Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
I've listened for maybe half an hour now and in spite of the great effort to give the image of being avante guarde and maybe a loose canon, so far his commentary and phone calls are pretty standard fare. I'm afraid the New York Times crowd would bail out pretty quickly.
"Loose canon"--pun intended? If so, good one!
I see your point; the show isn't a universalist, uber-ecumenical show. But I could see it attracting the believing-but-unchurched, or those who think that WNIV is too "old-time religion" in terms of presentation, but not doctrine.
This next comment may sound like proselytizing, but please trust that that is not my intent--I will attempt to address it as a radio/programming/audience issue, and I'll try to keep my bias and beliefs out of it as much as possible.
Your programming idea is a good one and the niche is definitely there; eventually, though, you will come to a triple fork in the road with either your content or your audience. Those choices are as follows:
1) A universalist approach that regards most or all religions that have stood the test of time as being equal paths to salvation, enlightenment, or oneness with a Supreme Being; exploring and comparing religions could be a substantial part of the content
2) A fundamentalist approach that stresses that Jesus is "the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6), and adheres to a strict and narrow interpretation of the Bible
3) An ecumenical Christian approach that sees Christianity as the only way per John 14:6, but allows for and encourages broad interpretation of doctrinal nonessentials.
My experience is that options 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive both in terms of content and audience, and options 1 and 3 also mutually exclusive. Options 2 and 3, done right, could live together, especially if vocal debate is an intended part of the mix. You won't want for callers on that show!
I could see option 1 being part of a larger menu of progressive content, and would certainly appeal to progressive listeners (speaking broadly, of course). Option 2 is already well-represented on religious radio, although it could be done with a much fresher, younger, less old-timey "teachin' and preachin'" approach like a lot of the newer megachurches do with their modern services and programming.
Option 3 is a challenge. You don't want to make it so wishy-washy, anything goes that the program doesn't have a core POV. All good radio shows today--secular or religious--have a solid core POV, regardless of what it is. Even Car Talk. You need to make it compelling. You need to not be afraid to offend some people because they happen to disagree with the show's POV. And you need to make it attractive to those not currently being served by option 2. Yet, an ecumenical show by definition is going to be more, for lack of a better word, tolerant of diverse POVs. It may come down to deciding what you are willing to discuss and explore, and what you are going to stand firm on, and go with that.
Then there's presentation, presenting to a younger, unchurched audience. But that's the easy part once you get the content issues licked.
