by Jo Piazza
It’s been four months since the Peabody-winning public radio program formerly known as “Speaking of Faith” changed its title to the more universal and spacious, “On Being.” The number of listeners writing into the show to tell host Krista Tippett they mourn the loss of the word “faith” has tapered to one a week.
The semantic change wasn’t undertaken lightly. Names imbue things with meaning, something Tippett is keenly aware of. Play a game of free association with the words “faith” and “being” with a mixed group of believers and nonbelievers and the words conjure very different connotations on each side of the spiritual spectrum. Faith – god, church, mosque, worship. Being – exist, doing, Hamlet’s soliloquy. Tippett knew the name change wouldn’t be simple and when she advocated for it two years ago plenty of people thought she was crazy to hijack the name of a brand when that brand was chugging along perfectly well.
“I knew it was the right thing to do but in implementing it I realized what a big deal it was. It was messy and it was interesting,” Tippett recently told The Revealer during an interview about the change and its aftermath.
“’We have a brand!’ everyone told me. But I felt like if there was vitality in the brand then we needed to grow. Finally people started to see it,” Tippett remembered.
“Speaking of Faith” announced the switch at the end of last summer.
“I’m excited and a little nervous to share some big news,” Tippett wrote in a statement at the time. “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.”
If Tippett had one regret about how the name change went down it’s that in hindsight she would have involved listeners more in the process.
“We weren’t as transparent as we could have been. We didn’t pull listeners in because this was a business decision and a political decision,” Tippett said.
Once the change was announced, reactions from long time listeners were across the board. Some were sad and questioning and some were really happy.
Many listeners wrote to Tippett to tell her they ignored “Speaking of Faith” the first twenty times they heard it on the radio because they assumed it was a show that would preach and proselytize to them. Others told her they loved the show but were embarrassed to tell their friends about it because of the “faith” in the title.
“Since the change I do sense there is some new energy out there. It seems to me that different kinds of people are being drawn to the show; that a lot of people feel more welcome,” Tippett said.
Still, the fan base who never had any problem using the f-word liberally was worried that the show would pay less attention to spirituality as it transformed into “Being.” Tippett thinks the change has actually allowed them to explore more explicitly religious topics and more spirituality without the need to overcompensate for the explicitly [2] faith-oriented title.
About a month after the switch, the show broadcast a public discussion, led by Tippett, on the subject of human happiness that included the Dalai Lama, the chief rabbi of the Commonwealth, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church and Islamic scholar Seyyed Hossein Nasr.
The weeks preceding had interviews with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof and leading geophysicist, Xavier Le Pichon.
“The mix is the same and strangely we may feel freer to be religious and say, ‘this is what is means to be human,” Tippett said.
Today, the show is still growing into the new name and listeners play with “On Being” in different ways. They shorten it to “Being” and toy with what it means to them. A space on the show’s homepage remains dedicated to explaining the change to visitors who may have dropped off for awhile.
Guests of the show, many of whom aren’t only devoutly religious but are leaders of religious communities, seemed to “get” the need for the change instantly. As they finalized the decision to move to “Being,” Tippett sent a letter to friends of the show, including former guests. The notes that came back were fantastically supportive.
“The people representing our traditions know as well as anyone that these words have failed us as shorthand; that the word faith can be a problem. In public life it doesn’t contain the meaning that it contains in their traditions and they were struggling with it too. And then some of my guests who weren’t religious just said, “I always wondered why this was called ‘Speaking of Faith’ anyway,” Tippett said.
While switching the name didn’t change the show’s identity, growing into it takes energy and a willingness to expand into a new space of consciousness. The producers don’t want to create any more new beginnings or challenges for themselves as they continue the process, but one has presented itself in the intersection of a series of programs entitled “Civil Conversations” and the tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
“We were doing the series before Tucson. But with the name change to ‘Being’ I think we can claim a space to conduct these conversations in a very ecumenical way as a public service, Tippett said.
Starting a dialogue on moral imagination, common life and civility would have been harder to do in the aftermath of Tucson, under the umbrella of “Speaking of Faith,” Tippett believes.
“We as a nation have the task before us of developing some richer moral vocabulary for the 21st century that can be shared across the boundaries of religion. I think that with ‘Civil Conversations’ and with ‘being’ we can claim some new ground to host that discussion and signal that everyone is invited,” she said.
This isn’t the first time that national events have been a game changer for the life of Tippett’s program. On Sept. 11, 2001, Tippett was in Washington D.C. trying to raise money in the halls of public radio for a show exploring religion and faith. After the terrorist attacks, the conversation shifted and a need was seen for these conversations.
“Something like Tucson stopped everyone in their tracks and made people ask what has become of our common life. Suddenly there is this real receptivity to talking about the real layers of spiritual and ethical thinking, and doing it in a way that has resonance and applicability,” Tippett said.
The waves of change in discourse in the past two weeks has been similar to the shift following Sept. 11. Tippett now sees a space and a willingness to discuss what it means to be a civil society and how we can address morals outside of faith—in short, what it means to be.
Jo Piazza is a Masters candidate in Religious Studies at NYU. Her work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Daily Beast and CNN. Her first book, Celebrity Inc.: Inside the Business of Being Famous is out in May.



19 comments
LeFever says:
Feb 1, 2011
I don’t know, it sounds like they’ve got it perfectly acceptable for public media now. This smells like just one more submission to political correctness. Next thing you know, the liberals and progressives will be telling us how to refer to Jesus. I don’t like it, I don’t get it, and I’m not having any part of it. In the end, it probably won’t matter much when we get done de-funding NPR and their ilk. If they’re afraid to use the so-called F-word, I’m afraid I won’t be using them for my info.
jim says:
Feb 4, 2011
Look, the F-Word (faith) is reverberates from the rafters of every Christian church, every Sunday, every week, every month and every year to be heard by every Christian community throughout the world. The religious community does not lack exposure to the religious connotation or the word faith.
To have one radio program for a segment of society that would choose to explore faith both inside and outside the context of a religious framework does not seem illogical or unreasonable to me.
Someone mentioned “political correctness” as if it were a bad thing. Hey!, correct is correct. It seems to me, to be an advocate for political incorrectness would be…well, incorrect.
Joyce Mullan says:
Feb 6, 2011
I miss her show on Saturday mornings on NPR. I think she is on Sundays now, but that is the only day I can sleep in. Too bad.
Donal King says:
Feb 7, 2011
I am not a conservative who thinks we should cut the little money government provides to NPR. I love NPR and it is my companion every day on my commute and at home whenever I can listen. But I do lament the loss of “Speaking of Faith” because it did carry more substance to me than “On Being” which is exceptionally vague and loses the commitment that accompanies the concept of faith. If it has gained you listeners, that’s great, but I see the risk of it losing the association of people of faith and faith communities that are more than just those who reflect “on being.”
Krista Tippett is wonderful, thoughtful and very stimulating, but the program has lost something in the transition. I am a college professor, a thinker but also a man of faith and for me that includes more than “being”. Peace to all NPR listeners and supporters.
Kim says:
Feb 9, 2011
I like the title “Speaking of Faith” as I am one of those people who found that title off-putting at first, but after listening to the show it broadened my definition of faith. While “On Being” actually is more descriptive of my own spirituality and philosophy, when I am speaking to someone unfamiliar with the show and mention the new title it sounds like I am saying invisible words…too ordinary…and I fear it is not going to remain in that person’s awareness.
Mary Overman says:
Feb 9, 2011
I don’t do well with change at all … but when I heard about the change from Speaking of Faith to On Being, my first thought was Yes. I feel that Speaking of Faith was way too constraining of a title for all of the areas of human life and human-ness the show covers. On Being really hits a right chord for me. Wonderful that so much thought and consideration went into it both before and after!
Renee Florsheim says:
Feb 9, 2011
I am a non-religious person who did NOT welcome the change. While the word “faith” originally scared me a little, I grew to see the show as one which addressed religious and spiritual issues in a way that was lacking in arrogance and which I could listen to easily. I enjoyed the show. Strangely, for me, that arrogance appeared WITH the change. Not only did it feel as if religion had hijacked the whole of being, rather than staying within the realm of religion, but the few guests I have tried to listen to since have seemed more annoying than thoughtful. I’ve moved from being a regular listener to being someone who will occasionally listen if it is convenient. I’m not sending in complaints, but the show has lost me.
Aaron Lauver says:
Feb 9, 2011
I am a liberal that has listened to the show for about three years now. I definitely shared the sentiment that I was hearing so many interesting ideas on this program that inspired rich and deep thinking in me. I was having a problem sharing these ideas in my community largely because of the name of the program. It made many of the topics feel unsafe for work, and it seemed to get in the way of some conversations. The new name is very innocuous if nothing else, and I feel more comfortable sharing the points of this program with others now. For me, the name change made a noticeable positive impact.
Carol Siler says:
Feb 9, 2011
I work in Public Radio and I don’t like the name change because it’s hard to say. When you tell someone the name of the show they think you are saying “On Bean” or “On Bing”. It reads well but doesn’t come off well on the air or in conversation. Think of the poor announcer reading “This week on On Being” I do think the name is much more inclusive of the topics addressed on the show. It isn’t always about faith – no matter how you define the word.
jim says:
Feb 9, 2011
i agree with donal. i love the show, which i listen to before church. but “being” reminds me of “Being and Time”, and “being and nothingness”. it implies more philosophy (ontology) than theology.
Richard McDonough says:
Feb 9, 2011
Despite being a non-believer and thinking faith and 25-cents might get you to information, I listened despite the title. If you had asked me about a name change I would have said, leave it, it has identity.
Susan Ford Keller says:
Feb 9, 2011
I, too, was dismayed at the change from “Speaking of Faith” to “Krista Tippet on Being”. “On Being” is so generic, so vague. Adding Krista Tippet’s name to the title, well, a bit too much ego for my taste.
“Speaking of Faith” just spoke to me; it reminded me of my youth when religious tolerance was a popular concept. It has always been my experience that wise people of faith, no matter what their faith, are very much alike. They understand they are called to be good and to do good and, above all, to love.
The Dalai Lama would be the perfect host for “Speaking of Faith.” I fear Krista Tippett has lost her way, with her political agenda to engage the disenfranchised, like the Tucson shooter, or religiously zealous terrorists, like the 9/11 suicide bombers.
Tara says:
Feb 9, 2011
I’ve personally always wondered why the word “faith” has such an immediate connotation for some kind of religiosity. “Faith” is a word that applies to nonbelievers just as much as it applies to believers, much like “love” and “gratitude”. So, while I didn’t have any issues with “Speaking of Faith”, I understand and support this change in name. I feel that the word “being” is so much closer to the kinds of discussions that are featured on the show; they have always been intimately bound with what it is to “be” human, in all its complexities.
In response to many religious folks who are sad to see “faith” go: I would argue that a person active in their tradition is doing much more “being” than they are “faithing” anyway.
James Baxter says:
Feb 9, 2011
For myself, I think the change in name was an excellent idea. I’ve listened for a while and I feel that anything that can be done to enlarge the listening audience should be done. When words become symbols and those symbols in and of themselves gain the power to divide people and close the doors to hearing, then we must find alternatives around that possibility. In our quest to expose others to the spiritual experiences of others, we must become like water which seeks its destination in manifold ways. It flows over, around, and cuts its way through. As a minister myself, my interest lies not in the symbology of words but in discoverng ways into the hearts of others in pain that I might have the opportunity to bring healing into their lives. therefore, I belief the choices was one of wisdom.
Terry says:
Feb 9, 2011
Whoa… I just never gave it a second thought. To me, the program was always so open and ongoing, interesting and it still is. On Being seems more open to the churched and unchurched- I know my teens, (who were very much raised with faith and church)turned a deaf ear to it before. Now- a bit older and wiser, they tell me stories they have heard On Being.
Quite a shift from neutral to in gear again. “Faith” told them who, what, when, where. They rebelled after a time, but have come again full circle to faith by just being…and accepting.
Brice Howe says:
Feb 10, 2011
I don’t like that this was ‘political’…it’s incongruent with what ‘On Being’ is about…or at least what I thought it was about. I agree the word ‘faith’ got in the way sometimes…when I recommended a program to someone I would find myself explaining that the shows not only about religion, althought they do talk about that sometimes, blah, blah, blah.
If I had my druthers, I would have renamed it:
Speaking Of…
still familiar yet open-ended.
Thanks for the opportunity.
rd says:
Feb 13, 2011
I do not like the name change at all, I miss Speaking of Faith, and I listen less and less. That’s just me. I used to be so proud to listen to my own kind of “Faith-based” program.
Cleaning the Catholic House of Dissent « The Revealer says:
Apr 11, 2011
[...] the Catholic House of Dissent11 April 2011Last week, Revealer contributor Jo Piazza sent us a press release that reminds us how the RCC conducts its discipline. [...]
Renee says:
Sep 16, 2011
The name doesn’t matter so much to me as the content is the same. It doesn’t flow off the tongue as nicely.
Speaking of Faith was the one area I felt I could connect with with the “faith” idea as the center of their theology. There was common ground between secular and religious. We could all meet here and discover that whether you subscribe to a particular religious denomination or atheism there is still the common human condition we all grapple with bringing whatever information we can to figure it out.
I wish the name would have stayed the same. I’m glad the show and the delicious content is still successful