What is going on with Ancient Faith Radio?

Who is it that is doing that podcast? I heard it as well but didn't recognize the voice before turning it off. I didn't really want to hear his politics.

I rarely listen to the radio portion anymore...just the podcasts. I don't know. Maybe it was an advertisement for some upcoming interview on the state of politics and how it effects Christians or whatever.

I just have zero interest in exploring Orthodox media like AFR. That might sound iconoclastic in a forum where Father Hopko is a rock star, but I have a good reason. As a Catholic for years, I watched Catholic media like EWTN and Catholic Answers and so many other magazines and websites and channels turn Catholicism into a product with apologists and talking points and literature and all sorts of GOP/Republican/Tea Party rhetoric coupled with fundamentalist Catholic approaches. They coined the term "Cafeteria Catholic" wherein anyone who doesn't interpret the Pope's teachings and catechism 100% to the letter in their manner to be a poser phoney. They were obsessed with only a few issues: abortion (understandable), gay rights, euthanasia, and BIRTH CONTROL, BIRTH CONTROL, BIRTH CONTROL round the clock 24/7.

They published "catholic voting guides" for the faithful from Catholic Answers. Karl Keating preached how you MUST vote line by line with that guide lest you become a cafeteria shlameel traitor.

Pretty soon people were quoting gurus like Karl Keating and Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid, and so many more of these folks. Gurus and talking points over and over to the point where Catholicism sounded more like door-to-door Mormons.

Turned me off, made the faith seem plastic, and the political nonsense got extremely off-putting.

As I've investigated, studied, prayed-about, and have come to LOVE Orthodoxy as the one, true faith, I have just made it a policy TO NOT look at all this stuff. I don't want Hopko at this point, the talking points, the politics, the radio stuff, or the articles. I am just reading the good old boys like Schmemman and Meyendorff, Kallistos Ware, and the Fathers. Perhaps, with time, I might mosey on over to AFR, but right now I can admit to myself that I'm a bit vulnerable and burned-out on the media stuff.

Sorry if this sounds iconoclastic or taboo, just how I'm feeling.

I'm not surprised the GOP conservatism conquest is now there. Let's hope we can start going by issues rather than party lines and voters' guides.

Sorry if this offends anyone. I seem to be on a roll doing that lately.

I don't see how that is offensive or even a problem. If anything I would say it is a wise decision that you have made. You know based on your past what your limits would be at this point and you have chosen to not take in other media beyond that limit that might also be problematic for you. Seems like smart choice. There is so much on the internet, published and in podcasts that it is often, for some overwhelming and does actually turn them away.

gurneyhalleck1 said:

I just have zero interest in exploring Orthodox media like AFR. That might sound iconoclastic in a forum where Father Hopko is a rock star, but I have a good reason. As a Catholic for years, I watched Catholic media like EWTN and Catholic Answers and so many other magazines and websites and channels turn Catholicism into a product with apologists and talking points and literature and all sorts of GOP/Republican/Tea Party rhetoric coupled with fundamentalist Catholic approaches. They coined the term "Cafeteria Catholic" wherein anyone who doesn't interpret the Pope's teachings and catechism 100% to the letter in their manner to be a poser phoney. They were obsessed with only a few issues: abortion (understandable), gay rights, euthanasia, and BIRTH CONTROL, BIRTH CONTROL, BIRTH CONTROL round the clock 24/7.

They published "catholic voting guides" for the faithful from Catholic Answers. Karl Keating preached how you MUST vote line by line with that guide lest you become a cafeteria shlameel traitor.

Pretty soon people were quoting gurus like Karl Keating and Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid, and so many more of these folks. Gurus and talking points over and over to the point where Catholicism sounded more like door-to-door Mormons.

Turned me off, made the faith seem plastic, and the political nonsense got extremely off-putting.

As I've investigated, studied, prayed-about, and have come to LOVE Orthodoxy as the one, true faith, I have just made it a policy TO NOT look at all this stuff. I don't want Hopko at this point, the talking points, the politics, the radio stuff, or the articles. I am just reading the good old boys like Schmemman and Meyendorff, Kallistos Ware, and the Fathers. Perhaps, with time, I might mosey on over to AFR, but right now I can admit to myself that I'm a bit vulnerable and burned-out on the media stuff.

Sorry if this sounds iconoclastic or taboo, just how I'm feeling.

I'm not surprised the GOP conservatism conquest is now there. Let's hope we can start going by issues rather than party lines and voters' guides.

Sorry if this offends anyone. I seem to be on a roll doing that lately.

Click to expand...

I've never been a big AFR fan either. :o

I only check out the podcasts on AFR, and occaisionally post stuff that I really like.

I only listen to their podcasts also. One of the reasons that I came/came back/am staying in the church is Dr. Constantinou's podcast about how St. Augustine's doctrine of original sin might have been the result of a faulty Scriptural translation. I just had to go out and look at the sky. Some much of what I found yukky about Christianity at that point just fell away.

Ancient Faith Radio?? (LOL! Just kidding)

I'm a total podcast listener...with a visit to the streaming music from time to time. If this was indeed "politicking" on AFR...well then, SHAME on them. I feel AFR should be for growth in knowledge of the faith, spiritual edification, and musical entertainment, not a soapbox on which one is to stand, whipping folks up into a frenzied lather over issues that really have no business being in the social/political arena in the first place. Sorry, just my two cents.

gurneyhalleck1 said:

As I've investigated, studied, prayed-about, and have come to LOVE Orthodoxy as the one, true faith, I have just made it a policy TO NOT look at all this stuff. I don't want Hopko at this point, the talking points, the politics, the radio stuff, or the articles. I am just reading the good old boys like Schmemman and Meyendorff, Kallistos Ware, and the Fathers.

Click to expand...

FYI: Fr Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus of St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, author, and archpriest, is first-rate teacher of Orthodoxy, and equal to Schmemann, Meyendorff, and Ware, imo. As Fr Thomas mentions, he's been studying the faith all his life. (He's over 70.) His podcasts are on Orthodox theology, liturgy, practice, etc.--a wealth of knowledge for anyone interested in learning about Orthodoxy.

Here's great one:


From Shadow To Reality Ancient Christian Worship - Fr. Thomas Hopko Lectures
Fr. Tom Hopko was the guest lecturer at Wheaton College's Center for Early Christian Studies on March 22, 2012. He spoke on the roots of Christian worship from an Orthodox perspective.

Yeah, Hopko's not perfect, I can nitpick little things I don't like or think are wrong, but on the whole, Fotina's right. It's just as extreme to say, "I will listen to NO modern voices" as it is running around trying to catch ALL of them. And we OUGHT to respect learning and wisdom greater than ours, which Fr Tom definitely has.

On politics, my response is over here, and if that was how the Maddex family saw it, you wouldn't hear any partisan politic-spewing on the station.

Well it's a good think I don't reject ALL modern voices of Orthodoxy. And you know, it's kind of one thing at a time. I think sometimes people forget that some of us have jobs, lives, 3 kids, juggling a zillion different responsibilities...so if I choose Meyendorff and Schmemann over Hopko, there's nothing wrong with that. I never thought Hopko has less wisdom than me. Heck, I'm a novice. Practically everyone here outranks me in Orthodox knowledge. I just don't choose to listen to Hopko. Preference. I like some other voices. I think Rus is right that we should not reject ALL modern voices. I don't know of anyone who would do that. I also think it's unhealthy to think that my personal voice of choice is somehow the ONLY wise master, be it Chesterton, Lewis, Rose, Ware, Hopko, Nicholas Afanassieff, or any other wise and venerable writer of Orthodox theology. We all have styles that we cling to, appreciate, and prefer. There are many, many blessed and gifted holy men from which to choose. I hope I never get to the point that I think someone is insane or mentally deficient because they don't fall in love with my theologian of choice.

Thanks, Fotina. I've read some of his stuff, listened to several of his podcasts, and have read up on his bio a few times. Not arguing that he's not intelligent and gifted. I just prefer to listen to a few others and read a few others instead. Blessings.

Fotina said:

FYI: Fr Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus of St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, author, and archpriest, is first-rate teacher of Orthodoxy, and equal to Schmemann, Meyendorff, and Ware, imo. As Fr Thomas mentions, he's been studying the faith all his life. (He's over 70.) His podcasts are on Orthodox theology, liturgy, practice, etc.--a wealth of knowledge for anyone interested in learning about Orthodoxy.

Here's great one:

From Shadow To Reality Ancient Christian Worship - Fr. Thomas Hopko Lectures
Fr. Tom Hopko was the guest lecturer at Wheaton College's Center for Early Christian Studies on March 22, 2012. He spoke on the roots of Christian worship from an Orthodox perspective.

Click to expand...

Just as I have experienced with other religious media syndication, there exist pod-casts of all levels of personal importance on AFR. I have listened to some that were thoroughly enlightening, like Hopko's discussion of genesis. Then there have been others I found to be pretty conventional, and there have even been some I disliked. However one man's trash is another man's treasure.

I can relate to what Gurney was saying. I have liked quite a few of the "Catholic Answers" pod-casts and shows, but sometimes I feel like they spend way too much time on issues like birth control when I wish they would discuss theology and philosophy more.

gurneyhalleck1 said:

Thanks, Fotina. I've read some of his stuff, listened to several of his podcasts, and have read up on his bio a few times. Not arguing that he's not intelligent and gifted. I just prefer to listen to a few others and read a few others instead. Blessings.

Click to expand...

I've been into Vladimir Lossky and Richard Swinburne lately. Have you checked them out?

I haven't had the pleasure, seeker. When I'm done with some of the current stuff I'm looking at, maybe I'll give 'em a read. Thanks

truthseeker32 said:

I've been into Vladimir Lossky and Richard Swinburne lately. Have you checked them out?

Click to expand...

truthseeker32 said:

I've been into Vladimir Lossky and Richard Swinburne lately. Have you checked them out?

Click to expand...

Lately, I've been meditating on Saint Theophan the Recluse homilies on prayer:

...The work of prayer is the first work in Christian life. If in everyday affairs the saying: "live and learn" is true, then so much more it applies to prayer, which never stops and which has no limit. Let me recall a wise custom of the ancient Holy Fathers: when greeting each other, they did not ask about health or anything else, but rather about prayer, saying "How is your prayer?" The activity of prayer was considered by them to a be a sign of the spiritual life, and they called it the breath of the spirit. If the body has breath, it lives; if breathing stops, life comes to an end. So it is with the spirit.
If there is prayer, the soul lives; without prayer, there is no spiritual life.

Click to expand...

A mistake would be to think that what any of these thinkers, theologians, etc, have to say is a matter of mere taste and preference. They speak to truth, and when a large number of people agree that they speak truth, and that it is not a matter of mere taste, then a lack of preference on our part, while not being "insanity", is surely a defect on our part. I am not at all drawn to the Russian fathers and saints (except Men') despite my considerable Russification. I still prefer English speakers. But that's my defect, and I think it both a spiritual one and a linguistic/cultural one. But I certainly wouldn't say that a focus on St John of Kronstadt or whoever to be unreasonable, or that they are held as a "guru" because someone specially studies them, when it is quite clear that a) they point to Christ, our ultimate Example, and b) in emulating Christ, we should want to emulate them. Even Paul said "Emulate me!" - and he was saying it for the right reasons. In that spirit, if someone talks about Schmemann or John Kronstadt and quotes them frequently, I respect it, and recognize that there are things I haven't learned. I STILL don't get Schmemann's "Eucharist" (though I haven't picked it up in a few years), and I get that it is not a matter of his "style", but of my (lack of) understanding. So it is with Chesterton or the other great Christian thinkers (where they do not contradict Orthodoxy, at least). They care about truth, and if we write off what they say to "style" and "preference", then it is we who don't get it.

We may be ready for different things at different times. My time to fully grasp Schmemann has not yet come (though it was his book "I Believe" that helped lead me to faith). Some people are not ready for Chesterton, or Lossky, or maybe even St Theophan - but the problem is not in their style or even in our preference - for preference is irrelevant to truth - but in our understanding.

Taste and preference are the weapons of modern relativistic pluralism, used to brush off and deny truth. To say that this is not true, but only what you prefer.

(Edit add - it's granted that our not having/making time is a separate issue, and that we ARE drawn to one writer over another. But we certainly shouldn't write off what we DON/T make time for as something to dismiss due to style or preference. If someone ever lays out Schmemann's heavy works in an interesting and engaging way, I'll certainly have another go at it, and the books are waiting on my shelf for that. If someone quotes something I don't fully get by him (or whoever) I'm not going to knock it. I'll ask, instead.)

Taste and preference exist and do matter. I disagree. I will continue to like to listen to whom I prefer and could care less who tells me I'm not "ready" for the genius of writer X or podcast Y or anyone else. I don't need anyone to tell me my own thinking thousands of miles away. I can get the truth without reading or listening to Hopko. I can also get it without reading Chesterton. Many countless souls have found salvation long before and after Chesterton and Hopko have walked the Earth. I find the whole argument ridiculous. It's not a matter of readiness. There is so much time in the day to read certain things. Deciding not to read one author because you don't care for their demeanor or delivery is not some sign of a hatred or utter, outright rejection of said person, it is merely the fact that I'd like to approach Christ from a different angle with different authors. I listened to Hopko a few times, didn't find him interesting. End of story. Doesn't mean I'm not in this lower plane of intellect or readiness or spiritual status. It just means I didn't find him engaging and interesting. His delivery, though it may contain truth (in fact, usually does contain it), doesn't mean it is engaging or something that gels with me.

It's so sad that someone can't just prefer one writer/commentator/theologian over another and just do so in peace. They can't have an opinion. They are labeled a relativist or some other modernist moniker indicating a lack of spiritual maturity.

This is odd in that I've never encountered this approach to spirituality except with hardcore Catholic fundamentalists. "You don't like Scott Hahn!!!? What?!! Scott Hahn!? THE SCOTT HAHN? He's a genius of Catholic spirituality and history! Have you read his book, "Rome Sweet Home? It's an epic tale of conversion!? Why don't you like him!!?"

I heard that a lot in the Catholic world I lived in. Funny.

Some people in Catholicism would cling to the writings of Chesterton. Some preferred to look at John Henry Cardinal Newman's approach to development doctrine and appreciated his English Anglican background with a convert's perspective. Some like Patrick Madrid. Some like Karl Keating. Some preferred to listen to EWTN, some don't. And each found that their own favorite personality was THE best voice.

I haven't heard that, thankfully, in Orthodoxy, until lately. I felt like the line from "The Who" song "come meet the old boss, same as the old boss."

Whatever nourishes your Orthodoxy and strengthens you in spirit, makes you yearn for God more, whatever helps aid in your journey to hunger for the sacramental life and for the Fathers' writings, whatever carries you to the faith of the ancients, it is good. If that is Chesterton, then great. If it isn't, if it is another Orthodox writer, awesome. You can talk to several people when you're inquiring into Orthodoxy. Some make points to you that might be valid, impactful ones, but if they deliver it in such a way that you don't find it engaging or well-delineated, then you do NOT have to go back and talk that person at coffee hour, let's say. No, you don't call them a waste of time just because their style doesn't come across well, but you don't have to persist in trying to grasp them. You then find another person at coffee hour who lays out lucid, meaningful dialogue that really gives you an epiphane. You find the way they put something to be striking, thought-provoking, deep yet spelled-out in a manner that resonates. Are you a relativist or a modernist excuse-maker for not wanting to go back to the first guy and keep digging and digging and listening? Nope. The second guy resonated. Stick with him.

My godfather is such a man. He resonates. He has said things to me that got me thinking. I don't care who tells me to go persist in badgering the other guy to get through. My godfather does. Our talks over dinner and coffee hour and the phone and other times, those talks draw me closer. Bottom line.

I'm not about to put people in a box and gauge their readiness or their hearts or motivations or spiritual acumen through an internet forum and their reading preferences. And I'm sure not going to EVER call anyone in this TAW forum a relativist or anything even approximating it.