
Lately I have been considering the ongoing discussion over that the Ochlophobist's blog concerning the various errors of Ancient Faith Radio's format. Instead of posting a comment, I decided I would rather write something of my own - my observations and thoughts on the matter.
Firstly, there is the issue with how prayers and various readings are read, which can be further broken down into to separate, yet somewhat related errors. Namely, these originate from a departure from the Church's liturgical praxis for various other forms. The first form, which is a particular pet peeve of mine, is the reading being done in the manner that one would expect from a coffee shop poetry reading. (Recently it came to my attention that this form seems to be common in more liberal bourgeois religious settings - Catholic and Protestant. ) The second is the form common to Evangelical churches and advertising, sometimes referred to as "radio voice".
In both cases, I think it can be safely assumed that the methods are chosen in an effort to make the broadcasting more palatable, interesting and emotional. Since these are normal modes of mass converse in this country, particularly for the white religious middle class, it is only natural for this to be the first inclination. The problem is that both of these forms make use of purposeful emphasis according the interpretation and inclination of the orator, as opposed to where it is present in the text. As such, by making use of such methods, the radio station finds itself in the awkward position of broadcasting personal interpretations of scripture, prayers, readings and so forth, which may or may not be in accordance with the teachings of the Church, though unintentional it may be. In the end it is not an issue of taste, as supporters of AFR argue, but an issue of correct doctrine and praxis.
This, in many ways, parallels the problems associated with AFR making use of "soundtracks" for its various readings. It is done for the same reasons of interest and emotion, with problems that are common to both.
When I was sixteen I visited an Evangelical mega-church, which is where I first encountered this particular practice. I remember thinking it very crass when emotional piano pieces were played as the pastor said prayers. That of course did not fully prepare me for the later CCM and prayer combo. Nevertheless, I can see how one for whom this is normal can have a hard time grasping the inappropriateness of the practice; which is precisely because it strives to create emotion and interest.
The purpose behind the practice of purposeful emphasis and soundtrack is to artificially inspire desire within the person, bypassing such things as discipline and need. It is a way of subconsciously selling the listener something, such as a cheeseburger, or in this case, prayer. It creates, in the correct demographic, a feeling of "prayerfulness". It reinforces that strange modern phenomena of "feeling spiritual", when the Church teaches feelings should be peripheral to and a result of prayer.
I remember being taught that the steps of discipline in regards to prayer are as follows: first just saying the prayers, then paying attention to the words that one is praying, then comprehending mentally what one is praying, and then finally, the movement from the head to the heart. I can think of no teaching or text or Saint that has ever said that one needs to feel prayerful.
An atmosphere of prayer, rightly done, cannot be a slickly produced combination of oration and soundtrack acting upon the heart. The intentional inviting of such outside forces, audible or otherwise, into our hearts is a very dangerous thing indeed. The same tactic used by AFR is used by DBH's "New Atheist" (and at times DBH) and the consumer culture. It is a product of the Beast.
Another issue noted is the constant self-promotion put forth on the program (regardless of the infamous "pray without ceasing" comment). The largest reason for this is branding. It is the use of a mass-media to create an artificial Culture™. If you are general Evangelical-convert type (or maybe just general middle class type) Orthodox, you listen to AFR and slap a "___ 33 A.D." bumper sticker on the car. If you are a little bit quirky, you go with the ever so amusing "disorganized religion" type bumper sticker. If you are "counter-cultural" or edgy then you buy all the "Death to the World" paraphernalia. They are replacements for the "NOTW", "There is a God, and She's a Democrat" and Hot Topic.
I am reminded of how some Georgians at my parish related how the Orthodox culture in America is so strange to them because everyone is so self conscious about it.
In Discerning the Mystery, Fr. Andrew Louth explained how the Tradition of the Church is the culture of the Church. It seems to me that creating an artificial culture within the confines of the Church is somehow departing from the greater culture of the Church, and thereby the Tradition of the Church. The demographic sub-groups that are so often mentioned as needing to be reached were all created by, or subsumed by, the greater mass media for the creation and perpetuation of consumer culture. By its very nature this form of culture is anti-Christian - buy this or that to define yourself as part of this or that group. Participating in this for the supposed purpose of "winning souls to Christ" is akin to having a parish brothel night for the purpose of reaching the lonely and amorous demographic.






