being_wordmark-3500

I am excited, and a little nervous, to share some big news. We are giving this adventure in conversation a new name. Starting September 16th, Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippett is becoming Krista Tippett on Being.

This doesn’t signal a change in the nature or ethos of what we will continue to produce week after week. It is, rather, a more spacious container for what the program has become. Being makes room for the ways in which we have in fact opened up the concept of “speaking of faith.” It points at questions of “religion, meaning, ethics and ideas” at the heart of human life — not confined to Sunday mornings or Friday evenings, not on the sidelines of real life, but at the essence of who we are and how we live, individually and collectively.

We believe that Being is also a title with room to grow into, while Speaking of Faith has taken us as far in public media as it could. As much as we filled it with new meaning, the program’s title remained an obstacle for many programmers and listeners. The story we have heard again and again is that people have had to get over the title, or find themselves listening to the show by accident, before they were ready to give themselves over to our content. We have heard that, for religious and non-religious people alike, the title Speaking of Faith makes it hard to talk about the program with friends and family — to spread the word “virally,” as word spreads in our time.

This process of discernment that we might want and need to change the name of the program has been one of the most surprising learnings of the past year, which has been a period both of solidifying the program’s strengths and of continuing to experiment. The energy and possibilities it opens fill me with a new excitement for the next stage of this project and my passion for it.

Full disclosure: I did not have an immediate enthusiastic reaction to Being. But I have come to love the title. As I have settled into it, slept on it, practiced saying it in front of the vast array of shows we do, and realized all of its connotations, it feels like home. “Being” is an elemental, essential word. It was a catchword of the existentialism of the 20th century, and existentialism is making room for spiritual life in the 21st. It is more hospitable than the word “faith” for our non-Christian and non-religious listeners. It is, at the same time, an evocation of the primary biblical name of God. “I am who I am” can be better translated, I recall my teacher of Hebrew pointing out, as “I will be who I will be.”

As we were in the thick of this discernment, a mother wrote to us of how her teenage daughter has recently been drawn to our program. She commented on our blog, “It has been rewarding to watch her discover that unlike her subjects in school, religion cannot fit into a neat box. I’m sure she will tune in again as she continues to shape her own way of BEING in this world. This is certainly my hope.” The capitalization was hers. We take on our appeal to her, indeed our responsibility to her, as a great and edifying adventure — our next frontier of listening, learning, and public service.

Now I want to invite you, our listeners, to grow into this new name, this evolving identity, with us. Let us know how it sits with you, how you are hearing it, and what it means. And please come along on the next phase of this journey.


Share Your Reflection

430Reflections

Reflections

I'm glad I fully read you're reasons for the change. At first I was not enthusiastic about it but took it as just another piece of Christianity molding itself to fit with what society thinks it should be. But I know, as the word itself implies, that being is the moment in which one truly can understand and grasp what it is meant to be for them. A precise point in the psyche in which we get the meaning of our existence and why we were ever placed upon the ground in which we walk. Being is the Relationship.
I have truly enjoyed your program and its insight. The subjects have opened my thought processes to see many new things from many new perspectives. My intrigue in the program was brought on by the name, however as the program unfolded the content is what kept me engaged. Perhaps now the reach can be much broader and its mission much more profound.

The thing I liked about the old name was the "Speaking of" part...it meant dialogue to me, conversation. The new name makes it sound like Krista (who I love, don't get me wrong) is the authority, the one who is speaking on a specific topic. When you have someone "on" something, it means that they are conveying what they know about it. This show is about others, about discussion, about opening something to explore. "Speaking of Being" might have been a better idea.

A fair point, and one that we talked about extensively. What is the "connective tissue," as one friend of the program called it, of the transition from Speaking of Faith to Being. After much deliberation, one thing remains constant: Krista Tippett. So we decided that using her name would be the best connective tissue as we grow into a new name. Does this reasoning make sense?

The trouble lies in the syntax. I'm not troubled by the word "being," or by a change in the name for all the reasons listed. What's troubling is that the new name says that the program will be restricted to Krista's views on being, and I don't think that will be true--I hope not. One of the best things about the program are the amazing guests and Krista's amazing interviewing skills. Several have suggested a title like, "On being, with Krista Tippett." If you are into broadening the scope, don't at the same time narrow it, simply because of a grammatical error. -Christina

The new name definitely loses the sense of dialog and emphasizes Krista Tippett... While I appreciate Krista as the designer of this program, I don't listen because of her; I listen because of the guest or the topic.

I think you have underestimated your core audience---we will find the program even without Krista's name, and now it definitely sounds like one person's point of view on being, which is the exact opposite of the show's intent. The switch to "with Krista Tippet" would still serve as "connective tissue" and better describe the program.

Thank you for being open to feedback from listeners.

I agree that "Speaking of" is the strongest connection I have with the name of the program. I connect with the dialogue. Even "Being with Krista Tippett" would reflect her role as a guide more accurately. Krista's gift is developing the conversation and helping to reveal the ideas of her subjects. The order of words is critical.

"Faith" is NOT some elitist privileged right of Christianity. In fact, as I see it, the problem is that that's exactly how people view faith--completely linked to religion. And that is too simple to be true...

Chris, a big part of this name change centers around your very last sentence. We truly want to welcome more people into the conversation — and, perhaps, be heard at different times on public radio stations. *crossing fingers*

i'm fairly new to this web site, having found it through facebook, so maybe my first thought about the name change should be heard with that understanding. i have no problem with BEING, especially after reading of the reasons for both the need to change and how you came to this name. however, i'm not sure i would have gotten enough from the new name to move me to read the first time. also, to be honest, my first reaction was that here was another example of someone needing their name to be the focus, or at least get equal billing/recognition with the site. i thought there was some narcissism involved. i'm sure krista puts a lot of work and a lot of herself into this, maybe i'm being too critical. i'm just so discouraged by all the narcissism our society encourages, almost demands. a far cry from the humility my faith extols.

Believe me, this isn't about narcissism or self-love or celebrity. Far from it. We decided, after much deliberation and anxiety, that using Krista's name is the "connective tissue," as one friend of the program called it, of the transition from Speaking of Faith to Being. As we shift from name to the other, one thing remains constant: Krista Tippett. So we decided that using her name would be the best connective tissue as we grow into a new name.

Krista has many attributes. I agree that narcissism is not among them. However, people who have not yet found your pioneering show are not familiar with Krista, and as another noted, her guests contribute the canvass on which she paints her enlightened questions and reflective responses and serves as a representative listener on our behalf. Placing her name first gives me the impression that she has been set up to be some guru, savant-type host. And, God willing, even should her career/discernment path take her in another direction, the show could continue as "Speaking of Being, with __________."

I'm not thrilled with the name change at all.

It makes no sense to me.

Thanks for the feedback. I hope we can help in the understanding of this transition as we move forward.

Well, ok. I like it. Yeah, I think it covers a broader context and unifies at the same time...good choice. When you asked us a few months back about the name change I emphatically said "no!" But the system wouldn't take my response. I liked Speaking of Faith. But I am working myself toward educating others on the concept of being and it's commonality across religions and life walks. Our ability to be, to simply be - in the now - has been largely ignored and, unfortunately associated more with eastern than western religion or as a moment perspective on the human condition. So I am glad to know this will be the new cornerstone of SOF. "Faith" has become misused. People use it to define their religion rather than the deep trust in mystery. So let's move away from that one, and toward something we all do - we are all being - beings - human beings - humans being human! Maybe a focus on being will help to unify us over the condition we all have in common. Love your show! Thank you! Peggy

Well said, Peggy. Thank you for commenting here. It's a relief to read some kind words as we appeal to the many who loved the name. We don't want to alienate anybody, but reach out to more people.

It's sad to see you recognize that being a person of faith in our society is so unacceptable that the word "faith" cannot be mentioned. In the world within which I move, my non-believing friends have such contempt for the idea of faith. Speaking of Faith was one place I could point to where there was intelligent conversation about faith, where the idea of faith was acceptable. And now, faith is no longer acceptable there either.

We will continue to speak about faith and religion in deeply fulfilling ways. We promise. We also want people who haven't listened to know that we want them to knock on the door too. We'll answer.

It is a shame, but the negative associations with the word "faith" are due to the belligerent nature of the narrow-minded segments that have misappropriated the word. It is a case of basic Operant conditioning, that a symbol will acquire the aversive properties of the stimulus it is paired with. In other words, our sensitivity, and sometimes repulsion to the word "faith" did not come out of thin air! It has a basis.

I listen every Sunday and I love the show and will continue to listen to it. As a progressive non-exclusive Christian pastor my initial reaction, like Krista's, is not positive. It just seems like another way in which our culture buys into the stereotype that there is something bad about faith and about being a person of faith. Faith, I guess, no longer sells so we need kinder, gentler words to convey our message. Oh for a faith that encompassed being, open minds and kindness.

Thank you for the comment. It is much appreciated.

The word "faith" does sell; it sells a lot. But that's not the point. The change is about invitation and inclusiveness. It's about extending ourselves and reaching out, not just waiting for others to come to us. When we open ourselves like this, we risk pain and loss and disappointment, but we also make new friends and discover new worlds — and try to bring them to all the other listeners and readers who enjoy these conversations.

Can't say I'm digging the new name....

Well, we can respect that.

I will accept "Being" but with resistance and hesitance. What I attracted me to your program was the word "Faith" and the manner in which your program created space to talk about faith with full dimension and essence. Being is ok but I think it dilutes the journey and meaning of faith. Faith informs, shapes, creates our being, whether it be deliberate or randomly. I will continue to listen and trust you instinct. Blessings.

A fair point. We will not abuse your trust. Thank you.

It just shows how much "faith" is associated with "religion". Having faith has nothing to do with organized religion in my mind. The latter has everything to do with brainwashing and controlling the masses and endless bigotry; whilst the former is recognizing who we really are deep down at our core when all the veils of our delusions are lifted (yes, it sounds very simplistic, but soooo true), and about love and compassion and joy. It's ok to have faith and not be religious. It's ok to know and acknowledge that we don't know everything. When you get quiet enough in your heart to listen.... that's when you realize what 'faith' is all about.

I don't care what you change the title into, just keep the fantastic work that you do, and keep the show going! I listen and re-listen to the podcasts, amazing stories, and I am deeply grateful for being able to get to them.

Namaste.

"The latter has everything to do with brainwashing and controlling the masses and endless bigotry."

Oh yeah...because folks like Shane Claiborne, St. Francis of Assisi, David Norris, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Helen Keller, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr were/are all a bunch of brainwashed bigots, right?

While it is true that some have used religion to excuse their crimes (for very human reasons), many, many more allow their religion to inspire them to do great and beautiful things for their fellow man and the world, to connect with the divine, to connect more deeply with the needs of their neighbors and to grant them the strength to achieve the incredible.

Remember this rhyme: Broad assumptions and generalizations, make fools of even the wisest nations.

You, along with many others as I've learned over these past seven years here at SOF, live out this truth of being faithful and not necessarily religious. And we want to speak to this with our name change, but I've also learned that deeply religious, faithful people are not so easy to pigeonhole. We remain open to those stories too.

Thank you for your kind words about the show and your trust in our work. Best.

I think the name change is wise and responsive to a real conflict many people have with words like "faith" and its misappropriation in public discourse. I hope the change helps the show find an even broader audience - we need to engage in these conversations.

Well put. Thank you.

I love the program…I love change…I love being.

Nice!

Well done!
The new name describes so much better what the programme/blog is about than the rather limiting 'Speaking of Faith'. Even though I have no problem with the word 'faith' nowadays there can be so many negative associations with it...
So, thank you for answering my silent wishes.

It's funny you cite the blog because I think this is a demonstrated example of how our lens represents the growing openness and focus of the program. And, it feels good to respond to those "silent wishes."

I have always loved the show, and agree that the change is wise. When I share the links I am always qualifying the source to the folks I know will discount the content because of the name. So thank you for the struggle it must have been, and for having it evolve, thoughtfully, prayerfully and in its own time.

Yes, even among my friends or our colleagues at Minnesota Public Radio, I often have to explain what the program is about or hear the staff referred to as "The God Squad." Of course, these yuk-yuks are tongue-in-cheek but after while I have to question if there isn't some dissonance. Perhaps this name change will help us, and me, in this communication.

(sigh)...my inner-child hates change :) ... Personally, I would prefer: "Speaking of Being"... because it's not just Krista Tippet (altho I adore her) on 'Being'...it's many voices on 'Being'.

Just my two cents.

Well, Ellen, we do have to change the name of our blog. Hmmmm...

I agree with Ellen. If in fact this will remain an interview show, Krista isn't saying anything on Being, the guests are.

Consider Speaking of Being with Krista Tippett. Speaking of Being is a better short title.

I'm sad that "faith" is interpreted so negatively by so many. Like other "posters" I was originally drawn to the show because of the word "faith" and "speaking" and have been fed and refreshed by the open conversations about many issues surrounding faith. "Being" is awfully broad - all encompassing, in fact -- and wouldn't have drawn me in Already love the show. I'm not going anywhere. I might not have found it after the name change.

Ann, those are excellent points. How can we work with this knowledge as we move forward so that we can appeal to people like you who are attracted to the word "faith" in a title?

At least put 'faith' back into the tag-line, if not back into the title. If we're willing to have 'religion' in the tag-line it seems 'faith' has even less negative connotation than 'religion'

I love that you've responded to the need you see in our culture... I mean, I agee with other commenters that it's unfortunate that the word "faith" is a roadblock to so many; on the other hand, simply continuing to use the word with hopes that SOF's intelligent conversations about it will change perceptions strikes me as naive. After all, those who misperceive the word are never the ones listening. :) So - Kudos on having the discernment and bravery to be a little reborn. :)

I confess I'm not sold on "KT on Being," mostly because the word "being" is so broad... And while what you do IS deliciously broad (I'm one of your biggest fans), "being" encompasses so much *more* than religion/meaning/ethics/ideas that if I were to hear the title w/ no background, I'm not sure it'd tell me enough about ya'll are about to get me to listen that 1st time.

But - You've begun the journey and off it will go. Over time the new title will come to represent who you all are and what you do, and we will love it as always. And you're right - As broad as it is, it IS more shareable, without the disclaimers I've found myself attaching to the sharing before now. :)

Take care, and keep doing what you do!

Thank you, and I like the word "shareable" — especially when we're talking about online connections with FB and Twitter. It is important.

My new Facebook status:
If you have ever listened to "Speaking of Faith" on NPR, which I have from time to time, you will appreciate the nature and process of the change in the program name. "Being", after all, is something we all share within our spirit, regardless of our labeled faith or religion. They also have a podcast ... listen when you can.

I am sorry that you have joined the bandwagon and decided that "faith" is anathema and uncommunicative. In choosing the name change, you have cut out half the equation of faith and cut our the heart of the matter.

While I am a Christian and a member of a main-line denomination, I agree with all the writers who commented upstream who say that "faith" has nothing to do with religion, organized or not.

Faith has to do with how one understands their place in the universe, their hope, their fears. Faith to a person's sense of purpose and place. As such, faith lives where "being" and "doing" meet. That meeting can look like collision or feel like tension. When "being" and "doing" meet faith happens and it is dynamic.

To be a person of "faith" is to be a person of hope and this is not an easy thing. A person of any faith, must contend with the things that snuff out faith: fear, cynicism, greed, ignorance, to name a few. The things that work against faith may be found in both religious and secular settings because they too are part of what it means to be human. To be a person of faith is to contend with what is worst in us so that we may free and nourish what is best in us.

That means that faith is much more that what we believe or think. It is much more that how we are. Faith is also what we do.

Much of the critique against traditional religions in all their forms is that so often our behavior is contrary to our words and stated beliefs. This is a fair criticism. It is also an obvious one.

Spirituality that does not act, that is neither ethical nor compassionate, is a poor faith indeed. To avoid speaking of faith because we are afraid of the mistakes we might make--that we might be confused with the many who have made mistake and done harm in the name of their faith--is to retreat from the risk of acting for the better. Sooner or later a mature faith requires us to change, which in itself is an act of faith.

Spirituality becomes faith when beliefs and longings become action. When what we sense, or hope for, or pray is translated into change that cause us to act, then we are living our faith. Acting on the change is in itself an act of faith because we never know where it will lead us. Choosing to rise out of privatized belief, choosing to see faith as a gift instead of personal possession, is to move into a life of faith. And it will be public because it will affect our relationships, our work, our creativity. Having faith is by definition risky business.

When prayer, meditation and a sense of inner well-being translate into actions that care for people, cherish our planet and work for justice and integrity, then we are living a life of faith. Where our being affects our doing. Faith made real in such ways is a demonstration of love.

So my disappointment is that choosing to say in "being" sounds beautiful but it is also safe. By reducing faith to an idea we avoid the constant prompting and the disturbing challenge to rise up out of ourselves and step out into this troubled, imperfect and beautiful world in faith.

Beautifully said. I think "Speaking of Faith" has the opportunity to encourage others to expand their concept of faith. I believe that changing the name is safer, and less of a challenge to the listeners to translate their beliefs into action to be a part of creating the world we want to live in.

I agree entirely. I am a Unitarian Universalist & many people join us with a sense that they have been damaged by the religious beliefs in which they grew up. I am an agnostic (raised Methodist), and I never had that sense of being damaged by my parents' religion -- in fact, I grew up in a Methodist church that emphasized education about Christianity, so I feel that I learned a lot. Nonetheless, I have also learned from the UU attempt to restore the words associated with religion (e.g., "prayer," "faith," etc.), and give them additional non-dogmatic meanings, and I appreciate that. If you attempt to be too neutral, you risk capturing nothing strong or resonant.

I am very saddened by the change of name, and by the new direction it signals. The name change explains to me what I've been wondering about as I've listened to many of the shows in the last months: "What does this interview have to do with religion?" Yes, I have understood that they all have something to do with issues of deeper "meaning in life," which is the fundamental ground of religion, but I have missed having programs that deal more directly with religion, and with specific religious traditions. Rather than branching out more widely, I would have preferred to see the show circle back in to its original content, even if it would mean a smaller audience. The show was a unique beacon of light on explicitly religious matters. Now where are we to go for that?

As one at whom the name change was probably aimed, I appreciate the effort to avoid offending those who find the word "faith" offensive. However, I'm afraid that I'd rather be a little intimidated by the concept of faith than bored by the concept of "being", which strikes me as far too general a term to have any meaning. What comes to my mind, when I hear that word, is, "It depends on what "is" is."

I think a better title would be: Searching for Meaning with KT. "Krista Tippett on Being" sounds like Krista Tippett is on top of something. Even "On Being with KT" because I think it describes the show better. We explore different people's search for meaning WITH Krista Tippett and others. I enjoy the show even though I am a conservative Christian. I find Krista to be one of the few liberal thinkers who is liberal and open minded even with conservatives that she has on her show. I enjoy learning about other's perspectives in a truly respectful manner. I will continue to listen even though I think the new title is quite weird and doesn't fit the program as well as even the old one did.

If you send it to mail@speakingoffaith.org, Krista and the production staff will see it.

I am saddened that a term that is meant to bring people together has become a wall to open and meaningful invitations to conversation. What a pity that intimacy of thought has become intimidating.

I will miss the term 'Faith.'

"Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence."
[Paul Davies, NYT, "Taking Science on Faith", 24.Nov.07]

I'll also miss the prefix 'Speaking of' just as much. The title 'Speaking of... with Krista Tippett' directed a certain focus away from host recognition which I thought worked well.
(...I would admit that the acronym for Speaking Of Being maybe no so good)

With the term 'Being' I can't help but hear a slight suggestion of new age wishy-washiness and abstraction. ...but that's my problem.


That being said...
Change is good... Change is necessary.
...might say that I have a strong 'faith' in the necessity for change... along with a good amount of faith in the direction of you, Krista, and the SOF team.

Much success on Being! (...and on becoming)
...I shall accompany the journey.

[Edit] Must apologize for the insensitive remark...
Failing to realize how powerful and helpful modern day new age beliefs could be, I choose to casually dismiss it based entirely on a few negative impressions. Too much of that going around... I apologize.

I loved your name, and for me, it challenged me to see how faith is central to the journey of knowledge and life itself. However, I think many of my friends would avoid listening to a show that acknowledged that?! So, I will continue listening as long as it doesn't change in content into something more left-brained to the exclusion of right-brained-ness.

I am disappointed with the new name and I have two comments. First, shifting the focus from the discussion to the host seems inappropriate. I never had any trouble remember Krista Tippett's name when it wasn't part of the title of the show. Second, hearing "Faith" discussed in this context of this show redefined the word for me. Changing the name of the show seems to be an uncharacteristic lowest-common-denominator approach. "Being" has a unappealing, new-agey sound that makes me just think, "Bleh".

Little bit sad to hear about the name change.. but trying to be open to it. I liked speaking of faith and I feel faith encompasses everything in life including no faith.. but I will continue to listen and echo the sentiments of the the other comment makers.. if the basic content and structure stays the same I will keep listening..

Speaking of Faith with "Krista Tippett" is becoming "Krista Tippett on Being."

Before: "From American Public Media, this is Speaking of Faith, public radio's conversation about religion, meaning, ethics, and ideas."

After: "From American Public Media, this is Krista Tippett on Being, public radio's conversation about religion, meaning, ethics, and ideas."

Before: "I'm Krista Tippett:, and this is Speaking of Faith from American Public Media..."

After: "I'm Krista Tippett:, and this is Krista Tippett on Being from American Public Media..." Or perhaps: "This is Krista Tippett on Being from American Public Media..."

The standard versions we've been hearing flow very nicely; after the change, not so nicely.

"I'm Krista Tippett:. My guest this hour is..." We hear Krista's name constantly during these programs - the thread of constancy is there, and without being at all obnoxious. Putting her name at the beginning of the program name might seem to many to be flagrant self-promotionalism, especially shortly after the publication of her first book. Krista may very well not have such an intention, but perceptions will be created in spite of her intentions. I greatly appreciate what Krista has done to bring the topics she includes to the attention of so many who are, indeed, searching for meaning in life, and I think the name of her program is very important.

I have always felt that "Faith" wasn't the best word to use, although it certainly has great value and has caught the attention of and spoken to many listeners. But it is also too limiting. Some choose to limit its meaning to the realm of religion or spirituality, although it can just as easily include faith in science, or in one's self and in humanity, or in life. It is also often equated with "belief" even though those terms do not necessarily have the same meaning. In spite of all it can mean, though, "Faith" doesn't really embrace everything that Krista's program has come to include.

"Being" is a great word and I use it a lot myself, but as a stand alone word in the title of this program it just doesn't have the power needed to get the attention of a broad audience. Being what? "Being" needs much more context to help most people relate to it in any way other than our ordinary usage of the word. Yes, the program will give it context, but that presumes people will already have been attracted to listening - yet it's the title that needs to do much of the attracting.

I suggest using "Our Search for Meaning with Krista Tippett" - which will often be shortened to "Our Search for Meaning." "Our" is inviting and will include all of us - those of us who already listen and those who are potential listeners. And the "Search for Meaning" is a pervasive and perennial theme that most people can relate to on any of a variety of levels, whether mundane, historical, scientific, philosophical, religious or spiritual.

Please consider: "From American Public Media, this is Our Search for Meaning with Krista Tippett, public radio's conversation about religion, meaning, ethics, and ideas." "I'm Krista Tippett:, and this is Our Search for Meaning from American Public Media..." "My guest today joins us on Our Search for Meaning..." "Stay with us on Our Search for Meaning." How could anyone resist listening?

If a change is unavoidable, "Our Search for Meaning" works better than "Being". But I still prefer "Speaking of Faith", for reasons I've stated in other posts.

SOF always has been about what people believe. How about "Being is Believing with Krista Tippett"? "Being" is a dog that won't hunt. Amen (if you'll pardon the expression) to all adverse comments above. How about "Being & Believing"? Personal story: I would not have found this program online some years ago had the word "faith" not been in its title. I've been a regular podcast listener for years, and it's been a refreshing part of my intellectual life. (I've become a Janna Levin fan, for example.) Frankly, I'm in the if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it camp. SOF ain't broke. Don't fix it; or, if you must, make it anything but the warm beer of "Being."

I like your idea of "Being & Believing with KT". It retains the faith aspect many are fond of but also invites the non-believing existentialists like myself. I'm an atheist but I can appreciate many of the discussions on the show. I've always found the SOF title accurate but a little off-putting. I'm aware many believers to find atheists to be condescending elitists, but being the only non-believer in a Catholic family I can assure that those feelings work in reverse as well. "Being & Believing" is a name change that might bridge that gap a bit.

I have several thoughts:

First is that Krista's description is reasoned, balanced and honest; the very things that fans for SoF love about her and the program.

Second, is that it is difficult not to be skeptical about the motives for the change. Since the ethos and content of the show won't change, this cosmetic name change highlights that the removal of the word "faith" is intentional and perhaps for dubious reasons. While the desire to provide a larger container for discussion is noble, the removal of "faith" from the title leaves a weird aftertaste. Because it's National "Public" Radio, the excision of faith from the title seems to imply that faith is not part of the public or that it shouldn't be. The fact that some in the NPR world would find either a show with faith in the title or a show about faith offensive or even humorous speaks to a larger bigotry and arrogance. Despite protests to the contrary, I am under no illusion that NPR is without liberal influence, my fear is that this decision confirms such. Changing the title because it makes some people uncomfortable could be perceived as a challenge of credibility while changing the title so that more markets will pick up the show seems speak to a weakness of integrity. I realize that it's only a name, but I warn that appealing to the lowest common denominator never results in creativity or quality. I think the dissonance that the term "faith" initially brings only serves to highlight the excellence and purity of the show.

Finally, the new name...well, it's just not good. It reeks of design by committee and compromise. While many people work on the show, it is Krista's presence that makes it so appealing. So I think that she does deserve to have her name in the title. I like the term ''being," but it is so homogeneously new-agey, I can't shake the feeling like I am being served "new Coke!" However, with that said, I'm sure Krista will be able to say the new title with her trademark tenderness and nubile naivete so that the listening public will drink it down greedily.

I don't know if my criticisms reveal it or not, but I'm a big fan of the show and owe it a debt of gratitude for introducing me to the late John O'Donohue. I will continue to listen but like the executives of the Coca Cola company on live TV; when the new title is spoken, I won't be able to avoid the 'big blink' of New Coke.

I agree with your thinking almost totally ( as you will no doubt be appalled by my near-oxymoron). I wish only that you had attributed the change of title to a misunderstanding of the liberal promoted as political correctness. For true liberalism is generous, free, accepting rather than tolerant, and in many cases spiritual. I myself claim to be far left politically and socially and at the same time an orthodox Luke 4 Christian. As you are grateful to Krista for introducing you to John Donahue, I shall always be thankful for meeting Mary Doria Russell on "Speaking of Faith.".

"Krista Tippett on Being" puts emphasis on the host rather than the topics. Here's another vote for CarlMN's "Our Search for Meaning with Krista Tippett" -- though the ship appears to have sailed already.

I'm totally OK with moving on from Faith to Being. Now when I refer people to the program, I don't have to explain that it goes way beyond religion.

It is unfortunate that public perception has damaged another great word but faith does have dubious connotations for many. I am sure you will continue to do the great job you have been in leading the discussion. Might I suggest that a slight change in emphasis is interesting? As in "I am Krista Tippet and this is On Being"?

I am very supportive of the change. Speaking of Faith is so much more than the name has suggested... and I personally have seen people disregard my recommendations to listen to the program when they hear the name.

Thank you for continuing to challenge my way of thinking with such great content.

Good luck with the new name!

Krista I love the new name! I also have experienced while speaking with friends and/or family about the wonderful insights I have come to learned from the many, many, programs I have listed to that the title Speaking of Faith is a barrier to people. I am a faithful listener and I will continue to down-load the podcasts for my own “indulgement” regardless of the name change. The content and the quality of the programs are a gift to humanity during modern times. Due to a busy work schedule; technology allows me to listen to the programs whenever I want at my own pace. For me is a precious treasure awaiting for me on my I-Pod , I so much look forward to the times I get to listen, learn and most importantly reflect. Thank you and Blessings!

I don't care for the new name. It's vague, without context, no clear place to live that spans our cultural conversation. I'd much prefer a name that speaks to the soul, even if the mind doesn't recognize it beyond that it just feels right. "Krista Tippett on Being" does not stir me in that way, but neither did "Speaking of Faith," although the program itself has many times. I wonder if you looked back over past programs and tried out the phrases of those moments when grace spoke unveiled through Krista or her guest.

"Speaking of Faith" has had the uneasy connotations that Krista and people in the replies have mentioned among people I've recruited to the program, too. So I understand the wish for a change. I don't have a suggestion at the moment myself, but if I had a vote, I'd lobby for a pause until the right phrase emerges or descends. Of the one's I read here in the comments, I like CarlMN's suggestions best.
But whatever the name, I'll continue to listen with joy to these delightful and provoking conversations. Thank you so much for this light in the middle of so much cultural and media distraction.

Every listener has a 'faith' to one degree or another. Many find it difficult to relate to any label, to "religion" or a name, so soiled have the names of some traditions become by the acts of very careless people who claim membership of, or allegiance to them. Yet no one can remove or take away from themselves, the instinctive spirituality, awe, wonder, and resulting sense of faith they feel, for example when looking at the galaxies of stars in the night sky. If the phrase 'Krista Tippett on Being' allows entry to a wider audience so be it. It is clearly Krista's show to lead and to develop as she feels is right. Those that know the show by its older title will still hear the same conversations about religion, meaning, ethics, faith, traditions, and ideas... and the journey will still be the focus.

I can understand the urge to move away from "faith" -- I too have tried to get others interested in the program only to run into their nervousness over the connotations of "faith." But there had to be a better option than "Krista Tippett on Being." I immediately start thinking of various endings, such as "Krista Tippett on Being a Sea Slug" or "Krista Tippett on Being Bored." Here's another, probably too late, vote for "Our Search for Meaning, with Krista Tippett," or "Searching for Meaning, with Krista Tippett." As long as the content doesn't change, I will continue to be a fan of the show by any name, but I can't see myself being much more successful in promoting the show to friends with the new name.

My thoughts...

I love this show! I am fine with the change although I would have left it alone!

I liked having the word Faith in the title, and felt comfortable sharing it with others (which I often do).

The word Being immediately took me to Heidegger.

For me, much of the beauty of the show is in the way that Krista connects with the people she interviews, however, I am not sure about the wisdom of including the host name in a show because at some stage in the future you might want others to host, or perform some of the interviews.

Keep up the good work, and thank you.

Ronnie

What I don't see in these comments is Shakespeare's question about what is in a name? I once worked for Bell Labs. Due to a court decision, in a 3 year period starting in 1981, the part I worked for was renamed American Bell & later AT&T Information Systems. Two years afterwards, it was AT&T Bell Labs. Subsequent buyouts & catastrophes have changed the company beyond recognition, but every so often, I see a truck rolling by with some name on it -- I can no longer remember what (even though I'm a stockholder) -- what I notice is the slogan: "powered by Bell Labs technology." What the company was named originally is what people remember -- all these new names are just marketing & legalistic mumbo jumbo. These experiences suggest to me that once an institution starts changing its name, it doesn't stop, yet people remember the original name & for all the literally millions (which public radio doesn't have) spent on marketing, they still have to trot out "Bell Labs" to impress people. I just hope that your correspondence is sufficiently electronic that you're not going to kill a lot of trees for new stationery, billing forms, business cards, etc.

A different way of thinking about it is why don't some number of women change their names when they marry (& why do men so rarely). Yes, feminism allowed us to feel that we had the choice, but why do women choose not to? When I got married, I didn't doubt that I was entering a new phase of my life & that I would change greatly as a result, but I still felt that there was some consistent part of me, associated with my name, that wasn't going to be obliterated by my future. Some of that consistent part of me came from my past -- from my family -- the source of my original name. It might have made sense to change if I had hated my parents or something about what I was, but I believe I am at peace with my past -- aren't you? Whatever I am or will be, I don't have such a problem with who I was that I want to eradicate that identity. 26 years later, I continue to feel that way. Moreover, if anything changes a person, surely parenthood changes us more than spousehood -- why does no one propose changing one's name when we become parents? Maturation milestones are rarely the drivers of name changes. What's interesting is that we become name givers to others then -- we don't change our identities. So for these reasons I don't associate name changing with maturity or wisdom -- it seems rather superficial.

Change your name if you want -- in the final analysis, it's your & APM's decision & it has to be okay with your sponsors, but I suspect I (& many others) will always think of you as SOF or at least as the show that used to be SOF. I also think the kinds of people who really can't listen to a show with "faith" in the title are going to turn off any of those shows that relate to a named faith. So many of your individual shows do talk about a particular religion or faith community -- "Being" might be perceived as a kind of way of faking people out. Also, there are potential new listeners who will be turned off by the new age vagueness of "being." You bring an certain intellectual depth to your discussions that I rarely hear when I listen to people talk about "being." That word has its own issues in this context -- you're not going to escape negative connotations -- you're just choosing different ones.

My personal option is that changing the program's name from Speaking of Faith to Krista TIppett's on Being would be a mistake. First since your program is actually very interpersonal, pluralist, and conversational, using your host's personal name in my option restricts its breath to be a more monological topic. As for the topic itself Being or Faith. All religions, even philosophical perspective that are non-theist in any way can speak of faith with ease. Faith in so far as it means to lean into a perspective or religious tradition is not exclusive. Being on the other hand is quite philosophical it connotes anything from Tillich to Heidegger to Buddhism but tends to leave the breadth of monotheist faiths out. Leaning into Being or depending on God may from a Perennial perspective be accurate but only those esoterically trained are really capable of the translation.

I will listen to and support your program no matter what the name is because of the quality of your interviews but I really do not like the name change.

My personal opinion is that changing the program's name from Speaking of Faith to Krista TIppett's on Being would be a mistake. First since your program is actually very interpersonal, pluralist, and conversational, using your host's personal name in my option restricts its breath to be a more monological topic. As for the topic itself Being or Faith. All religions, even philosophical perspective that are non-theist in any way can speak of faith with ease. Faith in so far as it means to lean into a perspective or religious tradition is not exclusive. Being on the other hand is quite philosophical it connotes anything from Tillich to Heidegger to Buddhism but tends to leave the breadth of monotheist faiths out. Leaning into Being or depending on God may from a Perennial perspective be accurate but only those esoterically trained are really capable of the translation.

I will listen to and support your program no matter what the name is because of the quality of your interviews but I really do not like the name change.

Just today at lunch I was discussing the notion of how our society in general has misplaced the sacred places and things of our lives and our history, so that now the idea of sacredness is itself treated with irreverance and even contempt. Whatever form your personal morality, spirituality, philosophy of life may take, the important thing is that you have it and you nurture it and you SHARE it. Otherwise you cannot possibly live a real life. As Wendell Berry says, "There are no unsacred places; there are only sacred places and desecrated places."
Changing your name, and focusing on the concept of being, is like the polishing of a mirror, the searching we all do to refine our view and continue on the search of who we really are. Everyday my concept of who I am and what I am searching for changes and grows. So, even on my deathbed, I will not fully understand who I am, who we are. That is an exciting, and fulfilling thing. I would never want to be an endpoint. And I most definitely wouldn't want you to be one either. Thank you for enriching my life.

I like the name change. I agree it encapsulates far better what you are doing and makes the show open and inviting to those for whom "faith" is a difficult word to get around. I love that your show draws teenagers. I hope many will find it and find new ways and directions of thinking abut "being" in our world today.

yep, seems like it'll take a little getting used to. But I like it. And I applaud you all for keeping it fluid and pushing to see what is coming next.

Perhaps "Becoming" would have been a better choice than "Being." SoF has never been about freezing and endorsing whatever you happen just now to be. Guests on the show are at their most fascinating as they discuss how they came to wherever they are, and at their most persuasive as they make it clear why we might take up some of their ideas. Krista's own story, as she has shared, draws us in to both struggle and search.

For this reason, I'm not at all convinced that the awkwardness around the word "faith" is a thing to avoid. Of course it's awkward to reconsider your unexamined assumptions! But SoF has constantly, gently led us into that wider world. The awkwardness is the first step in the evolution.

But the die is cast, the deal is done, the name is new ... and it's not entirely misdirected. I see the assurances, by Krista and Kate and Trent, that the editorial policy will not change. That would be good! But I've come to know you all well enough to know you know the self-deceptive power of subtle revisionings. I hope you find ways to guard against it.

It suddenly strikes me that the title of this blog entry, "From Faith to Being," is the best possible summary!

I thought of that too, as I listened to Krista tell of the proposed name change. When she referred to "From Faith to Being", I first thought that was to be the new name. When I went to read her post, I realized that was only the headline for the announcement. I'd agree with you, but I still prefer "Speaking of Faith", for it's promise of dialogue and exploration. How many wonderful conversations begin with "Speaking of..." springboard on to intriguing, thoughtful dialogues about life, even in the ordinary course of interacting with our friends and neighbors? Listening to "Speaking of Faith, I feel part of that ongoing conversation about life.

I have seen that you were stretching "faith" in many of the programs lately, but I regret that, with the new title, we are losing the immediate implication of the spiritual. I would prefer the old name and the continued enlargement of *faith.* I suppose that the new name is a fait accompli. Well, anyway, keep the faith, my sister.

Speaking of Faith is a title that conveys CONVERSATION. That, it seems to me, is somewhat lost in this new title. Listening and speaking (or expressing in whatever way - art, yoga, service, etct) are essential to the relationality necessary for humans to do more than simply exist together, but to THRIVE in peace. From a philosophical or theological perspective, this change seems like a total faliure. The title Being is about existence, not relationality. That is where the loss is. We can not find our identity other than in relationship to each other.

Thomas Merton in his book New Seeds of Contemplation, ends a chapter entitled Union and Division with the following two powerful sentences:
"I must look for my identity, somehow, not only in God but in other men. I will never be able to find myself if I isolate myself from the rest of mankind as if I were a different kind of being."

Words matter, Krista, as you no doubt know. ( I am not at all worried about the editorial choosing, and/or content of the show.) Being, as the new title does not convey a 'broadening' of the horizon and scope of the conversation. It just makes it vague. Perhaps disgustingly so. [I-AM-WHO-AM is unspeakable, perhaps for this reason!} You have lost the precision of language, a percision that is really needed to truly call attention to the greater mysteries. Is that not what your show is about? That is a shame and a sadness.

Who was the marketing genius who told you Faith has only the connotation 'faith in God'?admittedly the Judeo-Christian essential underpinning. Is that really an obstacle to having a meaningful conversation? So, are you assuming that 'Faith' has no humanism connotations? like faith in man, faith in creativity, faith in each other, faith in reason, faith in nature?

Maybe it is. Maybe, as a marketing ploy it needed to be done. Maybe not. We will see. But I do not believe that Speaking of Faith has taken you, in public media, as far as it can go. Far more than what you see and know is possible. Now, saddly, we will not see it.

Money matters. Decisions are made based on it. In what economy is integrity freely traded? Perhaps, some might say sardonically, the one we are in now...and half-jokingly evade the seriousness and intent of the pointed question. Krista, I have faith in you. I have faith in the integrity and continued depth and breath of this show with you and your crew at the helm, no matter the title.

Thank you for all you do. Peace to your heart(s).

Gregory

I am glad you wanted to change the name of the show. The addendum to the old title was a little unwieldy. But I have to agree with many of the other comments, it seems vague and leaves out the spiritual and conversational aspects of the show - and that's speaking as an agnostic. The exploration of spirituality is my favorite part of the show.

I love the show and hope that your approach to intelligently discussing issues of faith, ultimate meanings, life, science, social concern, growth, beliefs, and all other topics remains unchanged.

I am not terribly attached to the old name, as I think you go well beyond what the broader audience would typically associate with the word "faith." I do like whatever name you choose first and the host second. The topic and the guests are central; Krista correctly brings them to the forefront and asks the questions we'd like to hear answered.

I understand the desire for a new name. I probably would have preferred a different outcome, such as "The Examined Life with Krista Tippett" or "Seeking Meaning with Krista Tippett." But you all have earned my "faith" so I'll follow along.

We are on the same wavelength, Steve. "The Examined Life" was on the short list for quite some time, until we found it was trademarked and the title of a new reality show!

Your old title worked very well for me. I understood the word "faith" in the title to refer to any faith and many faiths, not just mine. I didn't like that you were changing the title but, now that I understand that the "faith" word was an obstacle for many would-be listeners, you have my blessing to change it. However, worded as the new title is, it sounds as if Krista will be expounding every week instead of highlighting different guests. I have no suggestion of how to word the title better, though.

SofF has always been about speaking with passion and creative engagement about those things which are of central importance but exceptionally difficult to talk about in our culture. Even the name itself challenged conventional categories and simplistic meanings about the boundaries of religion, belief, spirituality and ethics. Given the show's content, the name SoF was as much a challenge to Christians as non-Christians, believers as well as atheists. The name change feels a bit like you are caving in to the narrow categories of our culture, searching for the lowest common denominator that puts no one off. Disappointing.....

Add me to the list of those who are not wild about the name change. It feels decidedly philosophical in name and would do to those seeking "faith" what it does to those who struggle with the word. I believe that language creates reality, and there is theological power in naming things. And for me "being" is a basic philosophical term that precedes theological awareness. The name change seems like a de-evolutionary step (wow! a loaded term I didn't intend)... a step backward. I studied philosophy for four years in college and then went on to get a master's degree in theology. The vocabulary of philosophy gave me the foundation to discover become fluent in the language of faith.

I live in a world in which it is easier for me to be openly gay than it is to be openly Catholic. And when I send people to this web page, and I do so on a regular basis, I have to warn them that the title does not necessarily explain its content. But still they go and them come back to me with a lively discussion about their faith journeys.

Having the word faith in the title gives it an edge, and isn't that the role of a prophet in society, to prod and poke and make us uncomfortable? The show has prophetic consequences. "Being" feels like a concession. Your statement above makes sense, but I am always looking at the meaning of words. And it sounds like this is taking the easier path, instead of the path less travelled.

Stanley John, After reading your post, I feel that you make tangible points. Tangible to the point of questioning whether I still agree with my "thumbs up" response I gave to the announcement about the naming of SOF.

It does have a new age spin to it, but it is important to remember that even listener supported radio must consider listenership and appeal. Allowing for this economic truth, Krista seemed careful to point out that it is only now a change in title. In reality it is the content which has been evolving into something more, and possibly different, than the original concept of the show. I am only guessing.

I don't personally feel that, in the end, the naming of the show is as important as what one feels and thinks about after having listened to the conversation between Krista and her guest. Like you, I refer people to the show. I always describe the show as an amazingly provocative conversation of the human condition. Also, journalism and journalistic style unavailable anywhere else. It is unfortunate that the word, faith, has been so branded as formalized religion in the minds of many. Faith is equally, "belief in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." (Wikipedia)

As I have often grappled with understanding myself; Am I a gay man, or a man who happens to be gay? Either way, I am still me. The struggle is more with the semantics.

It is interesting that a name change draws so much passion from your listeners. I must ask to be counted among those who found great affinity with the name Speaking of Faith, in large part because the subject of your conversations went far beyond "being" to a search for meaning in that very being. I have found my own faith deepened by listening to a great host of people as they gave voice to that which has given their path in life, their being, greater meaning and purpose. Their journeys, most far different from mine in name, invariably echoed some part of the essence of my own faith, my own search for meaning and purpose that has developed as I have lived. Your programs have enriched my faith by sharing with me the stories of meaning that is at the very core of the human experience. Part of me despairs that we have lost the ability to speak of faith without needing to defend ourselves or at the very least seek not to offend others, essentially making speaking of faith culturally taboo...sigh...My hope is that the name change will not diminish the conversation.

Hello. Thanks for opening this up for discussion.

I love your show, and so I hate writing this:

The new name is terrible. And, in my truly humble view, it's terrible for many reasons. For example:

(1) It doesn't have the flare that SOF does--the new name isn't catchy and it's not nearly as marketable.

(2) As much as I love and appreciate Krista's work, I don't like her name attached to the title. In some way, and because language does shape reality, it brings this new unhealthy egotism to it: and an unhealthy ego is, ironically, antithetical to being!

You ought to heed all of this discontent and keep the name or try again. It might just signal more than change--it might signal the beginning of the end. I hope that that doesn't happen. This show is of profound value; it does so much good.

Peace,

Paul

how about "the wonder of being"?

or "the mystery of being"?

or "the adventure of being"?

or "the wonder, mystery, and adventure of being"?

hmmff...I going to miss the old name - I guess 'cause when I got turned onto this program I held it became very to dear to me. I'll give the new one a shot. A refreshing every so often doesn't have to be so bad anyhow.

I deplored the name of your show and avoided it at all costs. "Speaking of faith" is so sanctimonious and self-congratulatory - an inner circle of "godly" people. Let's hope the new name will herald new things.

At random, I have found this discussion ruminating in my mind. Perhaps I was a bit too reactionary in my first comment. For that I am sorry. In the event that it's helpful, I thought I'd post one last comment; it's actually a question, really:

What does this change say about your being at its core? How does it speak of your faith?

I genuinely hope that this is not part of what many of us people of faith are working against: the institutionalization/commercialization, and thus degradation, of faith. I won't presume to know.

Peace to you, these listeners, and this program,

Paul

Krista. It's inspired. I love it.

Speaking of Faith was a pretty catchy title, but I can appreciate it if someone thinks the "Faith" bit makes the show less accessible. Having said that, Krista Tippett on Being sounds like an SNL Parody of a New Age public Access Cable show. A bazillion other things come to mind:

“Tippett Talk,” “Talking with Tippett,” “Speaking, Hearing and Learning with KT,” “The Tippett Dialogues,” “Deep Dialogues,” “Perennial Dialogues,” “The Meaning Quest (w KT),” “Speaking of Meaning (w KT),” “Meaning Talk,” “Meaningful Talk,” “Listening for Meaning,” “Meaning and Morals,” “Meaning What We Say,” “Meaningful Matters,” “Meaning Matters,” “Hearing What Is,” “Saying What Is,” “Reaching for the Light,” “Meaning and Wisdom,” “Meaning Stories,” “Lighting the Way,” “The Meaning Compass,” “What Is With KT”…

You get the idea.

I agree completely with Paul Blankenship. The new name is, frankly, terrible. First, Krista is wonderful, but the show is not about her, it is about conversation, dialogue, discovery. The new name focuses far too much on the host, whereas it should focus on the subject. Secondly, Being is fine in the title, but why not, as one writer suggested, The Mystery of Being? Something that evokes wonder, for as it is the title is insipid and tone-deaf. I am also very dubious about giving in to the sort of thinking expressed by one writer, that Faith suggested something "sanctimonious." That is only the case if one does not understand the incredible depth, complexity and humility of the word. By avoiding the term, you're moving from accuracy to Why in the world would we want to allow extremists who abuse the word "faith" to dominate the discussion?
There are many different forms of faith; faith is openness and surrender to Ultimate Being--it is not adherence to a set of specific doctrines.
There are, I fear many forms of fundamentalism--and an unreflexive reaction to Faith is one of them.
Let it be Being, if need be, but please: a spark of poetry and mystery, as so many of you wonderful guests have provided.

My two cents . . . "Being" does not resonate with me, although I agree a change from "SOF" was needed. Try again, please. "Being" is too cryptic, too vague, too general. It lacks the feeling of flowing hospitality that should permeate your conversations.

Sounds great to me the show has been such an inspiration, it has grown and deepened and matured as we have. New title seems appropriate.

I was proud of the title "Speaking of Faith" because honest and real faith (in all faiths) absolutely points at what Krista has always pointed at ... in her own words: "It points at questions of 'religion, meaning, ethics and ideas' at the heart of human life — not confined to Sunday mornings or Friday evenings, not on the sidelines of real life, but at the essence of who we are and how we live, individually and collectively." She continually showed that FAITH was not confined to Sunday mornings or Friday evenings nor to the sidelines of life. Every week she was expanding our culture's shallow misconstrual of honest faith, and I was proud of that and happy for that.

However, I need to be aware of what others hear in the title, and if it has been a turn-off to potential listeners, then what I am proud of and happy for isn't happening to those who will not or cannot listen. We need to be open to research and find ways to be welcoming.

"Being," however, can be a very shallow word or a deep word. It would not attract me on the iTunes podcast list. I sense the richness that Krista sees in the word, but without that prior bias it would simply strike me as either too smooshy or too philosophical. I will need to grow into it.

Because it is vague, adding Krista's name is necessary to give it balance and some referential meaning. However, it does detract from the person being interviewed. Each show is really her/him on being and not so much Krista Tippett on being. But again, I will try to grow into it.

I rarely enter into online discussions but I am compelled to here, because I think it matters --and our response has been requested.

In the language of the original title "with" is an important word: "with Krista Tippett" puts the emphasis on the exchange, the multiple voices of the conversation. "With" opens. By extension, I as listener felt actively, authentically invited to participate.

KT on Being is, linguistically, a solo act. I don't expect the wonderful character of the discussions to change, but I will miss the outreach, the generosity of the old title.

OK, but I'd prefer: Exploring Being with Krista Tippet.

I must admit I'm a little sad about this. There are so very few shows/journals/magazines/cultural artifacts out there that 1) hold onto their overtly religious personality AND b) are not objectionably fundamentalist. I do understand your reasoning, Krista, I'm just sad.

I like the show but my issue with it has always had more to do with when it airs rather than its name. It used to only be on early Saturday mornings and lately I have heard it in the evenings. But some NPR shows seem to get at least three airings per weekend in prime times. I suppose I should get with the 21st century and start to podcast.

Although I suspect the reason behind the name change is secularistic (to appeal to nonbelievers), I'm wondering how many of those nonbelievers actually were ingtrigued enough by the title "Speaking of Faith" that they gave the program a listen, discovered, to their surprise and delight, its highly intellectual and cultural nonsectarian context. I was one "convert,'' who largely because of the word FAITH it the title, became a regular listener. For me "Speaking of Faith" worked wonders, and I'll be sad to see that title go--because I doubt the "Being" (whatever THAT is) will attract former nonbelieving sectarians like me. And even though I think Krista is one of the best interviewers I've ever heard, I don't think spotlighting her name is a good idea. Anyone who's heard even one SOF --what will the new abbreviations be--B (for "Being")?--will, forever, remember her name. Under the new name, will continue to listen to and enjoy the program, but I don't think the name is descriptive enough ("Being") to capture new listeners as was the old SOF.

I got over the obstacles inherent in the original name once I saw the true nature of the content and realized you included much more than what might be linked to "faith" in the popular sense. I applaud the change in name for the reasons you mentioned: much more inclusive of the great variety of world views. I've come to understand that everyone has a "world view" of some sort, and they have faith in the world view they've carefully and thoughtfully come to , so in that sense, there are no "atheists"

Nonbelievers are seduced by the word Faith, unamused by the word Being.

Sorry, but I think it is a mistake. Speaking of Faith gives me some sense of what the program is about. Being? It just doesn't do it for me and I wonder if the reality is that the program will become as empty as the name.

Sorry, Krista. I don't like the new name. Though you are certainly the heart and soul of the program, the new name focuses on you too much.. It fails to gather into account all the marvelous contributors to your program, without whom there would be no Krista Tippett.

I also don't like "Being." It reminds me of sitting through a college Philosophy class.

I think you and your advisers can do much better.

I have enjoyed the show but side with some of the critics of the new name. First I think it's terribly egotistical. Geez, as if Plato, Aristotle, and every philosopher since, has not wrestled with a definition of that--now Krista is going to take a hand at telling us about Being? That's what the new name implies to me. It's also about as vague a topic for a program as I can think of;.Being? As opposed to...Nothingness?

drdon,
I'm sorry you don't like "Being," but your post does make me wonder if you've looked at Krista's post. 'Being" is a word with deep theological roots and intent. But even if you just don't like it, I want to respond to your thought that Krista's name in the title is egotistical.
Really, it is not. The idea was to assure the audience through this transition that Krista remains the host and central to the show and the vision. In most cases, what you will hear is "Being."
--Kate

According to Marshall McCluhan; the receiver determines the message. And linguistics shape our perceptions. I believe most of us who have been listening will continue to do so because "a rose by any other name. . .". still has the substance and grist for our collective mills. Nomentclature notwithstanding. Thank you for all you provide! Mary Coleman

I trust your instincts, and I'm not sure I have strong feelings about the name as long as you continue to challenge me--including our faith.

It does sound like a Krista Tippett show having KT on Being - I agree that the word "with" has that sense of sharing that this new title misses. I loved Speaking of Faith although understand the complexities of the word and the importance of having people listen to you before turning away. If nothing else, can't it be Being with Krista Tippett?

Sherry, You and others express this concern. Please know that in most applications what you will hear is the title "Being." Or, you will see in a banner "Krista Tippett" in small font, next to the large font" Being." We felt it was important to assure all of our listeners that Krista remains central to the show, and we know that her name is core to the public recognition. In general use, people will say 'Being."

As others have pointed out, I'm sad that the word "faith" might be a stumbling block for some folks, though I agree that this is true. A few years ago, when I was an atheist, it would have been a stumbling block for me. But when I found it, "faith" was the very word that drew me in. I understand the attraction to the word "Being". As other folks have pointed out, "Krista Tippett on Being" makes it sound didactic, like it's just all about Krista. But in fact, I think this is what Krista does so very brilliantly -- she creates dialogue. Public dialogue. And so I think other avenues need to be explored, such as "Speaking on Being with Krista Tippett" or one of the many other good suggestions below.

But I love the show, recommend it all the time to friends, fellow church goers, on my own blog, etc. I'm not going to stop listening just because I don't like the name.

The new name is fine with me, since I have always felt a sense of being while listening to the program---being challenged, being connected, being reaffirmed. It saddens me that the word, Faith, has become so polarizing, but I guess that's the nature of our times. Kudos to the staff and all who came up with not only the new name, but also the great topics and guests week after week.

As I've been listening this spring and summer I noticed the program content was so much broader than 'faith" so I'm not at all surprised at this decision. I'm sure we'll all adapt and adopt the new name quickly. I love this program and will tune in whatever it's called!

How is it possible to have exhausted the content of "faith"? I very much appreciated SofF as a title because I was so often stretched in my understanding of the meaning of faith, not the faith, or a faith, but the depth and breadth and mystery of living a faithful and faith-filled life. "Being" does not cmmunicate the same rich content.

I will come along for the ride because love you. And I most definitely understand our society's boogey-man response to the word "Faith". But it seems to me that maybe the "faith" & "being" words might have been used together. We need to challenge ourselves & each other to face the uncomfortable; to examine it, question it & decide our positions not on a visceral like or dislike of a word.
I don't want "faith" to be an "F-word".

Amen.

The new name doesn't have the "warm" feeling to me that SOF has had. If the word BEING is used, why not something more like: BEING: Conversations about ethics, ideas, meaning and religion with Krista Tippett. The word "conversations" feels to me as though we're all part of the BEING listening community.

Nancy,
We played with various formulas and constructions as you can imagine. The program will remain committed to interaction with our audience, and we are taking in the feedback about how Krista's name is positioned. It is really meant simply to assure people that Krista remains central as host and editorial leader of the program. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Kate Moos

My first tendency is to say "Anything Krista Tippett does is OK with me." But when I'm honest with myself I really don't like the new name AT ALL! "Speaking of Faith" with its subtitle stretches the meaning of the word "faith" for religious and non-religious people alike. It is precisely because so many of us have too narrow a definition of the word "faith" that I would like to see it stay in the title. By using that title and then having people on the show who have something important to say to us, even though they may not be interested in religion says something important to believer and non-believer alike about what it means to be faith-full. Krista, I tune in to Speaking of Faith for two reasons: First, because you always have somebody on who has something important and insightful to say, and second, because you have an incredible skill at drawing out that person, probing meanings beneath the surface and underlining the insights. You frequently contribute some important insights yourself and I'm grateful for those. But what draws me to your show is not "Krista Tippett... on anything; it's Bill McKibben on, or Allan Rabinowitz on ... or Shane Claiborne on ... or Sandy Sasso on ... or a hundred other people of whom I would never hear if it weren't for Krista Tippett. I am deeply indebted to you for these introductions and for stretching my own faith in a multitude of directions. But I hope it never becomes "The Krista Tippett Show".

I wonder, wonder...have ratings dropped? Is this change a grasping at a fix?

I encourage you to look at your roots, at what the original vision was...I think you've lost something in the past year or so.

I love Krista's gift, but am not thrilled with her being the show...

Will continue to listen when a show grabs my attention, summons my heart. Many do, thank you!

Jodi,
Krista's name has always been in the title, though perhaps less prominently. Now, it is really being used transitionally to assure people who love the show that she remains host and central to the editorial vision. You will primarily hear the title as: "Being."
Thanks for writing.

Kate Moos

I know I'm not alone in saying this, so I'll say this: we trust you and we'll follow. Thank you for taking us on the journey.

Jon,
This feels risky and scary for us too, and we are really trying to do what's right. So your words mean so much.
Thanks.
Kate

I like the change, except that I think you should call it Being with Krista Tippett -- giving it a double meaning: your guests are "being" with you, discussing "Being." I think that change would better reflect the collegiality of your show. Thanks for all you do. -- Sharon Martin

to give some historical context, what's in a name? a rose.......I am grateful for your beathe of peace and hope in a sometimes otherwise shallow world

Whatever you call it, the program is always the most thought-provoking talk by beings about beings to be heard anywhere. I am amazed that there is always yet another really terrific human being with an hour+ worth of conversation worth listening to. It restores my faith in humanity on a weekly basis.
Thank you.

Michele,
Thank you!
Kate Moos

It sounds a bit esoteric to me. I( have a feeling of sadness in your relinquishing speaking of "faith". I find it disappointing. I truly hope you will not change what you have been doing and discussing.

It is fascinating to me to read the strong responses so many people are having with the name change of your program. Labels can be a useful tool to point one in a direction, however, a label only defines something to the degree that each individual allows. I tend to regard labels loosely and look beyond to the find the essence of whatever it is a label is attempting to define. I prefer limitles to limited, especially if it is a conclusion which I have not come to on my own. The reason I listen to your show is not due to the name but the content, the fact that you are a brilliant and compassionate interviewer, and I always learn something from every one of your shows. Thank you for BEING. I couldn't resist! Siobhán McSeveney Dunn

with this new title, maybe you will invite in your studio ken wilber, whom i am sure you know, the ultimate writer about "the simple feeling of being",
ruxandra

I will listen to the show no matter what it is called because I love the content.

However, is Krista enough of a "name" among non-listeners to attract a new audience? I say that with all respect. But the new name makes Krista sound like the fount of knowledge instead of a fellow seeker.

"On Being, with Krista Tippett" places the emphasis back on the conversation.

Gpfdavid,
Krista's name is in front--especially during this transitional period--to assure the audience she remains the host, and central to the show. And indeed her name means a good deal. But in most uses, what you will hear is "Being."
Thanks for writing, and for listening.
Kate Moos

I have loved the show since the beginning, and I'm sure I will continue to. But the name change makes me sad. Speaking of Faith sounds lively, active, dialogical, and the word "faith" implies real breadth -- exploring the diversity of what humans place faith in is part of the thrill of your show. I *have* given Krista tons of free viral advertising because I am so thankful for the respectful and incisive way she interviews. Existential, inclusive, progressive Christian faith propels me, and I love the way Krista's guests inform and challenge all of us.

"Being," however, sounds to me static, philosophical, categorical, and it reminds me of Heidegger. I'm afraid that now I'll have to do *more* explaining to people about what the show comprises. I do get the Yahweh reference, though, which is lovely.

Despite my disappointment with the name change, you have my ongoing gratitude for so many fantastic radio interviews. Peace to you all as you navigate this new marketing campaign. I hope you are right that more people may listen.

Dear Krista,

While I can appreciate the need and sometimes the merit of new titles, I am disappointed with the name change. My concern is the connotation of both words: "being" and "faith." I sense that "being" is something intrinsic while "faith," at least for me, suggests commitment. I'm somewhat skeptical about our collective or individual efforts at true commitment and for the necessary actions that our world desperately needs.

Furthermore, faith implies something of "rootedness." As a Christian, my faith gives me both grounding and wings.

IAgain, I'm disappointed. I think something has been compromised by migrating to a term as generic as "being."

Thank you.

Mark de Roo

One has only to think in the Krista Tippett idiom, to appreciate the depth, richness, and succinctness evoked in the new name. I like it, it's the right name for a program exploring the confluence of spirit, psychology, and biology!

In my opinion this is just another way of taking Faith (Religion) out of our politically correct vocabulary. Why do the non-religious seem to always win these types of battles?

Greetings Christa,
Congratulations on the new name; I wish you great success with the change. I really like the current name but that is a function of coming upon the show accidentally and really liking it. Due to the connotations the word "faith" has taken on in light of religious extremism and fundamentalism, the name "Speaking of Faith" would not have drawn me to the show. "On Being" certainly would have. My best wishes to you going forward.

My reality is exactly the opposite. "On Being" would never have drawn me in. "Speaking of Faith" did it in less than 60 seconds.

Please consider changing being to a more dynamic term: Krista Tippets on Becoming. Remember what your Hebrew teacher taught: 'I will be who I will be.' This future denotation is best interpreted 'I become who I become.' God of becoming vs. God of being. 'Being' gives the edge to the idea that your program seeks to express what really IS; but your wonderful program always seems to prompt us to think about what we can and should become. Ah, there is no innocent name, Krista, so I am writing to persuade you to own activism and side with the dynamic divine.

Warm wishes, Randall Paul, President, Foundation for InterReligious Diplomacy

I had no problem with the original title, but then I don't feel I have to apologize of defend having faith. If you're going to make the change (which apparently you are) I totally agree with Randall, "own activism". Faith is not a passive thing, "Being" is so passive, it just doesn't sound like any fun!

"Being" is OK, as long as you remember that two entities title themselves as "I am what I am". First was God, second was Popeye the Sailor Man. Be sure you cover him as well.

I have total faith in Krista Tippett on Being. Best wishes.

I think it is a good change. I found this program by accident and now I listen by streaming and podcast whenever I can. Unfortunately, "faith" in our time has connotations that tend to turn away some spiritual seekers rather than inviting them in, and the new name is more expansive, inviting and embracing. I love this program and am looking forward to its continuation under its new name.

What keeps seeping through (but what has not been openly acknowledged) is that "Faith" has been a signal to NPR affiliates that the program belongs in the Friday-Sunday ghetto hours of their program schedule. It is not that "faith" has been a term abandoned by the vast majority of Americans, but it has become sterotyped by media folk. SoF has been running counter to that trend, but now one must wonder.

I doubt the name change will attract hoardes of new listeners, although a change of day/time might help. It will be harder to promote "Being" within religious circles, as many of us have been trying to do over the years. So there are trade-offs.

The dropping of "Speaking of.." is also a loss, since it implied dialogue and the new title indicates monologue. Of course, "Speaking of Being" wouldn't initialize quite as well as SoF does. Many respondants on this string accept this change reluctantly or feel that it is a done deal to which we must reluctantly adjust. There might be a message there worth hearing.

I really don't want the word "faith" gone. It is so hard to find good conversation from faithful people these days. I can find myself and the common ground shared with all your guests, within this process of moving in faith in life. This is a movement of faith rather than belief. This is an active and intentional process. "Being" isn't, necessarily. I am seeing your conversations as a movement away from religious fanaticism and intolerance that can be within any religion, and toward the daily living within the mystery of life or faith or God or whatever one cares to call it. I want this conversation to continue to grow and open to new audiences, AND I want people to recognize that this is the process of faithing.

Perfect! I agree that this name chance is part of natural evolution for Speaking of Faith. The content of the show has appealed to many of my friends, regardless of spiritual background. I believe that the change will invite more people who may be examining what it means to be a human being. . .

Good luck to Krista Tippett and staff, whatever the show is called :)

Eric Tsai

The name change is fine.

How about an up-to-date picture of Krista on the new program page ?

Betsey,
Good idea. Thanks.

Kate Moos

Hmmm ... "Faith", as I've come to understand recently, is very different than "belief", though the two are often mixed together. "Faith" (going to the Greek in the New Testament and the pre-King James English - something of my history shows through here!) has the idea of "commitment", "loyalty", "a pledge of fidelity" to something or someone. In that sense even atheists have a "faith" (though they probably wouldn't use that word to describe themselves) ... "Faith", a commitment - values, ethics, a human drive (I postulate) to make sense, find meaning in the world we live in. And that encapsulates for me so much, Krista, of what you do so honestly, graciously, and with great integrity - help people tell their stories as to how they have made sense and continue to try to make sense and struggle with values and meaning. And that is the gift you have given all of us who have listened to your program.
I must confess the name you have been using captures the notions I briefly encapsulate above better for me, though I understand your rationale.

funny - for several months I was wondering (fearing) you would run out of steam doing all this incredible preparation/travel/conversation to bring us the experience of listening to amazing individuals discuss their lives, tragedies, recoveries, discoveries, passions and commitments. no need to worry - you were energetically looking forward - I'll wait to see if the title does what you hope. but I will continue to listen/download and share the programs that have such a huge impact on my life each week.

I love the new name and am looking forward to continued, excellent programming.

Okay the more I think about it. Brings resonances from modern theologians.

It really does, doesn't it, when you let it sink in?
Thank you Carolyn.
Kate Moos

To me it reflects the Eastern ideas, and the Dalai Lama. That is fine, but not necessarily more inclusive, just different. Faith is about what one believes, and that is about how one is, or "Being." And Being emerges from one's faith. (Faith leads to Being, and Being emerges from Faith.) I loved the old name, and the rhythm of it...change is tough. I feel sad at saying goodbye to SOF. The new name does not feel as expansive to me. However, feeling the limitation of "words" makes sense when speaking of things of spirit, belief, faith, meaning and being, which cannot be contained in words. Which is one reason the words SOF are so clever.... I will continue to listen.
I do wish that you and Krista and the producers will really consider what listeners have shared, and take it in, and possibly consider giving back "Classic Coke" as someone referenced. Thanks for wonderful inspiring and fascinating content and delivery!!

Krista caved.

Yes! I had adjusted to the original title, but for all of the reasons you mention it's time for the name to evolve so that listeners can continue to do so and have a title that expresses that well. Jan Kent

Krista,

Just skimmed your rationale for a name change, and perhaps somehow I missed your reflection which might include the following: Was there a consideration of the new title being "On Being, with Krista Tippett" so that when the time comes that you retire as host for whatever reason, it would be easier to remember, "On Being, with . . . (whomever your successor might be)? Thanks so much for all your past hosting and programming achievements. However the title change, the offerings are outstanding, Krista. Thank you so very much. Sean.

I look forward to the name change because "Being ness" is a more inclusive term-and it also refelects the speakers ( listener) diversity of beliefs. Also, this is the fitting public forum ( for discerning listeners) to present the notion of Being ness into the public consciousness. Besides, one can have infinite discourses On Being from multiple perspectives- a lifelong undertaking. Thank you.

Thank you for the show. Being versus Faith may address us at a more core level and that’s alright in my book BUT must we have the quasi-celebrity name attachment lead? It strikes this listener as grandiose.

Dear Krista - I love your program, have learned a lot and received a good deal of food for thought. "Krista Tippett on Being" is, however, lame. At first I thought it was an incomplete sentence! "Krista Tippett on Being a Person of Faith?" "Krista Tippett on Being Sleepy?" What is wrong with "faith"? I read what you wrote and your arguments not only do not convince me, they read like you are trying to convince yourself. Coca Cola gave us back "Classic Coke"; can't you give us back "Klassic Krisra"?

Count me among the SOF's long term listeners and supporters, but don't count me as enthusiastic about the name change, especially if it signals a retreat from discussion of religion as a social and political institution (as in Faiths) and increased emphasis on private experience. The kind of sensitive and informed discussion of the dynamics of religion has been the great strength of SOF. There is no equal public discussion of religion. Public Radio has many deep and valued leaders of the discussion of how individuals reconcile themselves with living--Diane Rehm, Terri Gross to name the best. SOF has claimed a special territory and I hope it won't retreat.

Dear Faye,
My assurance to you is that we are not retreating from a discussion of religion as you describe it--a force in the world, in public life, in community. We are not becoming a place for MERELY personal narratives of spiritual awakening or spiritual seeking as such. Although we offer a space for the "lived experience" of our guests, those experiences are always grounded in knowledge, tradition (religious and other tradition), history, and text. This why when we listen to the show, we have a sense of discovery. Or, I should say, I have a sense of discovery. Because there is real knowledge being offered, not just personal viewpoint or opinion.

I understand your concern, and I want to be clear that we remain committed to "religion, meaning, ethics, and ideas."
Thanks for writing, Faye.

Kate Moos

wow. Not sure I how feel about this. The show is about what it means to be human. I've never had a problem talking to people about the show or sharing things from it. I always considered the show a show about religion/spirituality that was thoroughly accessible to those who are not actively spiritual or religious. I'm not Christian, and the name has never bothered me.

I certainly won't stop listening because of a name change. The name of G!d(dess) I use in many of my prayers is Eyeh-Asher-Eyeh. I was taught to translate that as "I am becoming what I am becoming."

I wish you all well as you become what you will become, and look forward to seeing what it means to all of us.

I am very disappointed in the name change. I think the religious right now will have
a corner on "religion"through the radio waves. I always liked the fact that you had the guts to do this show--a show for intelligent listeners who may also have a faith or be interested in learning.

I think a name change is a poor idea. The show has a huge following. Why fix it if it isn't broken? We need rational discourse on religion in this country and the world.

I find intriguing the fact that I learned of the title change from an individual to whom I had introduced "Speaking of Faith". He has become a devoted listener. When I read that the title "Speaking of Faith" has carried the program "as far as it is able in public media as it could", I sense a coming change in the essence of the program. A new title will not send this listener searching, but a new program might, but, then again, it might not!

Krista - love your program. This conversation is so valuable. But I really liked the original name. Not that I don't understand your reasons for the new name - nor do I disagree with them. But I appreciate the fact that 1) you are redeeming the conversation around faith; and 2) The original name provides a better footstep for those who, I would argue, *most* need to hear this conversation.

Grace & Peace

As one who has, for a decade, shepherded a weekly column "From a Faith-Perspective" in our regional newspaper, I am obviously content with the word "Faith" in a title. It is refreshing to those who associate religions with narrowness and imperialism to find in this column writers from many different religious backgrounds who seek to build bridges, not erect walls. Similarly, for those used to NOT finding anything directly religious on PBS, it's refreshing to see the exception. Now you meld into its overwhelmingly secular program list. With Bill Moyers gone, who is to put in a good word for the faiths on PBS? You will still do that, but it will be harder for those searching for something redeeming about religion to locate you!

Al Krass Levittown PA

I completely agree with you and I am someone who would never think of myself as a person of faith--having a show with that name on PBS is what drew me in and I'm so glad it did--I wouldn't have paused for a second for a show with that title on commercial radio--Krista you need to have more faith in pubic radio listeners--

It seems to me, the spiritual weaving that Krista presents each week, is captured in the current title.

I'm one of those people who wouldn't have sought the program without having heard it on NPR. Now that my current station doesn't carry it, I listen to the podcast. What I liked about 'faith' was that the show kept expanding my feeling space about the word. It had been very contaminated for me by the reactionary Christian right. I don't think "being" does the same thing - boring philosophical discussion is what comes to mind.

Krista-

Why not name the show "Krista Tippett on Being.and Existence?"

This title would have FAR greater clarity for the current listening group and attract a new following, perhaps.

Eric B.

Krista-

Another alternate idea, would be titling the show "Speaking about Belief, Being and Living with Krista Tippett."

Best Regards,

Eric B.

..Being and Living narrated by Krista Tripltt.

We are hearing this a lot,enough to give me pause, Adriana, and you may have seen my replies to others. But let me repeat here. In most cases you will hear the title as "Being." Krista's name has always been in the title, and we wanted to assure people that she would remain central to the program during this transition.
Thanks for writing.

Kate Moos

If you want to assure people why is it necessary to put KT first? This is a great program the main reason being that it has presented the loaded word "faith" to the whole world, religious, secular, existential in an all encompassing, huge, glorious way. The program brought the true meaning of faith to the existential world in a clear enlightening way. Now you're saying, " sorry we offended you with this dirty little word, so we'll change it." Changing to "Being" is too general and too weak. It sounds like just another "new-age", feel good hour. I hope, Kate, this is not the program transition you speak of. What next? Are we to expect a series of books by Krista telling us the secret of getting all we want through "Being?" I know it's just a title but it seems to me you are abandoning a core value, what makes your program so compelling and I fear many listeners. Too-too bad.

To me "being" is too broad and passive, but if you deem a change necessary to better represent the breadth of your subject matter, at least make it "Speaking of Being with Krista Tibbett". I do love your program.

Whoa! We appreciate an alternative to the program title, but I'm not sure Krista is ready to sign on to a new surname. *grin

Reginaut,
We tried that, and found the double-entendre unfortunate. Krista's name is really meant to support this transition and let people know she reamains the host. You will probably most often hear "Being" as the title.
Thanks for writing, and for listening.

Kate Moos

Forgive me, that was meant to be "reginanugent."

In several drafts of this post I've tried to articulate and provide supporting material for why I think this is such a horrifically bad idea that is much farther reaching in its effect than a mere name change -- and thus that much more destructive.

But I am mindful that Krista has presented this as an accomplished fact with an already-underway implementation date in less than a month. So Krista and the little in-group who think they have discerned and have acted already aren't really interested in what I or anyone else thinks.

So here's my reaction.

I hate this change on many levels, most of them matters of substance.

I think it's stunningly egotistical to make it all about Krista and a fundamental betrayal of what made this show worth listening to -- Krista represented all of us in talking to people we could never access as individuals; people whose lives and thoughts and journeys of faith [in a multitude of disciplines] could inform and enrich our own.

I think Krista and this insular in-group have shifted to a post-modern framework that makes an authentic, intelligent conversation about faith--the life of faith, the demands and rewards of faith, the impact of faith on one's self and the world--impossible. All the babble about "Being" is just that--babble (as in Tower of Babel - divisive). Authentic faith, as so many of those interviewed have demonstrated, is incompatible with with a post-modern, scientific-proof-only ethos in which the self is served first, last, and ultimately.

It is evident to me, though clearly it is not evident to Krista and Co., that they have not discerned correctly. "Speaking of Faith has taken us as far in public media as it could." Not true.

I would assert that it is your understanding of faith and its role in what it is to be human that has gone as far as it could. What you should be changing is your understanding, your perspectives, your ways of measuring. Instead of talking yourselves into a group-think way of seeing you would do better, much better, to do what all people of faith must do at intervals: pursue and invite the assessments of those whose faith-lives you respect who can focus on the work you are doing instead of the way you feel about it, on the big picture and the values you committed to serve rather than "the buzz" [aka polls/public opinion (and which public might that be?)/"viral" word of mouth] and commercial/competitive agendas. If money is the real driving problem, better to be honest about that. In any case, faith is not, by definition, a numbers game.

As it is your show, you can proceed as you choose. But if you think your listeners have any value to what you are doing you will reconsider.

What you decide to do will determine whether SOF remains a spectacular success of substance or a pursuer of popularity.

Many -- in number and in kinds -- will be watching.

Rebekah,
I am so sorry you hate it so much. Krista's name is in the title where it is as something of a bridge, to assure people that she remains the host and editorial leader. Also, we tried on "Being with Krista Tippett" and found it just didn't work for many reasons--among them the unfortunate double-entendre.
The content of the program is not changing. We will remain the conversation about "religion, meaning, ethics, and ideas."
Rebekah, we are anxious for this program to have a large audience. As one of the people who produces it, I believe so strongly in the value of this content that I feel I can and should be a proponent for its growth. But we are committed to bringing you the conversation about "religion, meaning, ethics, and ideas" that you have come to know.
Thanks for writing.

Kate Moos

I truly enjoy SOF, because it covers faith, ethics, morality, philosophy, in broad & specific content. I'm a lapsed Episcopalian (church politics pushed me away). BUT, remain deeply spiritual; find God (Him or Her)in nature, animals, people & daily small miracles. SOF sparks my curiosity; I then dive for written expansion of topics. Don't think I like "Being" at all. Not comprehensive enough; not descriptive at all of SOF's raison d'etre. I'll still listen, but not if basic SOF conceptual themes change.

Krista, Thank you for doing what you do, whatever you call it! Most of my friends and I refer to your show as "Krista Tippet" anyway. "Did you catch Krista Tippet this week?" "Make sure you listen to Krista's program this week." Doean't matter what you call it, the content is valuable to my being and unlike anything else available in my area. Please, just keep doing what you are doing!

Thanks, Bookmarkt!
Kate Moos

As a member of a liberal faith community, I have enjoyed your broadcasts, and now podcasts for years. Your probing mind has resulted in conversations with some of the most exciting thinkers of our era. I understand that the current title may may be a little off putting for some. If a change in title will widen your community of listeners that is a good thing. The proposed title suggest that the opinions voiced on the programs will be Krista's alone. A title like "Being - with Krista Tippett" would more clearly suggest that the programs will continue to be conversations with other lively minds.

Mureil,
We tried on "Being with Krista Tippett" and it did not work for many reasons. Among them the unfortuante double-entendre that might hit some ears. I tend not to hear double-entendres, but many others do. And this was one of the reasons we put Krista's name in front. Also, please be aware, what you will hear, primarily, is the new title "Being." Krista's name is necessary as a transition, but we believe in a few months people will know it as "being."

Kate Moos

I realize that you will most likely hear negative comments about the name change -- it is human nature to be vociferous about things one does not like. And while I myself am also not thrilled with the new title, I do understand the reasoning behind it. "Faith" is what first brought me to this show. And while this show at its core is about faith as I see it, it too is so much more. So if a name change will let expose more people to the show, I am all for it. Afterall, I already know what a treasure it is -- by whatever name it is called.

Thanks, Fran!
Kate Moos

Being? Really? This is at once both vague and very presumptuous. It is a terrible new name but I will sigh and live with it. Don't think it will attract people in the same way, though. It does speak to the fear we have of using a word like "Faith." In its broader meaning "Faith" means whatever you believe in, and I have enjoyed hearing what thoughtful people believe.

If it will bring more people to your content on the airwaves and online, then it's a great idea. Change is usually uncomfortable at first. The goal is most important: share with a broader audience. I think it will work!

Faith becomes a dirty word... sigh. I guess this reflects some of the vagueness of many of the interviews, especially many of the rather disappointing ones in the book

Perhaps because I don't equate "faith" and "religion" (or "belief"), I find the current title more appealing than the proposed one. Anyway, what's in a name? It's the content that matters.

Thanks, Betty!
Kate Moos

Krista -

As a listener, I'm gone.

Perhaps you can make the name change work. If you do, I am sure it will be a with a completely different audience.

It has been wonderful.

I too will miss the name..."Speaking of Faith". I'm sorry that you feel you need to submerge the word faith. But the show is soo wonderful, that will I hang in there...have Faith..and hope that it's content will stays as meaningful. Good luck with this transition

I do not wish to sound harsh or hurtful, but my first impression of new name was this:
self-promoting talk show host on New Age commercial radio.

Is it too late not to change?

bmb,
I am trying to write here in reply to as many people as possible to assure you that Krista's name in front is being used to assure our audience that she remains the host and editorial leader of these conversations. Our surveys showed us that her name is equally associated with the program as SoF. If it were not there in the title, wouldn't you worry that she was gone? We tried "Being with Krista Tippett" but that was not a suitable alternative for many reasons.
Best, and thanks for writing.

Kate Moos

Agree with those who feel the name changes is presumptuous. It also leads me to believe that the show will expand further into materialism, which it seems to be drifting towards anyway. Who needs Faith when we have Scientific Materialism to support understanding of purpose?

I, too, think that it sounds too New Age-y. How about Speaking of Faith and Being, if you must.

I am so disappointed with you. It's not the change in the name -- that is largely irrelevant. It is the justification. You say that the new name" points at questions of “religion, meaning, ethics and ideas” at the heart of human life — not confined to Sunday mornings or Friday evenings, not on the sidelines of real life, but at the essence of who we are and how we live, individually and collectively." Since when has faith been on the "sidelines of real life"? I am not nit-picking -- words have meaning -- they denote and they connote. The connotations carry the meaning here.

I am a fairly liberal Presbyterian who admits to profound difficulties with organized religion. Mostly due to the fact that organized religion has very little to do with "faith" in any real sense of the word. You have have reflected a very real sense of faith as it is reflected in the "real world". Now I sense you are frightened by the weight of that word, "faith". How sad. I wish you well in your search. I will not be joining you -- faith does not frighten me. Blessings on your journey.

I have been a loyal listener for many years now. The new title, "Krista Tippett on Being" changes the intent of the show for me, making it sound like only Krista's thoughts on Being.... and strikes me as pretentious of the host. I think the word "being" loses alot of people because it is vague and may be seen as "new-agey." I think the content of the show speaks volumes of what the show is about. Perhaps the subtitle "Conversations about religion, meaning, ethics and ideas" should be dropped, as that focuses the title on specific content, and this will resolve the issue of turning off people because they think it has to do with religion.

I think your new name is inclusive for all of us who are not spiritually driven by a particular faith. Thanks for the name change.

I fear you have gone from a name which was too constricting to one which is wildly overinclusive and, consequently, pretty meaningless. Personally I regret the change.

although not sure about the name, the topics on speaking of faith have run far afield from one might expect by the title, which suggests a straightforward review of what is going on with various religions. so assuming the show will continue on as is, i'm ok with it.

it's a bit mushy...

dialogues of the divine, or divine dialogues would have been cool. or meaning and truths.
don't care for the leonisation of KT's name either. too showbiz...

now that's out the way, lol, this show is awesome, and Krista takes interviewing about spirituality to a whole other level.

i remember when i'd d/load the podcast on dialup, sometimes it'd take all night!

hey call it fred, but keep it coming, i have so much faith in what you're speaking.

last note: da-da da daa, speak-ing of faith...the cadence was very catchy, the new one is lumpy rhythmically, as well as too vague...nice try though, i do see the possible advantages of inclusiveness when it comes to folks so traumatised by bad religion they break out in cold sweats at the f-word!

I am also sad that you seem to think that the current title no longer reflects what the program has become. I think it does, and in the process has enlarged my sense of what "faith" encompasses. "Being" may indeed seem to embrace a larger sphere of reflection, but without context, that meaning won't be seen. I agree with the observation that by abandoning the term "faith", you have turned over the perceived discussion of spiritual matters to those who have a prescribed definition of it. I am a practicing Buddhist, and, while "being" is a core precept in Buddhism, I also recognize the relationship of it to faith. Faith, to me, describes our human need to account for ourselves in spiritual terms. I hope you reconsider. "Speaking of Faith" implies a continuing exploration that begins with that search to encompass all the facets of being. Please keep it.

I too can understand how the name "Speaking of Faith" may not have captured the real thrust of your program. When speaking with people I have found them to use the term "faith" in what I would consider an inappropriate context. I have viewed "knowledge" as being made up of three groupings of truths: science, philosophy, and faith. Science involves those truths we can observe and test. Philosophy involves those truths that come from our reflections. Faith involves those truths that we cannot test, but yet we "know" in our "being" they are truths. It is the values that flow out of the truths we acquire in our quest for knowledge that guide us as individuals. Your program has served, for me, as an important vehicle in my quest for knowledge. So, as you change your name I will ask of you what Shakespeare asked of two lovers: "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Allee A. Ramadhan

Speaking of Faith truly reflects what this program has always been to me in the years that I have been listening. Faith is not a body of beliefs, it is a much deeper and spiritual expression of relationship. It is this deeper understanding of faith that truly reflects the very heart of the program. The more esoteric "From Faith to Being" is not only more abstract but also misleading. If faith is the deepest level of our human relationships, then being (the substance of existence) is what leads us to faith. I would vote to keep the current name. It is also, simply, more memorable. In an increasingly secular world, it was good to have a program that was not afraid to speak of "faith" in its positive and diverse ways. I will continue to listen but I will also continue to refer to the program as "Speaking of Faith".

Fred R. Krauss

I absolutely hate the new name. I think the current name is just fine and it fits the program perfectly. This is a horrible idea, seems for about KT and self promoting and showbiz.

I've been listening to the show for some time, so I understand the reasoning behind the title change. I am, however, not in favor of it. "Speaking of Faith" clearly delineates the subject matter of the program: discussions of faith, belief and philosophy, and I know from my experiences of the program that this subject matter is also discussed in terms of its impact on daily life. "Being", however, is impossibly vague. No potential listener will understand the oeuvre of the program from this title. It could be a diet or exercise program. It could be a listener call-in program about relationship problems or psychological health. It could be about poetry. It could be about a lot of things, and does not succinctly depict the focus of the show at all. Yes, it is a title to "grow into", because it's so hopelessly vague that it can encompass thousands of disparate things. Is Krista Tippett now such a global celebrity that people will instantly understand what it means to hear her discuss "being"? I don't think so. The fact that my local NPR station "downgraded" the show from a Sunday 11 am slot to a 6 am slot rather demonstrates that people weren't actively seeking it out with the original title. The title change will, I think, cause the unwitting to shrug their shoulders and move on, without having listened to a single episode of this enlightening and uplifting show.

DFerrar,
Thanks for writing. I'm sorry you are not pleased with "Being." I want you to know that we are keeping our tag language, and so will remain "conversation about religion, meaning, ethics and ideas." The open-ness of the new title, we hope, will welcome new listeners who were offput by the previous title.

The idea of Krista's name in the title is not about celebrity. Our research showed that her name was as closely associated with the program as the title SoF itself, and we felt it was important to let people know that Krista remained the host, and central to the program's editorial vision. "Being with Krista Tippett" didn't work, for many reasons.

I hope this helps make some sense.

Best,
Kate Moos

I was very happy with the old name. The word Faith is what attracted me to the program. I was curious - so, I tuned in. I will continue, but I am disappointed in the change. "Being" is just to vague. What about "Being in our world". Or, what about just keeping the old name. Thanks for all the wonderful programming.

On Being? If spiritual life is exercised in relationships and just about only in relationships - of all possible kinds - why would you restrict yourself just to 'being'? How does it help, for instance, the chances of the earth if we thought our relationship to the earth required us simply to 'be'. Did Jesus restrict Himself just to being? Or Mahatma Ghandi? Or Rumi? What an odd decision!

Perfect!

I was very excited to hear the annoucement of the name change of this engaging program. "Yes!" was my immediate reaction. For the rest of the day, I pondered why the name "Being" seems so right at this time. I am 68 years old, and I feel that my own journey has, over the years, stretched and finally burst out of the concept of "faith" to something beyond doctrinal beliefs: a way of being in the world that is not only caring, but ever-wondering and ever-questioning.

I love your show so much and I have been listening for a long time I am not a religious person but I am very spiritual. I had no problem with the name, however when I recommended it to people I was disappointed when they said I am not interested in religion, I told them it is about life and everything that human beings should be interested in.
I hope that the new name will open the show up to more people and that will be wonderful.Change is good, have faith and believe in what you are doing and never stop !

Hi Krista and all,
I have been listening for several years now, and quote SOF stories frequently to both my faith community and secular friends. The conversations have been thought-provoking and have deepened my faith as well as my understanding of others. I must confess that I did not, at first, want to listen to a "religion" show, but the content drew me in, and it's now one of my favorite shows. I listen mostly on podcast, and I also listen to the unedited interviews (thanks for posting these!!). I, too, wondered about how Krista and company could keep up the blistering pace of interviews. There have been quite a few "encore" presentations, so I am curious if the new name will also herald some new shows.
I have not yet decided if the new name will be positive or negative in attracting and keeping an audience. To me, SOF describes more of what the show is about than a nebulous term like "Being" - this could mean a lot of different things to different people. However, I am willing to keep an open mind and see what happens. The content will determine whether people stay for the long term or leave. Please keep up the fascinating insights into the full range of "being" and draw us all in to a more thoughtful and involved conversations.

I love the show so much, I am an avid listener, Just to let know, as a practicing Muslim, I have no problem with the name; "Speaking of Faith", you should keep it. But whatever you decide to call the show, I will still listen to it...Please don't change it.
Aziz

Krista, I love what you do. Science and education is missing in our lives. We are all searching for the truth and why are we born and die. I have great repsect for you. When death comes , it is very crititical for human beings. There is life after death.When I spent forty days on a montain ,praying and meditating. My faith has been answered . I learned from the wise men. Physical history for humanity. If we can learn and change our human ego and learn peace ,love. We can learn beyond human capacity. See the ancient artifacts on my facebook/karmashah7. See the lost horizon knowledge on youtube by CBS. One day we leave empty handed. In the future ,severe humble comfort for humanity. In the future , if science and educators want to learn , I"ll share with honor .Thank you peace ,love and good karma. youtube "Lost Horizon Knowledge"

facebook.com/karmashah7

Sincerely

Shah

I am reminded of "the ground of being" in the new title. Like it.

I don't really care what you call it, so long as the quality continues. What I would like is for stations that carry it to broadcast it at times NOT in conflict with common worship schedules. Yes, I can and do get it from the internet, but powering a computer to listen to radio is not very energy efficient.

i am not even reading the other comments at this time.... i truly love this show and have recommended to so many people. i listen to it mostly via podcast. feel so inspired, relieved, educated... spurred on to do! to be kind , enjoy life, think and contribute to our world. love it . i bless a rock and pray to the universe for krista and us all! ... i did like the beat and such of sof though the word failth scared me away at first. i do like the word now. faith. but ya know we are all just be - ing. ya, krista.

I think the name change is excellent. "Being" is a better word for reflecting the content and focus of the program than is "Faith", partly due to the latter's close association with "Belief" which is not at the core of the program. For folks who think "Being" is more "vague" or "mushy" than "Faith", I would suggest that the real difference they are experiencing is one of "familiarity". "Faith", surely, is a very "vague" and "mushy" word. But it's familiarity makes it feel otherwise. We need to do some work to understand and comprehend "Being". Help will come as we stick with the program because "Being" is what it's been about all along.

I'm super disappointed to see this name change.

I love this show and listen regularly for both challenge and comfort. As an Episcopal priest in her early 30s, I draw both personal and professional inspiration from "Speaking of Faith." The diverse and consistently deep conversations on "SOF" allow me to better engage and navigate a world in which the progressive church has lost (much of) its stronghold even though people continue to seek and hunger for spiritual sustenance and transformation. I thank you for that.

I've always been proud that "Speaking of Faith" does not shy away in its program name from (re-)claiming the word "faith" and expanding its definition. As someone who both identifies publicly as a person of faith and who believes that the language we use matters, I'm disappointed, sad and disturbed to see the word "faith" dropped from the program name. By including the word "faith" in your program name, you help to EXPAND the definition of faith to include ethics, spirituality, meaning, ideas, etc. The name change puts a damper on this reclaimed and transformed concept of faith your show helps to communicate -- at least to the countless college students in search of a progressive conversation specifically about "faith" that I regularly send your way. Perhaps it is naive at this moment in history to believe that faith can be an asset rather than a liability in a business plan, but "SOF" gave me this hope!

Your name change is a huge blow to religious practitioners who are on the front lines, trying with integrity, compassion and a deep sense of justice to connect people to fresh, expansive expressions of faith (read: all sorts of ideas, questions of meaning and ethics, spiritual practices, etc.) within a religious "institutional" context.

Perhaps exploring the tension between the forces of capitalism and the ground of our being ought to be the topic of your next program. Teilhard, a person of faith and priest, would certainly approve.

Ms. Janelle:

I agree with your comments, and am also disappointed in the name change. I have always appreciated the "Speaking of Faith" title, especially in listening to how the program expands our (my) definition of 'faith'. This program is the one solid place I can go to on NPR to listen to programs/interviews about FAITH - removing that part of the title removes something important regarding the content of the program. Just my 2 cents worth.

As a dedicated member of your audience, I am very disappointed with the name change. Partly it is that "being" changes the focus, as others have said, away from spirituality. The reasons you mention for the name change (mostly the evocation of the name of God) sound hollow to me. If you want to avoid "faith", change it to "speaking of being" then! I'd be fine, in fact pretty happy, with that. But mostly, and with all due respect for all the work you have done to create this great program, I am disappointed because you have put your name first.

It has been apparent to me that for some time that the focus of the program has shifted away from your guests to yourself. You have naturally been asking questions you personally are interested in, but I don't feel you have asked yourself if these are the questions your listeners would be asking of your guests. It's subtle, and surely a slippery slope for a successful host, but it's there, in my view.

Overall though you have been a very good and courageous interviewer, in good part because you are a scholar. I am grateful for your program, and I have always looked forward to the next interview (of course not all are equally interesting to me). But you are not such a scholar that I'd tune in to hear more than a couple of weeks what you have to say about "being". And that's what the new title conveys. Also, your message that we are to "grow into this new name" is condescending, it's pretty awful actually. I think that message conveys all the bad reasons behind the name change.

The focus of the program, and your success, has been on your guests and your erudition *as you interview them*.

Don't ruin a great program. Keep yourself in a good place. In one word: Humility. Keep bringing all these wonderful people to the air waves in most thoughtful interviews.

Sincerely!

one of my dear friends regularly reminds others "We are human beings, not human doings". In our hectic, consumer-driven and too often isolated lives, it's an important lesson to us all. I think the new name works. I know I'll continue listening.
many thanks,
Audrey

Your productive association of "human being" with the new program name triggered the
following program name- Krista Tippet : On Being Human or Krista Tippet :On the Human Experience.
I'm pleased that Krista's name is now part of the title. We listeners
appreciate the moving warm intelligence,and sensibility she brings to the progam. She succedes in making arcane ideas accessible. And reminds us of the profound dignity and importance of ideas that we might brush off as being (there's that word) simple or worn out .

Awesome change. I was happy with the previous name for the show but this is a truly insightful update. For those of you wondering about the connection to faith should check out John Zizioulas' "Being as Communion".

I greatly appreciate and enjoy the show and now that I am a listener it matters little to me what you call it. You are seeking feedback and in the spirit of candor I admit I find the "name first" change a bit contradictory. It "feels" inappropriate as it focuses on the individual, not the subject matter. Current listeners will be able to follow along or find the show (there's that Google thing....) and the uninitiated are not likely to be drawn to something as vague as "Someone's Name on Being". Keep searching? Maybe something with both "Faith" and "Being" in the title since, as you say, "Being with Krista Tippet" doesn't make much sense. As I said though, I'll be listening regardless of the title Thank you for your work and efforts.

Your original title challenged people to expand their notion of faith. Now we just have the fundamentalists using the word. What a loss.

Helen

Hi Krista - Your program is extraordinary.....I will take it on faith....the journey
with continue in new directions and a larger context....but always with a very special perspective....Thank you......Sincerely, Craig Padover Bergen County, NJ

Hi Craig, horning in on your post here to second your faith in Krista's continuing in her exemplary ways. I was bummed to hear SofF would be "no more" and was relieved to find it was only a name change.

Aloha, Krista! Keep on keeping on, we love you!
Frank Luke

Outstanding. Your conversation with us is the best and the change in name reflects deep consideration and a willingness to continue to be more human and more inclusive.
I refer you to the great Franciscan speaker and thinker, Richard Rohr (founder, Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque, NM) who, years ago, convinced me that the most descriptive name for God is "Being."

Thank you for all that you do.
Peace.
Greg Corrigan
302.357-7745
Wilmington, Delaware

The name change sounds like a retreat from, and an attempt to distance oneself from, religion and religious topics and one's relationship with God (or even the lack of or disbelief in). Like most media enterprises, I think there is a nearly irresistible urge to "revamp" a project occasionally in an attempt to breath new life into participants and listeners, but "being?" This indicates a progression from a show about something toward a program about everything (that is to say nothing). -- Mykal Banta

I heard a great program one morning. It was fascinating, interesting and challenging. Then I heard the name and was turned off. I still listen, but the name seems incongruous to me. Thanks for intentionally welcoming into the 'conversation' the rest of us, for whom "faith" has specific (and not so good) connotations.

I think the name change would be great if that was what the program was really about. I do agree that Speaking of Faith doesn't fit anymore either. Both names imply that the program explores the foundational and philosophical questions of why we are here and what it all means. It used to do that - that is what drew me to the program. However of late, the content has become much more about social change and social consciousness. Don’t get me wrong, those are interesting and important topics - they are just not as interesting to me personally. As mentioned, I am one who looked to this program to provide insight into the most important questions of why we are here and what does it all means. These are questions that obviously can’t be answered definitively, but it is life giving to engage in the dialogue none the less. Krista provided a great forum to explore these questions in a balanced and open minded way. I miss that. You can probably tell from my post that I am no longer the avid listener I used to be, but I do wish Krista and the program the best of luck going forward. I have no doubt that the issues her program now addresses speak to more people where they are at – and ultimately whether you are “public” radio or not, it is all about ratings. Perhaps a title that more closely matches the current program content would be something like Krista Tippett on Social Consciousness.

Horrid. It is over-reaching and sounds egomaniacal of Ms Tippett, even should she be not so.

Then again, I'm an atheist who thinks the programme generally far too soft on faith, and so am basically out-of-sympathy with much of your audience.

I can't believe you didn't have the integrity to post my critical comments, especially in light of other critical comments only recently posted. I worked hard on them and I do not have a copy!! Please don't make me reconstruct the whole thing, and then water down the language. These comments were heart-felt, if perhaps a tad strong. If you refuse to post them, perhaps you could post this comment about your not posting my comment?!

Hi, Ed. You may have missed your post in the thread below, but we did post it. Just to let you know, we approve all comments rather than automatically posting them on our blog and website, so sometimes it takes a bit longer &mash; especially on Sundays. We do this not in order to control the message but so as to encourage fruitful, passionate, civil dialogue without interruption from spammers or flamers. Thanks for participating in this thread and your patience with me.

Sorry, I did miss it. It was posted on another thread. My mistake. Thanks for tolerating my little tantrum.

Your new name quite rightly reflects the fact that in recent years your show has, with increasing consistency, had little to do with faith(!), at least not as one might historically define the term. Most shows are just doses of pacifism, scientism, race-relations, anti-capitalism, feminism, panentheism, with a dollop of New Age mumbo jumbo. I regret this because you "were" the only show to do in-depth discussion of doctrine, both within and across "faiths." A better title for the current show might be "Being Krista Tippett." May the force be with you.

Krista,
You should have asked for suggestions. Your choice "Being" is a poor one.
1) "Being" doesn't mean anything to ordinary English speakers, despite Paul Tillich's "The Ground of All Being" and stuffy, pompous "Dasein" in German.
2) SOB stands for sob or Son of a _itch.
3) Better to say Speaking of Ultimate Living= SOUL
Ron

Speaking of Faith is fine with me. I really don't like Being!!

I am one of those who stumbled on your program and found the discussion intriguing, but I was put off when I heard the title. But I returned, a bit reluctantly, and enjoyed it more and more each week. Soon the title didn't matter. I am now a regular listener and I will be in the future, regardless of what you call it. Thank you.

-- Carol

Had to comment, even though I'm also a "stumble-upon" kind of listener to your program over these past several years. I completely understood your motives and thinking behind the name change, and I'm one of those people who can now recommend specific programs to others because there's no "faith" referenced. Much appreciated, and all the very best to you in your future programming. I'll be subscribing by podcast now!

Great name - the poetry of Live and move and have our being.

I don't like the name change. I especially don't like Krista's name introducing the show's title. It seems too arrogant and not at all humble, which is what I felt Speaking Of Faith often brought to public radio. Pure, intuitive, intelligent, thoughtful humility and a truthful voice not heard on the airwaves.

I, too, love this program regardless of the title. Admittedly I also stumbled upon it but after hearing it only once was hooked and posted the link to my Facebook page as well as pointing out programs of very special interest to myself - to my friends as well.

I've noticed a trend for some time towards vagueness and perhaps political correctness in the naming of programming. "Speaking of Faith" is clear in its voice and intelectual direction. "Krista Tippett on Being" is a dense fogg and an ill concieved title not well thought out! Why move from a title of strength to one of weakness?

So disappointed. I am glad Ms. Tippett is growing. Good for her. I also have grown from listening to her guests. Am I alone when I say the magic of her show is the canvas that she created for her guests. The filled it with their “religion, meaning, ethics and ideas.” Krista Tippett on Being puts the emphasis on her insights, her ideas, etc. Speaking of Faith evokes the conversation. Is this a transition from being a journalist to a radio personality? If this is the case, I miss the conversation already.

Don't be the story Krista.

I would prefer "Being with Krista Tippett". "Krista Tippett on Being" sounds like you will be lecturing to us, which is never the case. You facilitate conversation, you bring us in, you are WITH us.

Thanks for the show; I love it.

Okay, I just read the point about the double entendre--so how about just calling it Being?
I'm thinking about Ira Glass--the iconic host of This American Life: his name doesn't appear in the title of the program--it doesn't need to. Speaking of Faith (or whatever it's called) wouldn't be the same without Krista; I want her to be the host forever, but I don't see why her name needs to be in the title.
Also, while I have felt some difficulty talking about this program with non-spiritual or anti-religion friends--having to surmount the wary look that comes over their faces when I say the name--I also think it's a good thing to challenge people WITH the name SoF. I know people who would be so interested in so many of the topics, who don't immediately see what the topics have to do with (any kind of ) faith, whose minds I would like to see broadened beyond their biases about faith. I like the existence of a program that declares it is about faith--but isn't about one cookie cutter version of faith. It feels a bit like a step back to not to call it SoF. And the subtitle works as a wonderful clarifier.

The recurring suggestion, "Being with Krista Tippett," means something completely different than "Krista Tippet on Being." The former sounds similar to "hanging out with Krista Tippett" rather than the deeper meaning of the later version. AND there's no reason Krista's name shouldn't be in the name of the show. It was in the original name after all.

huge fan of the show, not such a fan of the new title. maybe i'm not the target audience though, because i'm a person of faith who was drawn to the show because of the title, not in spite of it. It has been both a great challenge & encouragement to me at the same time. i probably wouldn't give the abstract, nebulous 'being' a try if I wasn't already familiar with the program. Please don't dilute the spiritual aspect of the conversations while casting the 'bigger net'...

Krista Tippett - Your challenging, thoughtful programming has given me so much pleasure over the years. Sweetheart, I think you should call your show whatever you wish. Many, many thanks.

It's infurating, well infuriating may be too strong, but definintely disturbing when someone, such as Sean, calls a women sweetheart. It is extremely insulting, demeaning and dismissive!! People (women do it too) are so ignorant. I never let anyone get away with it, I call them on it. People, stop calling women sweetheart, honey, etc. to make yourself feel more important, or whatever.

Fabulous, insightful show. The interview with Desmond Tutu is what locked me in as a listener. I agree that it was time for a name change, but I don't care at all what you call it.

I'd love to see the names that were rejected.

Those are definitely coming in a future post. You can count on it!

No, I don't really like the new name, it immediately makes me think of Being and Nothingness. I have loved the show although some of the more recent ones have been farther away from the "faith" concept. But the idea of trying to avoid making some people uncomfortable is an unhappy one to me - I am a Unitarian, and the show was a welcome dialogue on faith. My denomination has gone the way of trying to avoid making anyone unhappy so much that we are often a "whatever" denomination (and the subject of much humor on Prairie Home Companion). I might not have turned on "Krista Tippett on Being". But I first heard the show by accident - it was simply on NPR while I was listening to the radio on Sunday morning. Avoiding the use of the word "faith" is like what happened with the UU's - people with rigid notions of what we call "the G word" pushed for us not to use the word at all, instead of letting it be the mysterious undefined word it originally was for Unitarians. But you have a huge following now, and I'm sure no one will turn it off because of a name change. It's all about the show, after all, not the name! What's in a name?

I'm a UU, too, & in our church, many are trying to reclaim these faith words -- which makes me all the more skeptical of a plan to shed them in the show -- the words express something, which is why even some atheists can see a value to using them in specific contexts -- going more vague means you express less.

Hmmm. I like hearing intelligent people "Speaking of Faith" even when I disagree with what they may say.

Does the name change signify a change in direction, i.e. an attempt to "'Be' all things to all people?" I hope not. I pray that this often excellent program on diverse matters of faith and ethics does not become an innocuous, bland program that means little to anyone. Be something - even if it irritates some people on occasion.

it seems to take faith to move gracefully into being. a gentle and natural move.

Many of your current listeners are expressing dissatisfaction with the name, & much of the dissatisfaction focuses on the arrangement of the name (the shifting of the host's name in the title) as much as the nature of the title change. I suggest you step back a minute & look at why that particular part is so upsetting to so many people -- the most frequently stated reason -- that it seems egotistical on the part of the host -- may not be The Reason. I believe the poster who noted that that the original title had "Speaking" as the gerund may really hold the key -- the radio show was (& presumably will be) an presentation of someone speaking with Krista. Nobody can actually present "being" - whatever you think a vague word like "being" could possibly mean, it surely doesn't mean something that a single person can put on display for the rest of us. Therefore I think it's fair to say that the title doesn't work on a literal level. In literature, it's difficult to extract meaning from poetry that doesn't make sense first on a literal level.

I don't care for the name change myself because I think changing names is self-defeating. Nonetheless, my first reaction was not to object to where you put Tippett's name. Reading over these comments has made me think more about that issue, & I see the producer of the show & the editor of this blog seem to try to intervene in the blog to soothe people on that point most frequently. Some kind of nerve is being struck here.

You are using this new media (a blog) but for what end? Is this just "lightning to the children eased," -- just soothing the masses by giving us a way of feeling we've been heard while you really don't pay attention -- or is any of this feedback registering & causing any rethinking? Or is this one of those projects -- like a super fancy wedding -- in which you've invested so much upfront, you can't really go back on or rethink, even if you are growing more skeptical?

New name sounds diluted and generic and less of a container for meaning than "Speaking of Faith" ... sort of like "Presidents Day". How about "Speaking of People and Stuff"? Great show, anyway. Thanks.

I love it. Since Paul Tillich referred to God as "being itself" I think it is the perfect format for discussing the world's many diverse forms of faith. Krista's name as the host/facilitator is also quite appropriate. I hope to be more effective in enouraging my agnostic friends to engage in the conversation.

I do a lot of naming, and I'm appreciative of the thoughtful rationale Krista conveyed, and certainly of the word order chosen. Putting Krista's name after the title is more awkward in practice, because the comma in "Being, with Krista Tippet" or "On Being, with Krista Tippet" when spoken, is difficult to convey and/or hear - so if you're worried about ego, then you should have concerns about a whole show that centers on "Being with Krista Tippet." :-)

I sense SofF is moving into a fog. Faith gave the show some shape. The host's name should not be in the show unless it will end when Krista meets a special day in her life.

Speaking for myself obviously, I will grow into whatever name your show is named. I am a huge SOF, Krista Tippet fan and of course an NPR Public Radio fan for over 20 yrs. Sometimes less is more and Being can sum it ALL up. Let's open our minds and embrace Being! Ellen in Brooklyn

Krista, You've sold out. When you (or anyone you connect with or love) come across something really, really difficult in this world and in this life, see how far "being" gets you. I've sat through corporate board meetings when to mouth the newly-constructed word "ideation" was all the rage. I just saw a university's ad which boldly stated: "It's not computing,,,it's LIVING!" Your rationalization for the new name of your show is so unbelievably shallow. "Speaking of Faith" was a much more expansive idea--truly revolutionary, invigorating, courageous and all-encompassing. Some other words that have truly been overused and mean nothin-much anymore: "excitement" and "passion." Think about it.

I believe that "faith" is a "big enough container" to encompass all that SOF has presented. Being may be an existentialist delight, but I don't think it brings to mind any immediate image at all. It seems like you are playing to those who find "faith" an offensive word.

I think the name change is a wonderful one and I shall continue to listen to your wonderful shows. I agree that Being feels like a show that you can grow into.
All best always,
Liz in Baltimore

I love the show, but I feel that the new title is simply to vague. I suggest: "Becoming Human with Krista Tippett"

Actually, I like "From Faith to Being, with Krista Tippet." The phrase is from your own announcement. The comma, spoken with a pause and a slight downward inflection, is not difficult to hear. Any chance of rethinking this?

Carolweg,
Of all the new titles proposed, including Krista's, "On Being," yours is the best.
I hope that Krista et al reconsider.
Ron
My post is at 8/22

I am sad to see the old title go. I like "Speaking of Faith." I like the power of the words and the evocative or provocative effect the use of the word "faith" engendered in people. Why cater to some's fear of faith? It is a powerful word/concept and I think it dilutes the effect of the conversation to follow when it is about "being" (also a powerful word but not as transformational, I think, as faith -- whatever one's faith or lack of it).

Why do you presume it is "fear" of faith that some one might have? How about disagreement with the concept? I see the program as a focus on thinking about all these large concepts - faith, being, becoming, rather than on blind faith. More seeing and less blindness. The new title is fine.

I like the name-change to "BEING" much better than Working Assets changing the name of its wireless service to "CREDO." I shared with them how I felt about this, but they thought I was wrong to have it say to me "I believe." Your use of "faith" was not so limiting, but being is better.
One of the handicaps (I guess) of studying so many languages. Long ago I undertook to learn "all" the languages that sacred texts were written in. I got pretty far with It. Luckily UCLA has more languages than Harvard.
For the principal existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, by the way, being was far less desirable than becoming. Being was fixed, serialized, whereas becoming was full of unlimited potential. He was pretty closed-minded on the subject, which he treated in his _L'être et le néant_. (You probably want to think of it as having more potential.)

I don't care if you call it "Standing on your head" I'd listen anyway. As Mr. S. said, "A rose by any other name..." Love this show and am so grateful for the years of being able to listen.

As long as they keep asking the big questions, does it matter what they call it?

If your research indicates that the old name of the program was preventing it from reaching new listeners, we longtime fans will have to accept that. But those who find the word "faith" inhospitable, I want to say "get over it" already. As a society we have to deal more directly rather than less with distinctions between facts and beliefs in every domain. "Being" is a feel-good cop-out, meant to be inclusive but tasting like pablum. But I'll still listen to the show!

If "Being" grabs the spirits of those who are trying to live connected with being, but do not care of the label "faith" brings, SO BE IT.

I love your program. Thank you.

You are free to change the name to satisfy those who do not believe. As you can see from the e-mails below, believers have been happy with the name. I doubt that one person in one thousand will recognize "Being" as the biblical name for God. Maybe that is where the problem is coming from. Our God is too small.
If in changing the name, you change the course of this wonderful program, it will be a sorrowful change indeed.
Joan in Texas

This is one of the best discussions in media today, hands down. It was time for a name change. The show had long outgrown "SOF."

Keep up the good work and keep bringing insightful topics that inspire and intrigue us. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I encourage those who are concerned about the name change to just sit back and enjoy the content.

krista: i really appreciate your program. sure, i'll have to get used to the new name, but as long as your show continues to grow the way it has been i'm okay with it. also, thanks for your "full disclosure". after thinking about it, i agree that your name should be in the title. i'm aware of the teamwork it takes to produce the show, but i don't think you're being "egotistical"; you're the person who -- how do i say this? -- puts yourself out there as the host week after week, expressing your creativity and being willing to accept reviews of your broadcasts. i don't think i'd have that kind of courage. the new title works and we'll all move on, and i will continue to be a faithful listener. i'm just grateful for SOF, soon to be KTOB. (just please don't change the music at the beginning, i love it.)

I have listened to every available podcast of your shows, many of them several times, so I guess that makes me a heavy user. Even though I was initially drawn to the program by its name, I understand there are many people (current and potential listeners) out there who find the word "Faith" offensive. As far as I know, no one has suggested running a second program concurrently with the name "Speaking of Doubt with Krista Tippett," with identical content, but after reading this blog it almost seems like that is the only way to transcend the opposites here.

On a more pragmatic note, you need to be aware that the name "On Being" is already taken, so your new name is perilously close to infringement. Check out the Photo Section at WashingtonPost.com and you will find a video series titled "onBeing" by Jennifer Crandall.

I quote:

"onBeing was gone for a while, but we're back with many more stories to tell. For those coming here for the first time, onBeing is a video series based on the simple notion that we should get to know one another better. Each Wednesday, you'll find video portraits that take you into the musings, passions and quirks of all sorts of people. We hope the onBeing community will continue to grow, so feel free to add your thoughts to the comments section and to send an e-mail about someone you'd like me to interview. – Jenn Crandall"

I am a writer, formerly for a religious publishing house, now writing my first novel. In a conversation with a literary agent, I learned that my choice to make my lead character a clergywoman would automatically eliminate many readers. Since my target audience is readers of mainline and literary fiction, I swallowed hard and wondered, why would people have a problem with a lead character who works in the field of faith? This is a secular novel with deeply human themes that are also themes of faith -- love and loss, trust and redemption. My lead character just happens to have this job. Then I got real. Of course I knew the answer. We all know the answer. "Faith" has all kinds of bad vibes associated with it in the wider world. In the eyes of the wider world, cheesy TV preachers, wing-nut demagogues, and superstitious non-thinkers populate the world of faith. However, I long to dialogue with that wider world. Fewer and fewer people want to live here with me in the world of faith, and many are downright hostile to it. So how do we even approach the subject of faith with the wider world? We side-step the title of the subject entirely. We have to. I understand your decision. It makes perfect sense. I know that if I don't want to limit my readership, my novel probably shouldn't have a clergywoman in the lead role, but I am so sad about it. She's a great character. I love her. But I don't want only Christians to read about her, so she may become a supporting character. Change your title, Krista, but please don't make faith a supporting character.

I LOVE the new title because it's more expansive, poetic and inclusive than SOF. Being is like Breath and Breath is divine energy --it goes everywhere, touching all. Nature knows what Being is--it's not limited to only humans. It's yet another step towards the gateless gate.

Love your show and am so glad I found it. However, I found it through the word 'faith'. ,I like many I suppose, have been struggling to understand or come to grips with what 'faith' means and how to live with that concept. And it has been a terrific journey hearing of the variety of ways people think of and live out faith. I wouldn't have found your show if it had been called 'being'. I wasn't struggling with how to 'be' for I already 'am'. I guess I am not sure that 'being' really captures the concept of living a more than earthly/human life. I guess I found your show just in time--before the name change.

I love this show when I'm able to catch it, and I love the new name. But maybe that's because I'm graduating with a philosophy degree =). I love the succinctness and yet depth of the name, "On Being." It's reminiscent of the old Greek and Latin classical titles, such as Aristotle's "De Anima," ("On Spirit").

"Being" evokes for me lots. "To be" is the fundamental verb in language. "Being" evokes "ontology," the roots of all existence and meaning.

I love the show and have for years ( found it searching for John O'Donohue). I appreciate the motives for this name change, and I am sure that it will make it easier for me to share with friends and colleagues, most of whom are scientifically trained, and, rightly or wrongly, hear the word 'faith' with various attachments, histories, and implications.

This new name evokes an atmosphere of meaningful questions rather than the assumption of trite answers.

The conversations with your guests will be able to stand ( or fall) on their own merits....

Kudos for this improvement. It will prevent convoluted 'explanations' if one wishes to share a conversations from Scientists who explicitly disavows all religious implications ( like Janna Levin and Sherwin Nuland).

i am so sorry to hear of this retreat. i am not, nor do expect ever to be, ready to relinquish the concept of "faith" to those same people who have appropriated and all but destroyed "christian." faith is a much broader concept than that. what's next, charity? then, there will be hardly any hope left.

Pages