A commenter who somehow managed to overcome the recent technical problems this blog has been having with too many people trying to comment at the same time posed the following question this morning:
What is Krista Tippett’s agenda?
This is an intriguing query. Since I can’t hear the vocal inflection of the person who asked it I can’t tell if it’s sarcastic or serious, but it deserves exploration. It spurred me to think and research more about the whole problem with much religious “journalism” in general and Speaking of Faith in particular.
It turns out that the agenda of SoF is a bit hard to tie down because they don’t seem to have an official mission statement on the SoF website. Their stated priciples are, unsurprisingly, couched in a warm miasma of platitudes:
When she [Tippett] emerged [like Venus from the sea!] with a Master of Divinity from Yale in 1994, she saw a black hole where intelligent coverage of religion should be.
The black-hole-generating religion reporters who worked before 1994 have got to feel good about that one!
…she began to imagine radio conversations about the spiritual and intellectual content of faith that would enliven and open imaginations and public discussion.
She draws out the intersection of theology and human experience, of grand religious ideas and real life.
Evidently Krista didn’t study a lot of geometry at Yale Div, as I’m not sure how you “draw out an intersection.” I just can’t tell if she means “clearly delineate” or “smudge beyond recognition.”
So an outright mission statement from SoF seems a bit elusive, maybe ineffable or even transcendent. Sound familiar? Maybe you can only have a poetic way of knowing the agenda of Speaking of Faith. Maybe you have to look at it sideways.
Or maybe you need to look at their sponsor.
A primary sponsor of SoF appears to be, from the prevalence of their ads on the SoF website, the Fetzer Insitute. Luckily for my purpose they aren’t shy about articulating their mission statement:
The Fetzer Institute advances love and forgiveness as powerful forces that can transform the human condition.
Wow, who could be against that? “Advancing” is a weak, vague verb to use in the context of love and forgiveness, however, so let’s take a closer look what they actually do. Their programs range from extremely laudable sounding, if quixotic, world peace initiatives to less universally approved-of claptrap consisting of new age healing and spiritualism mixed with junk science some of which reads exactly like jacket copy for Barbara Bradley Hagerty.
So what we’ve discovered is nothing less than a teeming nest of modern Theosophers. These folks find the hardscrabble wonders of rationalist secular knowledge to be unfulfilling, uninspriring unless they are spiced with heaping helpings of tired, intellectually empty and dishonest but highly decorated teleologies.
These sentiments have a corrupting influence on public discourse and encourage what atheists call “woo.” Woo is a helpful category that refers holistically to irrational beliefs, especially in the realm of health care. The problem with woo is that it can kill. When Christian Scientists or Jehovah’s Witnesses or New Age cult members refuse modern medical help for their children, and the children die, that’s the dark side of all this spiritual role-playing. What if deluded, costumed, Klingon-speaking Star Trek fans refused actual medicine in favor of a spray painted salt shaker they claim is a treatment from the 23rd century? What really makes that different? And should we really be spending money on trying to detect souls with fMRI machines when, for example, vaccine production is so slow and antiquated?
The real “black hole” in religious journalism, at least since the “emergence” of Tippett, Barbara Bradley Hagerty, Karen Armstrong and the rest of the weak teleologists, is the inability of such people to be objective. They see a noble heart in, as far as I can tell, every religious or spiritual idea they’ve ever covered.
Isn’t it frighteningly easy to imagine a friendly hour-long interview between Krista and, say, Jim Jones, or Charles Manson?
Ultimately what fails to satisfy about Speaking of Faith is the extreme ecumenicism Tippett’s “agenda” requires. It’s intellectually crippling, akin to a restaurant which tries to delight both big game bush-meat lovers and vegan PETA activists. Everyone likes to eat, right? They have that much in common, so it’ll be great!
Imagine if “On the Media” had a similar mission? The whole point of the show would disappear. No malefactor would be thoroughly investigated or subjected to cleansing, well-deserved ridicule. So when an agenda like that of Krista’s Theosophical Sunday School infects public radio for two hours every weekend, taking up space where a superior program might thrive, it annoys me. And I’m not alone.
You may not be surprised to learn that one of the most common google search queries leading people to this blog is as follows:
Krista Tippett Annoying