I couldn't have been more disappointed with ABC's new Religion and Ethics portal.
Some have criticised the site for conflating religion with ethics. But that's not my beef.
On that score, the site's editor Scott Stephens had a reasonable defence:
Despite what some might suggest, the name “Religion and Ethics” does not mean that the ABC is conflating or somehow identifying religion with ethics. Within the Western intellectual tradition, and still enshrined in such establishments as the PBS or the BBC, religion and ethics have been discussed together in that both are supposed to touch on issues of “meaning,” metaphysics, the common good, and so on.
It should be remembered that this portal site is effectively a replacement for Radio National's Religion Report as ABC management moves funds from radio to online programming.
Whatever its faults at least the Religion Report gave indepth analysis of Australian trends, whether in Christianity, humanism or other religions. In contrast, this website smacks of the cultural cringe.
Apart from editor Scott Stephens, the only featured local I have seen on site is Abdullah Saeed, Director of the National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies at the University of Melbourne.
Writers from a Christian perspective have been exclusively foreigners, and overwhelmingly British academics: Sarah Coakley, Rowan Williams, John Millbank.
This is not a churchmanship whine. Sydney Anglicans cannot expect the ABC to provide them with a cheer squad. But what Australians listeners of all faiths and none can rightly demand is that the ABC spends their tax dollars wisely.
So why does the ABC feel the need to reinvent the wheel and provide us with Oxbridge-lite? Or is it BBC downunder? After all, rehashing old speeches is hardly facilitating enlightened discussion with top-drawer thinkers.
You'd have to assume the ABC is aware the internet is a global phenomenon free of geographic boundaries. So surely they know similar high-brow portals are already easily accessible to the niche audience for this sort of material. In North America there are many websites already providing the kind of service this portal longs to be. And some are doing it far better than the ABC is ever likely to provide: The Immanent Frame and Big Questions Online are just two examples that I occasionally surf when I feel a need for some solid debate on the interface between secularism and religion.
This particular concept for its portal is not how the ABC should be spending its measly allocation of dollars for religion.
Example of why the site fails
When it comes to reporting religion in Australia, the first step the ABC must take is employing journalists who actually understands the major religious game in town: Christianity. On that score we have no grounds for complaint.
Portal editor Scott Stephens certainly ticks that box, even for the grumpiest Sydney Anglican, with his Moore College degree aleady tucked into his lengthy CV.
The next step is developing material that is actually reflective of our local context.
In fact the charter of the ABC specifically states that the function of the corporation is to:
broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community;
On this score the portal is an absolute flop.
My key point is that the primary purpose of our national broadcaster should be to engage with Australians. And so this site should be playing a role in facilitating sensible discussion about the secular/religious interface within our nation. Sydney Anglicans should recognise themselves reflected on this site. And so should Canberra Catholics, Melbourne Muslims, or indeed Adelaide Atheists.
One of this week's featured articles by John Millbank is a case in point.
In general Millbank's point that Western liberal-democracy is descending into fear-mongering against the alien is well-made, but hardly earth shattering. So given that Australians are currently in an election campaign where this insight is particularly pertinent, it would have been far more helpful (and engaging) to ground the discussion in our real-world of local politics.
It's not as if we don't have local talent demanding to be nurtured by the ABC. We have many thinkers who are already applying the ideas of Coakley, Williams and Millbank to our own context.
In Sydney alone we have prolific theological bloggers covering the spectrum from my friends at Moore College to the Uniting Church's Ben Myers. The Roman Catholic world is also blessed with some insightful writers, with Eureka Street often uncovering thought-provoking material from its particular social-justice perspective.
It would be far wiser to ditch the grandiose vision of being a global portal for Oxbridge and Ivy League theologians, and for the ABC to develop Australian voices in this field instead.
