teaching format growing?

[gregdymon]

Re: ?

Elizabeth,
I think you mis read something in Bruce's posts. I never say him say there was no evangelical use in talk/teaching, but rather that it is a weaker attractant to the gospel as a music format might be. Its like back in the 60s and 70s when churches started using bus ministries, or in the 70s and 80s when churches started using basketball and softball, or in the 80s and 90s when churches started presenting more modern sounding songs and using projectors (then video projectors and powerpoint, then video projectors and actual video clips)... they were changing their approaches to reaching a lost generation by seeing what attracted them to come and actuall hear the gospel story.

All of which goes to the point I make to churches all the time when discussions concerning "worship wars" begin: "We dont' know what we like, we like what we know." Typically that is a true statement. Evidenced by the fact that if you ask various Christians about the approach they prefer to use when witnessing, it will generally match the approach used to bring them to the gospel message to start with.

Again, I don't think Bruce was totally disregarding the evangelistic opportunities presented through talk/teaching, but rather pointing out the weaknesses of such radio programming to be truly and wholly evangelistic. Besides, Jesus didn't tell us to teach them before he told us to go get them, instead he told us to do the opposite.

> Bruce,
>
> I don't disagree that Christian radio is business, sometimes
> mixed with ministry, sometimes not...
>
> BUT your post knocked talk/teaching and presumed there was
> no evangelical use. You claimed it was church that saved
> people, not a song or story on the radio...at least that is
> what I gathered from your thread reply...
>
> That's simply not true.
>

 

[gregdymon]

Re: ?

> > ...we throw ourselves to the
> > lowest common denominator of Christianity when we allow
> > Creationism to be presented. That performs a pre-frontal
> > lobotomy on Christianity scaring intellectuals right out
> of
> > the faith.
>
> I've noticed you saying that over and over of late, and I've
> resisted the bait to this point, but, with a fairly decent
> science background myself and a number of friends with much
> stronger backgrounds who are all also creationists, I just
> have to disagree completely. I have no idea what's
> motivated you to obsess over this lately.
>
> People who are really interested can look into it. I
> daresay the logical and physical evidence for creation is
> significantly greater than the evidence for evolution, but,
> considering it has nothing to do with radio, let's not even
> think of getting into discussion here.

Without jumping from radio to theology, I think its important to remember that Christian radio needs to be more than just Christian entertainment. We need to be careful that our thinking about God (that would be defined as doctrine in some circles) DOES need to reflect our Christian principles and morals. Which means that we accept some principles (say, creation) for its purpose (to remind us that we DO have someone - a higher being, creator, God - to whom we are responsible, instead of just some irresponsible blob who has no soul). If its just music, then why not play Bon Jovi's "have a nice day" if we're looking for just a warm fuzzy feeling?

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: ?

I'm aware of a station that plays secular music with Christian vignettes..and does include Ken Ham's "young earth" material and I'd have to agree with Bruce that shoving young earth creationism down someone's throat before you even get them in the door is counter-productive (you mean I have to believe THAT?) Same with leading with politics (I have to rush right down and register as a Republican? Right now?.

One thing that makes no sense in young earth creationism..it would seem the speed of light could not possibly be what we were told it was, or the distances to the stars are not however many million light years away. I've never heard the explanation for that..if the universe is only 6,000 years old obviously the stars aren't that far away or light travels at a much different speed.

I put the Ken Ham approach in the category of "worshipping the Bible".<P ID="signature">______________
"Your right to know supersedes your right to exist"..Gary Burbank</P>

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re: ?

"Elizabeth, I think you mis read something in Bruce's posts. I never say him say there was no evangelical use in talk/teaching, but rather that it is a weaker attractant to the gospel as a music format might be."

This is the post:
BRUCE CARTER WROTE:
2) I have always had a bit of an uneasy feeling about teaching radio....
(3) Teaching radio appeals almost exclusively to the saved. It has little evangelical value. People do not, as a rule, get saved over the radio. They get saved in a church, as a result of personal interaction and the whole church experience. You hear the stories of people saved by something they hear on the radio, but I often wonder if those stories are pretty much all there are.


The post begins with a bias against the talk/teaching format...so my reply took that into consideration.

I'm not exactly sure how I misread that this particular format has "little evangelical value" or that people get saved in, through, by churches...not the radio. The post went on to say that there was doubt that calls about conversations from listening to the radio were all they seemed to be.

It is obvious to anyone in this format that talk/teaching's priority is NOT evangelism, but rather edification. But that is NOT to say evangelism does not occur, or that it has little evagelical value.

We could be tossing symantics...but again, the initial post came with a bias against this type of programming.

And if the intent is to show that music formats have more "reach"...I'd like to see those stats. And I'd like to see how that relates to the belief that it's the church, not radio, that saves.

You see... I'm just all about clarity.

Also,

I, personally, wouldn't compare the talk/teaching format to church outreach strategy. I'd place a closer analogy to small groups or such.

I also would not agree that it is a weaker attractant to the gospel. It is a different attractant. Each format has it's own purpose and VERY different usage.

Regarding reaching then teaching...again, the presumption is that the format's purpose is to evangelize through programming. That may not be so. Evangelism may occur as a result of the edification this type of programming (music or talk).

That's all.


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

 

[john23]

Re: ?

> One thing that makes no sense in young earth creationism..it
> would seem the speed of light could not possibly be what we
> were told it was, or the distances to the stars are not
> however many million light years away. I've never heard the
> explanation for that..if the universe is only 6,000 years
> old obviously the stars aren't that far away or light
> travels at a much different speed.

....or God created the long path of light at the same time as the source. Hardly a problem for God.

 

[rbrucecarter]

Re: ?

> I have no idea what's
> motivated you to obsess over this lately.
>
> People who are really interested can look into it. I
> daresay the logical and physical evidence for creation is
> significantly greater than the evidence for evolution, but,
> considering it has nothing to do with radio, let's not even
> think of getting into discussion here.

When Christian radio stations give or sell air time to the Creationists, it becomes a radio discussion. We wouldn't even think about selling airtime to a sectarian denomination that excludes everybody else, for fear of turning off the other 99% of our listeners. So why do we give creedance to one narrow interpretation of Genesis that turns off listeners? The vast majority of listeners are either evolutionist or theistic evolutionist, and yet Christian stations play the Institute of Creation (so-called) "science" and Discovery Institute stuff like it is the only acceptable viewpoint for Christians. It is NOT! Most people hit the button or ignore this stuff. Certainly anybody with a scientific background will. I am offended by it myself, particularly when somebody gets in my face and challenges my salvation because I don't adhere to their faulty interpretation of Genesis and faulty science.

No - I am not going to re-read the rubbish they are printing for the umpteenth time, much less pay for it. Alternate scientific viewpoints are always welcome, but the Creationists have not managed to put forth a single argument that withstands rigorous scientific inquiry. Here are a couple of forums where they have tried and failed:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionversuscreationism

One forum is hostile, the other friendly. Go argue this stuff over there if you want. But don't foist it on me!

While I don't want to suppress new and uncomfortable theories, the chain of circular reasoning, unproved assumptions, leaps of faith, etc. do nothing to prove their viewpoint. God is ever so much more grand and glorious than they know - and they haven't a clue about the true magnitude and glory of his creation, and his creation process. God has a tendency to break out of little boxes men try to put him in - like the earth centered universe of Copernicus that the church zealously defended for centuries. We would do well to learn from that experience, and not get into the scientific arena with interpretations that do not fit the best observed evidence.

And you are very right, we are straying a bit from radio, so this is my last post on the subject.

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re: ?

"Without jumping from radio to theology, I think its important to remember that Christian radio needs to be more than just Christian entertainment."

I think this is going to largely depend on who is programming and what that station's particular mission is. Entertainment is not such a bad reason to spin these songs.


"If its just music, then why not play Bon Jovi's "have a nice day" if we're looking for just a warm fuzzy feeling?"

Love Bon Jovi...and warm fuzzy feelings. Sometimes, they feel great after a nerve wracking day!





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

 

[neutral_observer]

Re: ?

> When Christian radio stations give or sell air time to the
> Creationists, it becomes a radio discussion.

No, not really, no, it doesn't.



> We wouldn't
> even think about selling airtime to a sectarian denomination
> that excludes everybody else, for fear of turning off the
> other 99% of our listeners.

Ah...a famous (though faulty and untrue) "99%" set-up for what's to come!



> The vast majority of listeners are either
> evolutionist or theistic evolutionist,...

Our listeners?? I think not. I find them open-minded and eager to learn and explore.



> Most people hit the button or ignore this stuff.

You're projecting.



> Certainly anybody with a scientific background will.

I have a scientific background, and I don't. The university president and most university professors I know with scientific backgrounds don't. The science-based company owner and president I know certainly doesn't. That's really, really far from being a true statement.



> I am offended by it myself,...

That's obvious.

Need we continue?



> ...particularly when somebody gets in my face and
> challenges my salvation...

So it's a personal issue for you, certainly not a radio discussion. That was obvious, but I certainly appreciate your admission.



> ...because I don't adhere to their faulty interpretation of Genesis
> and faulty science.

Neither the science nor the "interpretation" (or lack thereof, if you really think about it) is "faulty." It's just not yours.



> No - I am not going to re-read the rubbish they are printing
> for the umpteenth time, much less pay for it.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I don't care. I'm here to read and talk about radio.



> Alternate scientific viewpoints are always welcome, but the
> Creationists have not managed to put forth a single argument
> that withstands rigorous scientific inquiry.

I certainly don't see that as being true. But this board and this thread are about radio.

And there's something that's blowing my mind -- as some of us have have brought the "science" of marketing and radio to the discussions here, haven't you been one of the ones arguing for your personal preference against our science?



> Here are a couple of forums where they have tried and failed:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionversuscreationism
>
> One forum is hostile, the other friendly. Go argue this
> stuff over there if you want. But don't foist it on me!

You brought it here, and you keep "arguing" and "foisting" it on us despite our desire to keep this a radio board.

Something's really weird, here. Like I said, it's obvious it's a personal issue for you. Please leave it at the door as you presumably come here to discuss radio!



> God is ever so much more grand and glorious than
> they know - and they haven't a clue about the true magnitude
> and glory of his creation, and his creation process.

Isn't that the point of the creationists?



> And you are very right, we are straying a bit from radio, so
> this is my last post on the subject.

Oh...sorry. I had my reply done before I even saw this!

Oh, well....

 

[MorningLight]

When/why listeners call "after"...

Bruce Carter said:
> I never said it never happened, and qualified my statement
> accordingly. I just state that is is comparatively rare,
> based on the phone calls to the station when teaching is
> aired vs. when music is played. Teaching on the air - no
> calls. Music - calls as fast as you can answer. And this
> is on a station that primarily airs teaching, music is the
> exception. The audience is doing the statistics for me.
> The calls aren't trivial requests for music, they are
> serious prayer requests, salvations, etc.

Has it ever occured to you that maybe they are not calling during the TEACHING, because they are ENGROSSED in it? I've worked at a mostly talk/teaching station for nineteen years, now. ***ALWAYS*** when I answer calls asking for information about a program, those calls come ***AFTER*** the program they're asking about concludes. (In the morning, I answer the phones 100%.) If your station is playing programming and msuic in alternating blocks, then there's a very good chance that the callers are responding during the "musical interlude".

Also, the vast majority of callers who ask me about the music, do so AFTER the program or song is OVER. They don't want to pull themselves away DURING the element that is ministering to them, so they postpone their call until it's done.

Just my observations over these many years.

It was also refreshing to see a topic where RadioElizabeth and I actually AGREED on something! I knew it was bound to happen, eventually!

Willie...
http://www.mymorninglight.org

 

[MorningLight]

Re: ?

> One thing that makes no sense in young earth creationism..it
> would seem the speed of light could not possibly be what we
> were told it was, or the distances to the stars are not
> however many million light years away. I've never heard the
> explanation for that..if the universe is only 6,000 years

I heard it explained this way...

Moments after Creation, if you cut down a tree, it would have rings. When God created it, He created it with "built-in age". When He created Adam, he wasn't a newborn infant, he was a young man... built-in age. When God fashioned Eve from Adam's rib, she wasn't an infant, she was a young woman... built-in age. Thus, when God spoke the stars into being, He also spoke their LIGHT (let there be LIGHT) into existance, thus, those stars were instantly visible on the new Earth.

Now, while that sounds interesting, and does make sense... I also have a bit of a struggle believing that all of Creation is only 6,000 years old. There is the "Gap theory" where the belief is that there is an indeterminate amount of time between Geneis 1:1 and 1:2. It's quite possible that the Earth may, in fact, be MANY times older than 6,000 years... but I also don't think it's BILLIONS, as the Evolutionists argue.

I also cannot help but believe that Life exists elsewhere in this Universe. Think about it... GOD creates this IMMENSELY VAST Universe, but ONLY puts Life on ONE, tiny, insignificant little planet, orbitting an insignificant little star, in an arm of an insignificant spiral galaxy? Doesn't that seem almost.... WASTEFUL?! What purpose does that VAST Universe serve, then? No, I don't think God would create SO MUCH and then put SO LITTLE Life into it.

The Bible is silent on such matters... my thought is that is because these things have ZERO bearing on our relationship to Christ, and our walk with Him. Perhaps what makes this Earth significant in the great realm of Creation, is that we are the planet that God actually chose to visit, IN PERSON! Just as Israel is His chosen People on this planet, perhaps this planet is His chosen one in the Universe?

Wow... time for me to hit the sheets! I have a radio show to do in the morning!

Willie...

 

[MorningLight]

> Some Christian stations do manage to be a business, sell
> time, and don't stoop to allowing anyone on that flashes
> money in their faces. I hope that most station owners do
> have a standard. Sometimes that standard is too narrow or
> too broad, or sometimes in the wrong place, but hopefully
> they have a standard. Unfortunately there are some stations
> that have NO standard and play a charade of claiming to be a
> Christian station while allowing anyone on for a buck.

There's one in Bridgeport, CT. It tries to call itself the area's ONLY Gospel station... but it's truly "DOLLAR-A-HOLLAR" in EVERY sense of those words! They have Rastafarians on the air, along with some Christians, and some outright kooks. They also have the gutteral screamers, who shove the mic down into their esophagus, turn the gain all the way up, then bellow at the top of their lungs, resulting in a completely unintelligible assault on the ears. The station's own website says something about them "not concerned with what you believe, they want to add you to their community" or words to that effect. So, you get this ridiculous-sounding hodgepodge. They sell their airtime on a single-day basis... so that means you get something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT every single day! There is no consistency, whatsoever! (I think they have ONE program that actually airs Monday-Friday.)

This station only "survives" because of the constant income! There is also a very high turnover rate... people get on the air, realize that they are NOT going to make a ton of money, and drop off before they have to mortgage their homes to pay the bills! (Or they just file bankruptcy. No biggie, there's always another one waiting to take their timeslot.)

It bothers me when people mistakenly refer to them as a Christian station, because they are not. I tell anyone and everyone this: "They are NOT a Christian station. They are a SECULAR station that has sold some airtime to some Christians." It is the truth.

Willie...

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: ?

I can see the point, but it would seem that the numbers, specifically speed of light and distances to the stars would have to add up. I don't know about the "gap theory"..in fact I'm of the belief that this hyper-literal approach strips the entire story of its meaning. It has much to teach about the sabbath and other things, but when its reduced to "this is a literal account of what happened..step 1, 2, 3, 4 and is to be believed exactly as written" it doesn't work for me. Maybe I'm of the belief that the Bible is true..all of it isn't fact, however.<P ID="signature">______________
"Your right to know supersedes your right to exist"..Gary Burbank</P>