Download Sociology 3301: Sociology of Religion

Sociology 3301: Sociology of Religion
Lecture 29: Religion Outside the (God) Box I
Today we are going to start looking at religion or religiousness that does not fit
neatly into the “God Box” (i.e. in houses of worship). This allows us to consider
important social changes that have occurred and religious adaptations that have resulted.
Two key aspects of society today are the media and sport. Both are rarely taken
seriously by students of religion, aspects of popular culture not seen as “serious” as
religion. Yet, excessive association of religion with houses of worship was the actual
starting point of Luckmann’s classic 1967 study of “invisible religions,” where this
emphasis was said to narrow the field of the sociology of religion at the same time
organized religion was dropping in influence. Thus, Luckmann argued that stress should
be laid on the individual’s struggle for meaningful existence in society – a struggle which
is fundamentally religious. If we focus only on institutionalized forms, we will miss the
key religious activity going on in society today. Much of religion has become privatized,
as people work out religious solutions for themselves on their own terms.
Last, several social scientists maintain that religion is undergoing significant
transformation as new forms are emerging. Some of these are non-theistic, even lacking a
supernatural dimension. Hence, many sociologists prefer to call these “quasi-religious
phenomena,” or “functional alternatives to religion.” Whatever the name, various value
perspectives provide many people with a sense of purpose in life and a center of worth.
When any ideology or value system becomes a meaning system – one that defines the
meaning of life, death, suffering, and injustice – it usually takes on a sacred cast in the
eyes of adherents. By looking to traditional religious forms, we miss these important new
phenomena.
Religion and the “Old” Media:
While study of radio/TV and religion had begun in the 1950’s, sociological
research really took off with the advent of “televangelism” in the 1970s-1980s. In those
days, TV preachers were prominent. Even as televangelism (and its scandals) has dialed
back a lot since then, broader concerns about the relationship between religion and media
have been addressed by sociologists.
Hoover (2009) observed that media is fundamentally technological, so
technological change plays an important role in all this. Thus, our review of religion and
the media will survey the evolution of media technologies, in conjunction with their
economic, political, and social environments.
1
Print Publishing:
Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press in 1440 was perhaps the most
important technological development of the millennium, impacting all of the major
institutions of society. Indeed, the so-called Gutenberg Bible was the first major book
printed, playing a central role in both ushering in the print revolution and impacting the
practice of religion itself.
Before this time, the hierarchies of religion controlled what was disseminated as
truth. The common (usually illiterate) member of local churches had no basis for
challenging the Pope or other ecclesiastical leaders – who were the authority. Then
Martin Luther used the printed word to challenge them. He claimed the Bible alone was
the ultimate source of truth and religious authority. He asserted that church leaders were
to be believed only insofar as they were faithful to the scriptures. Luther used the printed
word to spread his version of Christian truth, doing so with a vengeance. He not only
wrote more than other dissenters, but out-published the entire legion of Vatican
defenders. He published in the common languages of the people, launching the Protestant
Reformation. It is unlikely this could have happened without the printing press.
Religious publishing today remains a vibrant cultural and economic phenomenon,
with net sales of $658 million in 2009, and modest growth of 2.4% from 2002. Given the
poor economic climate, this actually more than doubled the overall rate of growth in the
publishing industry (down 1.1% in the same period). As in Gutenberg’s time, Bibles lead
the way, but fiction and self-help blockbusters also contribute to this market (e.g. the
“Left Behind” series; “The Purpose Driven Life.”)
Radio:
Commercial radio began in the 1920’s and, though very expensive, by 1930 40%
of all U.S. households owned one. This accelerated as prices dropped, such that 83%
owned a radio by 1940, and almost all did by 1950.
As broadcast licenses required broadcasters to carry some programming directed
at the public interest, some religious programming was available from the start. There
were many different shows, denominations, and evangelists represented. By 1946 Time
Magazine characterized “radio religion” as a “national institution,” one that was
“preached to an estimated congregation of ten million.”
Excluded from this national institution, however, were evangelical Protestants.
Radio stations gave their free public interest time only to mainstream Protestant,
Catholic, and Jewish groups. Unable to take advantage of the free airtime, entrepreneurial
Protestants bought airtime for their own programs and thereby helped to transform the
religious orientation of the American mass media in an evangelical direction. In less
affluent areas of the world today, radio still remains the predominant vehicle for the
dissemination of religious ideas.
2
Televangelism:
In 1950, while 96% of U.S. households had a radio, only 9% owned a TV. As
TV’s became widely available in that decade, religious broadcasting began to migrate, in
large part, to television. Then, in 1960, the FCC ruled that TV stations could count paid
programming toward their “public interest” contribution – effectively opening the door
for entrepreneurial mass media evangelists, who built upon their radio and revivalist
predecessors.
Thus, Billy Graham appeared on air with a format resembling a cross between a
worship service and a revival meeting, aided by support from publisher William
Randolph Hearst. Oral Roberts, in contrast, was an innovative showman, introducing a
variety of formats, using a wide range of entertainment forms, and showing the value of
flexibility of material to meet changing markets. He also discovered that if a televangelist
wants to raise money, build buildings (e.g. Oral Roberts University, Oral Roberts School
of Medicine). A good deal of this money, despite outlandish pleas, was used to support
“other projects” and broadcast costs – for which he was eventually challenged. Rex
Humbard, in turn, innovated by creating an intensely personal style, a family format,
sharing personal troubles and feelings publicly – which was a highly profitable approach.
So much so that he built a cathedral specially designed and equipped for broadcasting.
Other televangelists have developed their own distinctive styles, theological
orientations, and formats, yet each has built on these early formulations. Without them,
their empires would probably not exist. Further, this legacy has encouraged religious
leaders to be entrepreneurs, and most would consider this a compliment. This is in sharp
contrast to many mainline clergy, who would find this an insulting metaphor for the care
giving they do.
The importance of televangelism as a resource to shape the larger culture depends
in part on the nature of the audience. How large is it and who is watching? Data are hard
to pin down (with estimates ranging from 10 to 130 million viewers). While there are
many variables to consider, we do know that in 1986 more than 15 million households a
week tuned into religious broadcasts, dropping to 9.5 million in 1992. Still, the number of
local religious TV stations grew from 25 in 1980 to 339 in 1990. By 1996 one report
indicated that 16% of all TV stations were religious in character. Yet, because of
separation of church and state, they are not overseen by the government and many are not
part of umbrella organizations, again making complete figures difficult to pin down.
Nevertheless, viewership appears to be considerably higher and religious programming
more widely accepted in the U.S. than other Western countries in the northern
hemisphere.
Those viewers who send money to support programming tend to increase their
level of commitment. By making an investment they develop a sense of loyalty to the
organization. Top televangelists bring in tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars a
year to finance their programs and projects. The electronic church has a committed core.
3
Another issue with this audience has to do with who they are. Viewers tend to be
already evangelical in orientation. Televangelists claim to be fulfilling the great
commission of spreading the Gospel, enabling them to reach people who otherwise might
never have heard of Christ. Yet, research shows televangelism has little persuasive
impact in converting degenerates: most viewers are already sympathetic to the basic
philosophy in the first place. It is not that religious broadcasting is insignificant, but that
it serves essentially as a reinforcer and a plausibility structure for those already
committed.
Televangelism, of course, has come under heavy criticism for several reasons. Not
only have there been abuses of the fund received (e.g. how much goes to feed the sick,
support the needy and dispossessed?), but critics stress that televised Christianity erodes
support for local churches.
Mainline denominations and the National Council of Churches complain about
money and members. On the one hand they claim that many people simply stay home and
watch televised worship rather than attend and contribute in other ways to their local
congregations. It is feared as an easy alternative that threatens the viability of individual
churches.
Yet research shows the gratifications received from TV services is different from
those received from attending church. For example, experiencing solemnity and
atmosphere, praying to God, experiencing God’s presence, feeling forgiven,
demonstrating solidarity with values, and getting a sense of distance from everyday
worries are all facilitated more by actually attending services. In fact, those who watch
religious programming actually attend services more often than non-viewers (Wuthnow,
1987; Bibby, 1987). Only among the very elderly is religious TV a substitute.
Then there is the money. Yet, despite fears, most research shows that money
given to religious television programs is not in lieu of contributions to nearby
congregations. They are donations made over and above the local church pledge and do
not normally involve and decline in hometown contributions. The only exception are the
very elderly and disabled who find it difficult to attend in the first place.
Thus, the fears of mainline denominations are largely unfounded. While there
may be some small dent, the impact of televangelism on their “bucks and bodies” appears
to be quite small. They seem to be competing in the same market.
Arguably, the heyday of televangelism was the 1980s, with serious scandals
undermining their cultural influence and social support by the 1990s (e.g. Jimmy
Swaggart’s prostitution scandal, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker’s fraud, conspiracy, and
embezzlement charges). By 2000, as well, many of the founding fathers of televangelism
had either died, gradually withdrawn from ministry, or faced debt problems. Beyond that,
the old models don’t seem to be working that well anymore – except in the global south.
Instead, successful megachurches adopt some of their innovations, some even have
4
broadcasts, but their efforts are as much oriented to the local congregation as the TV
audience.
Religion and the “New Media”
Some argue that the digital revolution will create a generation gap like never seen
before. This raises the possibility of a religious gap as well – one based on relative
connection to new media. Among other things, internet usage has been skyrocketing, and
such technological changes create new opportunities for the practice of religion. People
have been using new media for religious purposes from the beginning, with many groups
setting up home pages, establishing online communities and chat groups – an online
spiritual bazaar. Indeed, if many younger people today are digital natives, a significant
part of their native culture is religious. Yet Bunt (2009) notes that new technology holds
transformative potential for religions, but cautions that there are dangers in
overemphasizing the transformative powers of the Internet in the area of religion. It may
be that, for both producers and consumers, much religion online is quite conventional.
Religion Online: Producing and Accessing Information:
The bulk of online religious activity involves information about religion accessed
through networks. Religious organizations put information online, and internet users seek
it out. In this sense, the Internet stands in a continuous relationship with other media
coming before it – a media for transmitting information to consumers.
The National Congregations Study show that the proportion of congregations with
a website grew from 18% (1998) to 44% (2007). Approximately 10,000 congregations a
year are adding websites, skewed heavily toward larger congregations (74% of which
have one). E-mail communication with members grew from 21% (1998) to 59% (2007).
The increase in the percentage of congregants doing so is even higher (31% to 79%).
Because of their greater resources, evangelism, and marketing orientation, megachurches
rate even higher (nearly all had a website and used e-mail back in 2000).
This growing online presence of congregations raises the issue of how
congregations actually use the internet. An early Pew study found they were largely
doing so for informational purposes (Larsen, 2000). Congregations most commonly saw
their websites as places to encourage visitors to attend (83%), to post mission statements,
sermons, or other texts about their faith (77%), to link to denominational and faith related
sites (76%) or scriptural/devotional material (60%), and to post things like schedules,
meeting minutes, or internal communications (56%). The more interactive capacities of
the web were the least common, including prayer requests (18%), signing up for
classes/programs (8%), fund raising (5%), webcast worship (4%), and discussion groups
(3%).
The Pew study asked people what they would like to see, but the answers were
really quite conventional, emphasizing the informational (photos, youth group material)
5
over the interactive. It would be really interesting to see a more recent follow-up study to
examine how things have changed.
Yet, congregational websites are just one way that religion goes online, maybe not
the most important. That is because the media sphere can be a location for the making of
religion in many ways independent from religious doctrines, institutions, and history. Just
as satellite broadcasting democratized TV, computers and the internet democratize the
ability to produce and consume information. The new media lowers barriers to entry,
making it easier for all groups, including religious ones, to have a public media presence.
The web is the ultimate spiritual marketplace. In 2004 Brasher reported over a million
religion websites of incredible diversity, and there are far more than that now. This
democratizing dynamic can be seen most clearly in the robust web presence of NRMs.
Online religion involves one source and many recipients. In this sense, one looks
at how people access the information provided. One approach is to consider how they use
search engines to access religious information. Jansen et.al. (2010) found that most
search terms employed are associated with established, mainstream religions. Another
angle is to ask people how they use the internet. Hoover et.al (2004) found that 64% of
Americans use the net for faith related reasons (e.g. e-mail, greeting cards, news,
information on religious holiday practices, finding local services, online prayer requests,
or making charitable donations). Yet is important not to overstate all of this. Cowan
(2007), considering the same data, found only 5% use the web in this way on any given
day.
Ultimately, most are using the internet to develop and express their personal or
religious beliefs, but are not true religious seekers. Instead, the cultivation of their
personal faith online helps cement their pre-existing beliefs and institutional attachments.
Despite other possibilities, it seems to be operating as a supplement rather than a
substitute, functioning in much the same way televangelism did. Indeed, this is perfectly
in sync with the way most religious groups are currently using the web. As Bunt (2009)
put it: the “spiritual supermarket now has an online checkout.” Most religious groups are
thus not ready to give up the shop and move their entire operations online, nor do they
have to in order to meet spiritual demand.
Online Religion: Practicing Faith on the Web:
Yet standing in contrast to “religion online” is what scholars call “online
religion.” Cowan (2007) defined this as “the various ways in which religious faith is
practiced over computer mediated networks.” The Pew research suggests some of the
ways that people engage religion more interactively online (e.g. sending cards, prayer
requests), though these are not as common as that discussed above.
One of the most common forms of online religion is to prayer sites. Many simply
allow people to submit prayer requests, while others are more interactive (e.g. “Light a
Candle,” which takes users through a series of screens, touching dedications, and
meditations as they progress).
6
Another example involves a 24 hour webcam at the Western Wall of the ancient
Jewish temple in Jerusalem – which many see as the most important prayer site for Jews.
In this sense, those who cannot afford to visit can still partake of the tradition by writing
prayers to be placed inside the cracks of the wall by filling in a form on the Virtual
Jerusalem website. This will be then taken down to the real wall by staff.
Then there is Second Life, which enables people to create “avatars,” representing
themselves, to live “second” lives in the virtual world. Beyond having things like houses
and jobs, they sometimes attend religious services as well. It is essentially a user
generated world, and services take place in meeting houses designed and created – from a
great variety of religious traditions – on this site. Of course, some religions are bigger
than others in this online world, even with real, existing megachurches setting up a
presence (“Lifechurch”). In this sense, the same simulcast video that unites the church’s
various physical campuses in the real world is streamed into the Second Life sanctuary as
well. Other mainline denominations have followed suit. Islam has done the same with a
replica of the holy site in Mecca, such that a pilgrim can even perform the pilgrimage
online.
Such online religion developments are relatively new, so not much research has
been published on how people experience faith in these contexts. How authentic are these
religious experiences? Are they as sustainable over time as face to face interactions? How
will economic costs and technological limits affect their durability into the future? These
are just some of the questions sociologists will be trying to answer in the future.
As well, we must be aware that religion online and online religion are not
mutually exclusive, but more points on a continuum. Most websites are in the middle,
providing information and allowing some interactivity. Social media will certainly have
an impact on the ratio of information to activity. While currently the weight tips heavily
in the direction of religion online over online religion, that may change. Nonetheless, it is
important to bear this continuum in mind and not fall into false binary thinking when
considering any incarnation of internet religion.
7