Does this annoy anybody else?

[brody196]

First, I have been a listener to the narrow path for several years now and have called the show on numerous occasions...I think it is the best show on the air and I am grateful for the wealth of knowledge that I have learned from it. But there seems to be a trend with callers that call in with no apparent question or disagreement, rather they just seem to ramble on about something that doesn't fit the format of the show. I don't know why, but it sometimes bothers me. I guess I feel that it disrespects Steve and his audience when someone feels the need to call in just to "share" something that is of no obvious benefit to the hearers.


Anyone with me?

[steve]

It bothers me, too. However, it reminds me that not many of the most intelligent people have come to Christ, but the weak and foolish things seem to be called in larger numbers. I am often surprised how naive and uninformed some of the callers are, but since they are those things, I suppose it is good that they called. That's what I'm there for. I just hope it doesn't drive away more astute listeners who get bored by it.

Along these same lines, I suspect that some who are not as bright as others do not even realize that, after speaking for a couple of minutes, and ventilating a laundry list of concerns, that they have never formulated a question, or anything for me to respond to. I think shows of a more professional sort have more vigorous call-screeners, and only let people on the air who have a degree of focus on a topic and the ability to articulate their thoughts.

[Perry]

I hope this doesn't offend, but after listening to a few episodes of The Narrow Path, I quit listening to it for exactly this reason. Fact is, there are so many great topical and verse-by-verse lectures by Steve available that I've got quite a backlog of stuff to listen to anyway... and that's just Steve's stuff.

[RickC]

I listen to TNP radio fairly often, but sometimes turn the volume all the way down for a while if I know more-or-less what Steve will probably say (as I've heard most of his talks and many of them repeatedly--and just recommended "Word of Faith" and the Calvinism debates (and series) this week. Thanks for those, Steve)!

I'm not exactly sure offhand what Steve thinks about spiritual gifts: in terms of us 'having them' as predominant and lesser. (You know(?): How a lot of teaching is going around that 'we all have them' -- but certain ones stand out, while others are lesser or almost non-existent). This is something of a whole another topic.

At any rate, since Steve's primary gift is Bible Teacher, whenever I hear folks call with lots of problems/ needing advise, I see that as them having trust in him that he won't mislead them. And Steve gives them great biblical advise, while also pointing out that they should probably see someone in person too.

But yet, in terms of us 'having' spiritual gifts, etc., I'll speak for myself. I'm at least somewhat 'gifted' in teaching, but don't especially excel in 'empathetic/hospitable/Giver' type gifts. Like Steve, I can and do listen to problems, and can 'feel' what others feel. But when it comes to finding the Answers: I'm basically "The Bible says "___"<--so just do that" -- while others might want to explore personal problems in more 'empathic/showing mercy' ways due to their 'giftings'.
=============================

Callers with lots of problems don't 'annoy' me unless they don't seem to be listening or go on & on about their problems (to an extent that no one could fix immediately<--outside of God)!

And, several times when people have called with 'personal problems'---(and this has been strange but in a Cool Way)--it turned out that I was currently talking with someone about the same exact issues. So this seemed like the Holy Spirit was surely 'in' on things discussed, though I wasn't the caller, etc.

Just some random thoughts, thanks!

[Erik]

Steve also told me that his call screener is just a radio station employee without any particular aptitude or interest for helping out the program.

This was in response to my suggestion that his screener do a little more screening. I still think that it wouldn't be hard to reduce the number of calls by confused/nonfocused people with a very simple addition to the script "Do you have a question or comment for Steve?".

Simply make the caller state his disagreement or question. If the person can't formulate a basic one-sentence synopsis of what he's calling about, he could be kindly asked to call back when he is ready, as it is respectful to Steve to prepare for being on the radio before calling (and say something to that effect). There would be little to no judgment of the content, just a request to actually be able to state what the person is calling about.

Examples:
- I'm calling to ask what I should do about my son who is going down the wrong path.
- I'm calling to ask about what the Bible says on homosexuality.
- I'm calling to disagree with Steve's opinion on soul sleep/Revelation/Calvinism/eternal security/etc.

If the caller says "Well, I can't explain, it's really complicated, first, I have a son--my only one--and his Dad died, and my son used to blah blah blah..."

Then this is not stating what he is calling about, it is rambling that makes it clear the person really doesn't know what he wants to ask.

[charleswest]

Steve also told me that his call screener is just a radio station employee without any particular aptitude or interest for helping out the program.

This was in response to my suggestion that his screener do a little more screening. I still think that it wouldn't be hard to reduce the number of calls by confused/nonfocused people with a very simple addition to the script "Do you have a question or comment for Steve?".

Maybe Steve should just take cold calls. No screener. Like Art Bell ...

[steve]

I think Erik's suggestions are good and would be helpful to implement. I will speak to the screener.

[readywillingable]

If you are reading this post , you are one of the lucky ones that is reading it before it gets “PULLED” by Darin, Steve, Joel or Jarrod. You may want to make a copy of it, if you can. Before it disappears.

I am hiding it under a previous post with the word “annoying” in it. Because I believe the main subject that most of us really want to converse about is Annoying People that call the show. I know Steve is the boss of the show and I like him. I wouldn’t listen to the show if I didn’t enjoy his exegetical viewpoints. But there are times when the super annoying budooist named Michael calls. Or when the super annoying Stan calls. They both rant on and on and on and on with a free leash. I think the show’s name should be changed to “Stan’s soapbox”. There are also some other people that make me just turn the radio off !!!

Anyways, I am thinking of creating a website called, “The UNOFFICIAL Narrow Path Forum.” I think it would be a HUGE SUCCESS ! We could talk about the things that are really on our minds concerning the show’s topics. And we wouldn’t have to worry about our posts being “pulled”
Thank You For Your Time. Please reply FAST!

[Erik]

I think it would be more honorable if you simply addressed your concerns in an adult fashion. Engage Steve on the subject. Help him understand the effect that long rambling unfocused blathering turns you off the show.

Steve is far from a pushover despite his gentle demeanor. While at times I think he finds it difficult to know what to do, I also think he probably operates in a bit of a vaccum which makes it hard for him to account for all the conflicting needs.

If enough people calmly and rationally let him know how things affect them, I guarantee he will listen.

Frankly, using the tactic that you have seems to put you more on the "crackpot" and "irrational" side of things. Perhaps a different tack is in order if you would truly like to be effective.

[Ian]

Readywillingable, just because bold, underlined, capital and font size are available for use doesn`t mean you should use them. The different tack Erik mentioned includes restraint with those buttons and keys for a start.