Birth of Christ to the poor Shepherds - but they were "just words", weren't they?

Then we come to the Mass, where we come together in worship of the Almighty God. Are the prayers of the Mass, the prayers we utter in the desperation of our hearts and souls, the prayers uttered in praise and thanksgiving...are those "just words"?  If so, why are we there?  If they're "just words" why should God listen? 

In the Sacrament of Baptism, when we are baptized "In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", if they are just words, then we are "just sinners" and not children of God.

In the Sacrament of Confession when the priest says, "...I absolve you in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", if those are "just words", then we are not forgiven and never can be.

And the Consecration: when the priest, through the power of the Holy Spirit, utters the words that change the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ - are those "just words"? If so, then Christ is not present and He lied to us a long time ago.

If they are, in the famous statement of Flannery O'Connor, if those are mere, meaningless words, "Then to Hell with it!"

Oh, right...her words were "just words", too. Yeah..I guess words don't really have any meaning. They certainly don't affect us at all, do they? Words have no power, no meaning. They don't do anything. We have the power of speech for no reason whatsoever.

What about the Bible, the "Word of God", and Jesus, "The Word Made Flesh" who dwelt among us?

I guess Jesus has even LESS meaning, then, because He is just "the Word", not even worthy of an "s" to make Him plural.

Just words. Right.

There's no such thing as "just words".

What Why How

Last spring, or summer or fall...whatever it was...I had to attend a training through work. I didn't want to go but to my surprise, something I learned that day was actually useful, and didn't involve the motivational speaker telling me that I'd be living in a van down by the RIVER! (As I had feared, even though I MIGHT end up living in a VAN down by the RIVER eventually.)

So often, (please forgive me) I have been frustrated by the commenters who take my posts out of context, pulling out this or that sentence or point and trying, it seems to make my post about something it is not.  Much of this failure is mine;  often I am not clear, often it is a difficult thing, and sometimes it is something that can only be understood by someone who is going through the same thing I am while I write about it.

Sometimes I try to address within the post what I know will become a stumbling block for this or that type of reader, but it seems, always, that my most introspective posts manage to invite comments by those who simply cannot grasp where I am coming from or where I am going. It's impossible and unwieldy to even TRY to make ever commenter happy in catering to their needs. Thus, in the end, the frustration is with myself, in my inability to be all things to all people.

Truly, I don't expect people to understand me,and yet, idiotically, I somehow expect people to understand me. 

(Do you see me rolling my eyes at myself yet?)  

Some time ago, while trying to keep my frustration under wraps, I found a way to express it by writing a humorous post about what would happen if St. Augustine had blogged "Confessions."  I didn't pick on any commenters in particular, but admittedly went for reality to include the rational and annoying both.  You can find that post here. Any blogger could relate and add to the commentary.

This is where I circle around to bring in my actual subject matter for this post:  I have come to realize the speaker I was forced to listen to that day had a point, and truly, there are three types of people in the world, and all of them have commented at my blog at one time or another.

Understanding the types of people (therefore readers/commenters) can go a very long way towards responding to them according to who they are, and this leads to blog success.  More specifically, it leads to success in evangelization THROUGH the blog - or any other medium, for that matter.

(Yes, I'm shameless. Why are you shocked?)

Without further ado, I introduce you to the three types of people found everywhere in the world through every single medium, including blog com boxes:

The "What" People:

These are the people who just want to know WHAT the problem is if there is one, or if not, WHAT the subject is about and therefore, WHAT they should do.  These are the same people who want short blog posts and who are looking for the fine points in any given published article or online post.  They favor bullet points over paragraphs and wouldn't be able to survive without printers and highlighters

In some sense, I think that they might be the most likely to take longer posts out of context, just because of their inherent nature to ask "What the hell are you talking about so I can respond and get it over with?"  These are the people who look to the Passion of Christ as a necessary business, but would prefer not to emote too much over it.

The "What" people are pragmatic, practical, to-the-point, realistic, logical, and want to prioritize. They don't have time for trivialities and quickly tap their feet when confronted by both the "Why" people and the "How" people, whom they see as being extremists and polar opposites.

To evangelize them one must focus mainly on who Jesus is and the fittingness arguments as to the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection.  The challenge in formation for the "What" people is often to bring in both doctrinal and mystical theology to make sure they do not focus only on outcome, i.e., "getting the job done."

Many "What" people are most probably Thomists or Scholastics.

The "Why" People:

These are the people who are the most empathetic among us. They tend to be the most optimistic, the ones who most desperately flee any semblance of suffering in favor of "looking to the good things", often to the degree of outright denial of the necessity of obstacles.  In their empathy they are looking for the same empathy they offer out of their own inherent virtue, and are often bitterly disappointed, but to be fair, are honestly confused when others aren't as "Resurrection-oriented" as they are. They suffer greatly in this area and struggle to maintain their optimism.

The "Why" people tend to be the ones who are most offended and have the thinnest skin when it comes to the reality of sin in the world, wanting both to deny it in general and for themselves, focusing so desperately on the "positive" that they willfully deny the very important positive point of redemptive suffering.

This group is the most difficult to evangelize; they are emotionally driven to the deprivation of the intellectual. It is therefore important, when evangelizing a "Why" person, to find points of identification, such as that provided  by the Saints.  Find a Saint that most resembles the individual, build the points while you build the relationship of friendship and support with that individual.

Keep in mind that with a "Why" it isn't about facts or history or doctrine...it is all about whether they like you or not, and whether you can transfer their affection for you to affection for Christ so that He reigns.  It's a long-term project, and it means that you're going to become family members and best friends long before the "Why" finally accepts the teaching of Christ.  Why?  Because it's all about emotion and trust. It's entirely possible for a Why to adapt to a more realistic approach, but it takes time and patience. When it happens, though, get out of the way for the Why can easily become a How when they recognize the importance of their mission, and NOTHING stops them!

You'll find a lot of "Why" people focusing on Catholic Social Teaching, but the challenge in forming them tends towards the emphasis of  the doctrinal teachings and why they are important. They are excellent in the field of encouragement and intercessory prayer (you'll never find someone more dedicated to intercession!), make great motivational speakers, and are often found peddling politics and special causes.

These are the "doers" of society who keep things running.

The "Why" people are the ones most likely to find a philosophical basis in conceptualism and/or relativism. They can be guided towards Scholasticism and may adopt other philosophies according to their formation and emotional approach to spirituality.

The "How" People:

Oh, this is probably the most complicated of all.  They are perhaps the bane of my existence.

The "Hows" are the concrete-numbers-only-literalists among us.  They tend to be engineers and mathmeticians, or even worse, actuaries.  They might even be librarians (although most librarians are more flexible and personable.)  Most likely, they work for the IRS, the KGB, or the CIA.  Or maybe the DMV.

These are the people who, upon being notified of a meeting, demand to know the topic, the content, what they should bring, and then prepare spreadsheets with all sorts of complicated figures so that they will be certain to know each and every detail and be able to contribute to influencing it.

You'll never find a politician among this group. The "How" people are far too intelligent to ever condescend to mere politics. They make up the backbone of any organization, the unsung heroes in the dingy basement office of the highest skyscraper, spending their days with numbers, printouts and ever-changing computer code.

Evangelizing a "How" is quite difficult. If they are not already faithful, they tend towards the atheistic spectrum, although do have a special love of logic. The only people who can really evangelize a "How" have a deep grasp of philosophy, a love of concrete facts, and only bring in the mystical when it is absolutely necessary AND when the How is ready to go to the next level.  It's a very tricky task, but once a How has converted...get out of the way!

"Hows" make the best Scripture Scholars and Systematic Theologians.

The challenge in the formation of a How is in the realm of true pastoral relations and divine pedagogy;  making sure that the person receiving the message is actually prepared to receive it.

Philosophically speaking, the "How" people tend to cross the spectrum; but once converted, tend towards Thomism, Scholasticism, Moral Ethics, and Natural Law.

Conclusion

I have detailed above the three types of people, and having had a year or so to consider it, have come to the conclusion that the speaker was correct. I work with all three types of people and their combinations.

Most people belong to a combination of categories. For myself, I am a What-Why, only rarely tapping into How.

It is no surprise that I sometimes become frustrated when I am not understood through this medium, and probably, my readers likewise are not understood.

Although I've taken a (dry) humorous approach on this, I invite my readers to look at the categories (What, Why, How), suggest your own take on philosophy, evangelization, and characteristics, and post them in the com box.

Keep it light, keep it fun, and keep it real.

:-)

It might be Lent, but that doesn't mean we have to give up being geeks!

On the Implication of the question, "Why?"

I've been pondering something for several days now, and because of the comments on my previous post, I've decided to tackle the issue. It's something I've noticed for a long time, and in fact, I finally understand an instruction received when I first began working in adolescent psych during my college years.

During the week of our new employee orientation, the trainer, who was the Patient Advocate, explained to us that every question beginning with the word "Why?" was a reasonable question and should be answered. At the time I didn't really understand why we needed to be offered this information. To my way of thinking, if someone was asking any question, it was a real question.  Why was it necessary?

Therein is the problem. Look at the last sentence of the above paragraph. It begins with the word "Why?" followed by a question mark. And in reading that sentence, it seems to presuppose a negative answer, and perhaps to the degree of the implication by the query that his direction to us WASN'T necessary!

Yet, I would argue, it was necessary, as I have come to learn. 

Over the years I've often asked the question "why?" which was an implication of my own presuppositions that, sadly, assumed either there wasn't a satisfactory answer, or none at all.  Of course, I have also asked many questions knowing that in order to further my knowledge of a subject, I had to ask for the reason, thus, necessarily used the very intelligent query, "Why?"

Still, it seems that overall, if that question is used, no matter what the interlocutor's intent, it is read as a negative, or even as a criticism.

I can give several examples of this:

"Why are you doing that?" ~ May imply that one is doing something wrong - tone or facial expression would give this question a positive connotation.

"Why doesn't the Church allow women to become priests?"   ~ Oh, just go to an apologetics forum with that question, stated just like that. Just WATCH the responses go crazy and descend into the assumption that the person making the query is attacking the Church!  It's worse than yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre, or "Bomb!" in the security line at the airport on the day before Thanksgiving.

"Why is this happening?"  On the surface, this seems to imply a negative. Is it? Or might it be reasonable to ask?

"Why do we need to learn this?"  I can think of a lot of positive answers to that question. Is the question itself negative, or is the person asking it seeking a real answer?

"Why is this important for us to know?"

"Why is there suffering in the world?"

"Why am I earning this degree?"

"Why do you wear your hair in that style?"

"Why are you wearing that outfit?"

"Why do we have to get up so early?"

In all of the above questions, it is very easy to read the negative into it and assume the person asking the question is asking it not out of a sincere desire for knowledge, but rather, out of argument. I've made the same mistake with people, and have often had to chide myself, remembering the instruction given to me by that trainer long ago.  Yet I can't seem to stop assuming that if that question is asked, it must be coming from a standpoint of negativity or even dissent! It's very easy even to fall into the trap of assuming that someone who asks, "Why?" is looking for an argument.

It's a curious thing, isn't it?  

I know someone who left the Church and became an Evangelical Pastor because of how his own "Why?" was not answered.  (Yes, there's more to his leaving than that, but that was where his journey out began.)

My friend told me several times, that he was raised Catholic. He remembers Vatican II, and the disciplines that changed.  He explained to me that one day, eating meat on a Friday was a mortal sin. The next day, it wasn't anymore. (This is how he reported it...I'm not making a judgment in this case as to whether or not this was true.)  Of course he was confused and asked the Priest who was teaching his class WHY this was the case.  He had an honest question, and honestly assumed there was an answer to it. He was not being snide or smart.  He was confused.

He said that the Priest snapped at him, told him to sit down, shut up, and stop asking questions.  (Again, this is how my friend reported it. Please don't go into "defense" mode in the combox...focus on the topic at hand.)

You see, my friend asked a reasonable question:   "Why?"

For some reason, the predominant opinion of the public, whenever they are hit with the question "Why?" they assume it implies a negative or arises out of argument.

It doesn't - well, not usually, anyway. Certainly the question may ARISE out of a negative situation, but in its essence, the question belongs to reason; it is asking for a REASON for something, and often assumes a positive answer.  In the questions I posed above, certainly non-verbal communication such as body language, facial expression, and vocal tone will help the person being asked understand the intent of the person asking the question, but not always. Some people have a very flat affect. Some just like to yank people's chains.  Others may go around with perpetual scowls and a dark cloud overhead, but it can't be assumed that they are being snide or contentious.

This being a human being stuff is complicated, isn't it?  And it's even harder when limited to the written medium.

My post from a couple days ago was misread by many people, and I agree that the overall tone was a bit melancholic. However, that tone doesn't define my overall interior attitude, and in fact, I was disappointed that my own "Why?" queries were taken out of context of the overall post and interpreted as self-condemning or even worse, condemning of God. Yet I understand why that was taken out of context, for I asked the question, "Why?".

What I was doing in that post was engaging my reason with rhetorical questions. which ultimately were an expression of my prayer to God.  Why am I getting this degree?  I don't know, I don't understand.  The path is not clear for me, nothing is obvious.  Thus....WHY? Would anyone seriously argue that I not offer these questions? After all, there are all sorts of people in my family and friends who have often asked me "Why" I'm getting a degree in Pastoral Theology. I have never had an answer for them for I don't know that answer. Nor have I assumed their questions posed to me to be in the negative;  rather, they expect a positive response.  Their attitudes only change when I express a LACK of an answer, but those who have faith just shrug and say, "God will reveal it."  (Those are also the people who would like to pursue the same degree or field!)  :-)

Making that "why" statement, contrary to seeming popular opinion, is not indicative of an attitude of negativity, but rather, actually touches on a very human principle:  when we are confronted with the deepest issues in life, we ask questions. God expects those questions and has answers for them. This is why it is REASONABLE to ask "Why?" and doesn't presume wastefulness of education, for example, or a lack of answers. Rather, it presumes that there ARE answers even though they may not be readily apparent.

Someone who is asking the question "Why?" is seeking to go deeper;  they are seeking Truth.

I understand now why the Patient Advocate had to point out the reasonableness of that question, and I understand many more things that I was not afraid to pursue simply because of the answers I received when I had the courage to ask the question, "Why?"  In some cases, I learned more because there WASN'T a satisfactory answer, which led me to dig deeper, go further, and amass more knowledge.

"Why?" opens doors. It doesn't slam them shut.

Challenge  yourself.  Consider all the "Why?'s" you've asked in your life and check your reaction when someone around you begins a question with that query. Think about your gut-reaction when that question is asked, and how it is tempered when you then take in the other cues surrounding it.  You may actually be surprised at your own assumptions and how wrong they may be.

In my personal experience, I'm one to assume the negative, too, and have often had to quell my response to people by remembering that instruction from years ago. It has caused me to respond with reason to a question asked in reason, and it has often been the very thing the caller or customer needed to know. Perhaps they did ask out of  a bad situation, but in responding to their need, the situation was resolved...through reason.

Think about it. "Why?" isn't a bad word. It's perhaps the BEST word in the English language! Use it liberally!

Why not?

:-)