102.3 The River - Austin

[vernsboy]

Okay, after all the comments on The River in Austin (and the wild tangents), I want to throw in a couple of thoughts.

I'll have to admit that I am curious about how well they will do. From what I understand about Austin, it's a very liberal town, which can play out well for a Christian station that bills itself as being "positive and safe." It can also be the one thing that keeps the station from thriving.

That said, from what I've heard so far, The River seems to be lining up with the other Christian ACs across the country and seems to be taking the same launch approach as The Song in Indy and Spirit in Tulsa. They're mixing in Switchfoot, Lifehouse, and other artists that have an appeal outside of the traditional Christian formats and they also appear to be sticking to all recurrents with very few currents. This makes sense if they want to build a very familiar base to build off of.

Based on ratings, the top 2 stations (both owned by Clear Channel) are both Country formats, which from what I've seen appear to share the most listeners with Christian formats across the country, so it may have been the best choice to flip a station to.

Last thing to keep in mind...this is the same company (Clear Channel) that didn't have success with the Christian format in Nashville (101.1 The One). Part of that may have been due to WAY-FM being established, but were there other factors? If so, I guess time will tell us if Clear Channel learned anything.

Sorry so long, but I just wanted to lay out a few thoughts...

 

[neutral_observer]

> Okay, after all the comments on The River in Austin (and the
> wild tangents), I want to throw in a couple of thoughts.
>
> I'll have to admit that I am curious about how well they
> will do. From what I understand about Austin, it's a very
> liberal town, which can play out well for a Christian
> station that bills itself as being "positive and safe."

If you'll indulge me, I'd like to start by pasting, as background, the contents of a post I made a little too late on the first thread about it (pardon the repetition if you've seen it before):
__________________________

It's all about women.

Quite simply, AC stations have finally figured out where all the women they're losing have been going -- Christian AC's. They've thought about it, talked about it, researched it, and brainstormed about it, and they honestly can't figure out what to do about it. There's no response that has worked or appears will work. They honestly have no idea what to do.

So, in many places all over the country, they're going to do it for themselves. And Clear Channel just happens to own quite a few of these AC's that are sick of losing their women. They want their women back. That's all.

There's no real substance to what they're going to do. It's being done by people who say that they're Christians because they were born in America and went to church every now and then when they were kids. They're taking the same approach as Democrats -- they know that they'll need to talk of "values" and "family" if they're to gather the audience, so they will. Anyone will be welcome to work on these stations as long as they can talk that talk. Their paradigm has nothing to do with a relationship with God being made possible only through personal acceptance of Jesus as the Christ...they think only in terms of being nice, being kind, giving to charities, keeping things clean and inoffensive, being positive, and helping people be able to say, "Well, I try to be a good person."

I've known this has been coming for a long time (maybe or maybe not this particular station or market, though...I'd never tell), but I chose not to say anything while only a relative few knew "the secrets." Now, it's getting out, so I feel safer now in telling this:

This station is the first of many.

If you're a successful Christian AC in a market where CCU has a cluster strategy that relies on having women and happens to have a station in the cluster that's well down in the "also ran" section of the ratings, understand that CCU wants the women back and will be coming for them. Be ready. Strengthen your product and your relationships now.
_______________________________

With that context set, you'll likely understand what I'm saying with the following:

I heard a human voice recently...thought they'd go jockless much longer than they did. However, I was...uh, surprised...when I heard that voice refer to an artist's getting over an illness as "a healing" and then say "Hallelujah!"

Uh.....yeeeaaahhh. Ok. Um.....well....alrighty....



> That said, from what I've heard so far, The River seems to
> be lining up with the other Christian ACs across the country
> and seems to be taking the same launch approach as The Song
> in Indy and Spirit in Tulsa. They're mixing in Switchfoot,
> Lifehouse, and other artists that have an appeal outside of
> the traditional Christian formats...

Sure, but just a note that those are Christian artists heard on many Christian stations...


(You might or probably know that already, but I just thought I'd mention it anyway.)

 

[Voicedude]

"Their paradigm has nothing to do with a relationship with God being made possible only through personal acceptance of Jesus as the Christ...they think only in terms of being nice, being kind, giving to charities, keeping things clean and inoffensive, being positive..."

Exactly.

This is why CCM numbers have been in serious decline for the past 2 or 3 years. It's what happens when the "seeker-sensitive" approach, one that is causing massive decline in the effectiveness of the local church, comes to radio. Focusing so hard on not offending "seekers" has caused the format to become increasingly less relevant to the core audience.

As a former CCM programmer I'm afraid that the format is in danger of becoming fairly irrelevant to the Christian community if it continues on this downgrade.

 

[toddohio]

> It's what happens when the
> "seeker-sensitive" approach, one that is causing massive
> decline in the effectiveness of the local church, comes to
> radio. Focusing so hard on not offending "seekers" has
> caused the format to become increasingly less relevant to
> the core audience.
>
> As a former CCM programmer I'm afraid that the format is in
> danger of becoming fairly irrelevant to the Christian
> community if it continues on this downgrade.>


I have to disagree with you. It's NOT about "not offending seekers." It's about finding the BROADEST appeal.

For example...If you're on the air talking about going to the church picnic on Sunday and talking in a "Christianese language" all of the time...well you have just excluded a large portion of your audience who doesn't "fit" into that exact lifestyle.

Have you ever been at a party and some friends were standing around talking about something that you had no clue about. You probably felt excluded and out of the loop. You feel dumb. You feel uncomfotable. If this has ever happened you probably left the conversation and went to a converstation where you fit in and felt accepted and smart.

That happens every day at radio stations in your town. It also happens every day across America at many Christian MUSIC radio stations who speak at their listeners with a narrow appeal.

Narrow appeal: church, being saved, fasting, versions of the Bible, devotions

Broad appeal: spouses, kids, exercise, hurt, priorities, cleaning the house, gas prices

The broader Christian radio can be = the most appeal = a bigger CUME = more lives impacted = the station survives and succeeds financially.

 

[radioelizabeth]

voice dude wrote:
"It's what happens when the "seeker-sensitive" approach comes to radio. Focusing so hard on not offending "seekers" has caused the format to become increasingly less relevant to the core audience."

I have to agree with Todd's post on this one.

I think broader appeal is more relevant. When women have conversations over lunch or coffee (that is, if they have time!)...they talk about A LOT more than scripture, sermons, or their prayer needs. In fact, they most likely aren't taking too much time with those talking points either.

Not that it isn't important, and can't be incorporated...but context within the content matters.


e

 

[Voicedude]

> If you're on the air talking about going to
> the church picnic on Sunday and talking in a "Christianese
> language" all of the time...
>
>
> Narrow appeal: church, being saved, fasting, versions of
> the Bible, devotions

Thank you. You have drawn several conclusions here that have no basis in fact. You can relate to the core without the stereotypical presentation you assume here. You have concluded legalism with absolutely no evidence.

> The broader Christian radio can be = the most appeal = a
> bigger CUME = more lives impacted = the station survives and
> succeeds financially.
>

This gets to the question of what the station's mission is. If they seek to be a mainstream station playing Christian music, that's well and good. Nothing wrong with that. But if a station calls itself a "ministry", then we're talking a whole different ballgame. The gospel offends. That's radical and that's what people need. But to assume they hear it in songs, many of which are watered down to the point of being about either/or Jesus or your girlfriend, then what "impact" is that having? They are not going to "get it" through osmosis. Radio stations seeking to minister can do so with a relevant presentation, without being preachy, and with heart for the listener. But my point (and it's been validated by a lot of confirming research) is that these seeker-sensitive models are missing the core by not addressing what the core comes to Christian radio to get...radio in the context of their faith. A typical comment from the core focuses we've done and seen is, "the station used to really encourage me in my walk but now it's like they've forgotten we're here".

It's not just the radio, but the whole industry in general that is affected by this malaise. Just listen to the lyrical content of the Top 50 titles from 5 years ago versus today and you'll see how pronounced the difference has become. We still have some artists on focus, but many are just busy making "nice" songs with no real message. Several artists have told me privately about their struggles with the "Christian music machine" and trying to carry out what they believe is God's call for their lives and work. And these are major name artists, some of whom have found themselves without a label because of the their stand. And others are too big for their labels to lose.

It's always been true in radio that the broader you aim, the less you hit. That's my main point here.

Please keep this in mind before making further generalizations.

 

[toddohio]

>
> It's always been true in radio that the broader you aim, the
> less you hit. That's my main point here.
>
> Please keep this in mind before making further
> generalizations.>


#1 - I don't appreciate your tone - I think it sucks.

#2 - You target very narrowly - you communicate very broad.

#3 - Who are you and which station or label are you at - or used to be at?

#4 - Maybe the artists "who have been called" can have a broad appeal on the radio and then do the bulk of their outreach in an intimate concert setting.

#5 - I think you generalized in your last post when you said that..."Christian radio numbers have declined in the past 2-3 years." Any numbers that I've seen show that Christian radio has more listeners now than ever before.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by toddohio on 01/04/06 05:02 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[MarkLaRoi]

> I have to disagree with you. It's NOT about "not offending
> seekers." It's about finding the BROADEST appeal.
>
> For example...If you're on the air talking about going to
> the church picnic on Sunday and talking in a "Christianese
> language" all of the time...well you have just excluded a
> large portion of your audience who doesn't "fit" into that
> exact lifestyle.
>
> Have you ever been at a party and some friends were standing
> around talking about something that you had no clue about.
> You probably felt excluded and out of the loop. You feel
> dumb. You feel uncomfotable. If this has ever happened you
> probably left the conversation and went to a converstation
> where you fit in and felt accepted and smart.
>
> That happens every day at radio stations in your town. It
> also happens every day across America at many Christian
> MUSIC radio stations who speak at their listeners with a
> narrow appeal.
>
> Narrow appeal: church, being saved, fasting, versions of
> the Bible, devotions
>
> Broad appeal: spouses, kids, exercise, hurt, priorities,
> cleaning the house, gas prices
>
> The broader Christian radio can be = the most appeal = a
> bigger CUME = more lives impacted = the station survives and
> succeeds financially.
>



Right! As difficult as it can be sometimes, our responsibility as good employees is to make the station as successful as it can be without compromising the message. I work at a teaching/talk station, so I need to find ways to encourage people to stick around to hear the Word from the pastors who've paid to share and are bringing the Truth. If that means I need to make somebody laugh, then I do. If I need to draw close to them by commisserating about the high price of gas, then that's what I'll do. That's exactly what I do sometimes with friends and family anyway, and that's how we want our listeners to feel: like friends and family.

There can a lot of ministering in sharing a great way to clean glass table tops or a short cut past rush hour traffic or which dry cleaner you've found to be great. If the listeners know they can value your words, when you do say something directly about God, you'll have earned their ear.

Rock on! <P ID="signature">______________
~Always leave a hole when you go.
</img></P>

 

[neutral_observer]

> #1 - I don't appreciate your tone - I think it sucks.

...and _that_ has a bit of "edge" to it, too!

As one who has perhaps been near the center of a bit of a coarsening of our discourse here*, I'd like to suggest that we all begin to re-soften our dialogue...though not to the point of allowing error or myth for the sake of being cordial, of course.


*I actually view what I do as a message board form of "removing Christianese."
You know...I'm doing a wordy, lengthy, and technical way of saying, "I'm sorry, but, no, God has not called you to suck!"




> #3 - Who are you and which station or label are you at - or
> used to be at?

Could we not necessarily find a crime in anonymity? At least one person knows who I am (possibly several people), but I'd just as soon maintain anonymity, myself, as would others, for a variety of reasons, the foremost of which is the possibility of creating a horrible first or lasting impression from a form of communication -- text -- that is so easily subject to misinterpretation.




> #2 - You target radio very narrowly - you communicate very
> broad.

Ah! A radio idea! Let's go with it!

Flesh it out, Todd!

(In a thread of its own topic, of course...)

 

[radioelizabeth]

A little tangent: Anonymity

neutral observer wrote:
" Could we not necessarily find a crime in anonymity? At least one person knows who I am (possibly several people), but I'd just as soon maintain anonymity, myself, as would others, for a variety of reasons, the foremost of which is the possibility of creating a horrible first or lasting impression from a form of communication -- text -- that is so easily subject to misinterpretation."


It's obviously no secret, I am not for anonymity on a message board. I think it's entirely unnecessary. I understand it is acceptable, allowed, and part of the process...but it also is the cause of much frustration to many on these boards who welcome a much more honest dialogue and I'll say "fair" communication.

I say that to mean that I give every poster the benefit of the doubt in text. We're all pretty used to using it by now, and impressions...are...well... impressions.

Sure, I come across as a heartless, cold, direct woman when I articulate myself on a board...but, not in every thread...and I think experience and posts reveal that. If it works for me, can't it work for "you" so to speak.

Again, just my opinions...but when a poster positions themselves as one with authority and credibility through either citing experience or colleagues...it seems adding some actual credentials wouldn't be too much to ask. Or else, could we all just be anyone we wanted?

Now, I do have a pen name I use when I write. But that serves a much different purpose...and I only reveal that now to not be confused with a hypocrite. (I have no doubts that the given name and the pen name will eventually collide...or at least I hope they do.)

But I see absolutely no reason for anyone on any board to not be able to just say who they are. Unless, there is something they say on a message board, they'd rather not have attributed to themselves (for any reason). Again, though...just my opinion.

Elizabeth<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>

 

[Link]

> > #1 - I don't appreciate your tone - I think it sucks.
>

It is interesting how neutral's opinion gets changed to an attack.

I personally agree with the majority of what he is saying and its nice to see more posts that dissent from the defacto moderators on this board.

We know that radio listener ship as a whole is declining. If ccm actual listenership is up I would suspect the reason is k-love and not the few light ccm/secular stations. I admire klove for the jesus they put into their mix which I would guess would be unacceptable to many of these Jesus "lite" broadcasters.

 

[toddohio]

>
> It is interesting how neutral's opinion gets changed to an
> attack.
>


It wasn't "neutral"...it was "voicedude" - and yes...I had a problem with his tone because he accused me of having generalizations. I was very specific.

It also annoyed me that his perception of "why Christian radio is declining" was a result of "why Christian radio is not super-serving the artists."

The Christian radio marketplace has changed and continues to change. There are artists now having tremendous impact and success by writing songs that connect -not only spiritually - but into our every day life experiences.

And to respond to voicedude's post responding to me:

TODDOHIO: "If you're on the air talking about going to the church picnic on Sunday and talking in a "Christianese language" all of the time...
>
> Narrow appeal: church, being saved, fasting, versions of
> the Bible, devotions"

VOICEDUDE WROTE: "Thank you. You have drawn several conclusions here that have no basis in fact. You can relate to the core without the stereotypical presentation you assume here. You have concluded legalism with absolutely no evidence."

TODDOHIO (response): Let's take it out of the spiritual side. Let's say your target listener is a 75 year old grandma who loves to cross stitch every Friday at her church for two hours...and ironically a lady that fits your target was featured on Dateline NBC last night. Boy, she loved to cross stitch and be at church. She was full of joy and patience and she cared for others.

You know who your target is...so you're narrowly focused. But...the key is to COMMUNICATE with a BROAD APPEAL as to include your target AND careful NOT to exclude (I didn't say OFFEND) others listening who may not exactly fit into your target listener:

DJ says..."Last night on Dateline NBC there was a story that showed that if you have a hobby that you enjoy you're more likely to be a happier person with more patience and understanding."

Narrow target...broad appeal...connected with the listener as a whole - and depending on the individual's day and circumstance...maybe they drew a spiritual conclusion from it too.

Obviously, there are times we talk about God and prayer and what makes us who we are. We're more likely to connect with the listener more often and at a deeper level if we work hard at creating a friendship and trust like they may have with a friend at a coffee shop - who they talk with about MORE than just spiritual things.

 

[rbrucecarter]

Re: A little tangent: Anonymity

> It's obviously no secret, I am not for anonymity on a
> message board. I think it's entirely unnecessary.

I have had a very scary experience with out of control listeners. The little station I had a show on in Daytona Beach did not even lock its front door when I started my show. Anybody could walk in off the street and there was the front desk in front of them, and the studio on the right. The station was not even in the best part of town.

Fortunately (or unfortunately for the station), its format was so irrelevant to the community (even the Christian community), that it was under the radar of most of the city. A place the seek button stopped, then you would go on to the next station.

All that changed when myself and a few other programmers went in, bought time, and programmed Christian rock / CHR programs. Ratings went through the roof, the phone rang off the wall, we were making something of very little.

Unfortunately, it wasn't long before the nuts started coming out of the woodwork. Anti-CCM, anti-Christian rock, KJV-only types. VERY little love in them for their fellow believers. My best announcer was only 14 - she got an ear full of profanity from one of these types. What sealed it for me was when some of my announcers got followed home and harrassed at home by these nuts, and we had one burst into the station with a weapon. My announcer cowered under the console while he attempted an anti-Christian rock rant punctuated with profanity (never realizing that we had put the station on automation). Not a word of the rant ever went out on the air. He left before the police arrived and was never caught. After that, a peep hole went into the door, and the station door was locked. Later, surveillance cameras went up.

I have received many threats - some of them death threats - for programming a Christian rock show on that station, and operating a web site in defense of Christian rock. So you better believe I am going to maintain a high degree of anonymity! My family's safety comes before any desire you might have to know my exact whereabouts and station for which I worked.

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re: A little tangent: Anonymity

Bruce Carter wrote:
"My family's safety comes before any desire you might have to know my exact whereabouts and station for which I worked."


Everyone in this business has stories of stalkers & sickos...I'm not asking anyone to risk their safety.

But I hardly see where that is the motive behind most who use aliases on these boards...AND...if you use a pseudo name on the air or at work (good idea for all broadcasters!)...then why not the same one here? (Perhaps you are Bruce Carter from station ____?) How is posting the same information here putting you in any more danger than at work, at church, or the other places you have posted you are ACTIVE in your community?

Because you are a person behind that name at the station...why not just be the same one here?

Again, I KNOW it is permissable and acceptable. I PERSONALLY just don't believe it is necessary. And honestly, I can't imagine any more information needs to be devulged here than any other place you place your name.

Unless again, the poster does not want what they post associated with who they are. Which again, for whatever reason... is still a choice.

Just not one I agree with.

e

 

[narrowcast]

Re: A little tangent: Anonymity

> Again, I KNOW it is permissable and acceptable. I PERSONALLY
> just don't believe it is necessary. And honestly, I can't
> imagine any more information needs to be devulged here than
> any other place you place your name.
>
> Unless again, the poster does not want what they post
> associated with who they are. Which again, for whatever
> reason... is still a choice.
>
> Just not one I agree with.
>
> e
>
Remember back to those college days of filling out feedback forms on professors and classes? Instructions usually began with do not identify yourself on this form. Why? Because the department heads wanted honest feedback. They wanted students to feel comfortable giving their opinion without fear of retalliation if they gave a bad review. Same here and other opinion boards. Those of us who work "in the bidness" know some managers peruse this board and may not look too favorably on employees that post. It's great that in your position E you feel comfortable with everyone knowing who you are and where you work. Not everyone has that same situation and it would unfortunate(not to mention sparse) if they could not post.

 

[GaryThompson]

Re: A little tangent: Anonymity

It's a sad state of affairs when we're scared of our employers and have to post anonymously to be honest.

If we're in fear of being tracked down and punished by our "Christian" bosses for speaking honestly in respect and professionalism, then that speaks volumes of the smallness of these so-called bosses.

If this is your reason for not posting using your real name...you have my sympathy. That's a hard situation to be in. I've been there in the past. I'm not now, thankfully. I believe in my company and subscribe whole-heartedly to their philosophy.

I'm not naive. I know that it's not a perfect world. But may you someday work for a company in whom you believe...and in turn, believes in you.


> Remember back to those college days of filling out feedback
> forms on professors and classes? Instructions usually began
> with do not identify yourself on this form. Why? Because
> the department heads wanted honest feedback. They wanted
> students to feel comfortable giving their opinion without
> fear of retalliation if they gave a bad review. Same here
> and other opinion boards. Those of us who work "in the
> bidness" know some managers peruse this board and may not
> look too favorably on employees that post. It's great that
> in your position E you feel comfortable with everyone
> knowing who you are and where you work. Not everyone has
> that same situation and it would unfortunate(not to mention
> sparse) if they could not post.
>

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re: A little tangent: Anonymity

narrowcast wrote:
"Those of us who work "in the bidness" know some managers peruse this board and may not look too favorably on employees that post."


I respect your position on it...but to the above I have a few thoughts:

1. If a company would not want their employees posting, and were to look upon it unfavorably, then by posting...isn't the employee showing a bit of disrespect to their employer?

2. I rarely read any posts where anyone is posting negative comments about the specific stations where they work (which I am so glad for!). If most of the comments have more to do with the industry as a whole, what prevents the employee from feeling confident and comfortable enough to just discuss those ideas and opinions with their employer so opinions are not a suprise? And if the comments are negative regarding the industry (which we have seen), then could it be less about protecting the freedom of discussion and more about protecting the person posting?

3. If there is fear of retaliation from a current employee or others within the industry, then I think there is a greater issue than free thought on a board.

4. If it is merely policy that employees represent the companies they work, and therefore posting on boards is not welcome...then again, isn't posting breaking that policy, and thereby equal to disrespect for the authority over them?


"It's great that in your position E you feel comfortable with everyone knowing who you are and where you work."

I think my personal comfort comes from my own understandings of personality and integrity. NOT to say all those who use pseudo names don't share that understanding, please don't infer that.

I, personally, would not post any trade secrets, policies, or comments that could harm or damage my employer (past or current or future)...and I'm fairly comfortable that the majority of my posts deal with building up or challenging those who tear down this industry...so, I imagine that, for me at least, I am confident that if there were any negative consequences to my posts, then they would be rightfully assigned or irrelevant anyway.

Also, in light of my current situation, my posts serve a variety of purposes.


"it would unfortunate(not to mention sparse) if they could not post."

I agree, that we would lose great dialogue if my desires were fulfilled on this. So I'm not advocating changing the policy. Yet, it is still one that is rather frustrating to me, especially in light of how some of these threads play out.

But obviously, again, this is my opinion on anonymity on the boards. They aren't my boards. If I ever have a message board available, perhaps I'll institute a different type of dialogue and discussion guide.

I was never a big fan of those private feedback forms anyway. I just told the profs how I felt. But I was young and naive in those college days (although, just as outspoken!), as were most.



e

 

[Link]

I don't personally think that christian music stations that will not regularly talk about who jesus is and why he is important to them are that helpful.

You talk about two extremes one the classic doller per holler station and the other one that "lets the music do the talking".

My opinon is that neither is particularly helpful in building the kingdom of god. Both are distorted. If you are a christian and cannot speak of your faith, it would be a good idea to work in that area of your life in my opinion. It you can't speak, you may not now why it matters to yuo.

It probably is better to simply say that the two extreme christian stations are simply about making money which is probably the reality of the situation. To call them anything but business enterprises is probably more than they deserve. That good can come out of business enterprises is not unknown.

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re: Message

link wrote:
"I don't personally think that christian music stations that will not regularly talk about who jesus is and why he is important to them are that helpful.
My opinon is that neither is particularly helpful in building the kingdom of god. Both are distorted. If you are a christian and cannot speak of your faith, it would be a good idea to work in that area of your life in my opinion. It you can't speak, you may not now why it matters to you."

I guess I would ask if you engage in conversation about Jesus and why he is important everywhere you go? I know when I am standing in line at the grocery store, I don't...but I try to be polite and kind and not count the items in the cart in front of me...

Most of those I interact with on a daily basis can quickly gather I am a Christian, but that isn't so much in the words I choose, but in the way I communicate every other aspect of who I am.

Part of the job as a broadcaster is to know when and where content goes and how it flows in the overall programming of the station. I certainly don't hide my faith, but unless I'm given a platform to boldly declare it or share it, I usually find other ways to incorporate the truth that I am a Christian...like...sharing in the emotion the song is about to evoke. Or sharing a story of friendship, family, love. I try to be witty, real, broken, and passionate...and myself.

We don't ever know WHERE the listener is or what they are doing. We don't know if they just fought with their spouse, got fired from their job, had their best friend criticize them or if they just came from therapy to sort out the damage the "church" did to them as children...

We presume to believe they are at least in a place where they are receptive to SOMETHING because they have chosen to listen or are scanning towards us.

When you have a limited amount of time with an open mic, word economy is vital...and more damage can be done with a rushed declaration than a careful conversation you have over time in your interaction with the listener through communicating your heart where they are.



<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>

 

[neutral_observer]

Re: Message

> I guess I would ask if you engage in conversation about
> Jesus and why he is important everywhere you go? I know when
> I am standing in line at the grocery store, I don't...

Exactly. So many seem to have such an incredible expectation of Christian radio! They don't expect it from Christian bookstores and the clerks therein, books, videos, and so on....they don't even expect it from their churches, if you think about it! That says great things about the uniquely intimate nature of radio, but come on!



> Most of those I interact with on a daily basis can quickly
> gather I am a Christian, but that isn't so much in the words
> I choose, but in the way I communicate every other aspect of
> who I am.

Exactly again. The station I was at in 2001 had an early Sunday morning "positive"/Christian program, and I filled in for the travelling regular host the weekend after 9/11 (I didn't host it normally because the genre of music is really outside my area of familiarity and comfort). As the hour got close to the end (thank you, voicetracking!), I said something like (think warm, gentle, cozy, and reassuring), "You know, those of us who are always gettin' up and getting going this early on Sunday mornings and have real reason to want to be listening to this show...most of us have taken a look and read the end of The Book. A lot of people have been wondering about and worrying about a whole lot of different things this week, but, no matter what happens, we already know how the overall story ends -- we win. So, no matter what you might be tempted to spend a whole bunch of time and effort worrying about, you and I already know how things turn out...things'll be okay, and we're going to be just fine."

A Christian feamle friend had called just as I was getting ready to cut that break and heard it over the handset sitting on the counter. When I got everything saved and picked the phone back up, I was greeted with silence -- my friend was too choked up to speak. She said, "(Whoops -- almost typed my name!), are you going to get in trouble for saying that?" She just couldn't get over the idea that something that "bold" and that close to a flat out witnessing about faith in Christ was going to go on the air of that station (I really didn't think much about it).

"I don't think so. I don't know why I would, but I don't care -- this is who I am, and who I am inevitably comes out on the air everytime I go on or anything I'm responsible for goes on. Those words were a little more obvious and specific than usual, but I can't imagine anything would ever come of it. That time on Sunday morning, I doubt anyone here will even hear it!"

She then talked about how proud she was and blah blah blah...(yes, she was a little young and wanted more than friendship, but that wasn't her motivation!)

Monday came, and the phone rang a whole lot more than usual. More people than I thought evidently listened to that show, and all had something to say to me! Were they upset? No, of course not. Were they talking about how surprised they were to hear me say something like that? Surely much to the surprise of the poster above who wants Jesus talked about by name constantly, no, they were not.

"I always knew you were a Christian!"
"I always knew you're a believer!"
"I could tell. I've thought so for years. It's in the way you talk about everything. It's in the way you are when you're out in public. Like I said, I've thought so for years. Thanks for saying what you said, and thanks for being there."

Well, I'm always surprised when it turns out people pay attention to anything I might say, but this was surprising way beyond that.

Heck...just bein' myself. And, even in a secular format, it evidently made a long-lasting impact I never had any clue about.




> ...I usually find other ways to incorporate the truth that I am a
> Christian...like...sharing in the emotion the song is about
> to evoke.

You know, a well-done segue (or properly-set segue marker) can be one of the more valuable things you do in sharing in the emotion and allowing a song to evoke it. My gosh, what in the world are you people doing who are running a tight board out of "Word Of God Speak" or "I Can Only Imagine?!" (Okay, maybe the latter is a little burnt to be a good example for this.) No, no, no, no! You must allow for that "moment!" Don't blow that for me! I want that! I need that! That's why I'm here!