It’s interesting to explore the reasons why one denomination or religion might use media more effectively than another. Is it a matter money? Or is it a matter of the skills and interests of those in charge? Or is it something more illusive? In short, why does one group use television to spread the word far and wide, and another continue to worship almost exclusively in buildings.
I explored these questions many years ago when television was new. But today the media landscape has broadened to include the Internet, websites, email, cell phones, texting, Facebook, Twitter, and more.
So what does determine which groups choose to use media, and which ones don’t? I have found that looking at the basic nature of each medium, and comparing those characteristics to how each group approaches its fundamental religious subject matter, can give us very important clues, if not answers.
Electronic media tend to favor very simple content. Its use normally requires reducing complex ideas to simple message points. For example, too much factual information on television can quickly become boring. Facebook is a vehicle primarily for maintaining relationships and is not an effective communicator of complex ideas. Twitter requires messages to be conveyed in only 140 characters and is a tool that is mostly effective when mobilizing action. Email can inform in short paragraphs. Texting is best at connecting. Cell phones allow talking on the go.
Television is especially interesting because it effectively combines simple messaging with dramatic and emotional experiences. Cameras, editing, scenery, music, pacing and impassioned performance are naturals for television, and denominations and churches that can combine a simple message with these to produce a religious experience find it a natural, and in some cases a primary, medium.
So denominations that see their content in terms of simple clear messages, and find it natural to translate that into more emotional religious experiences, seem to be much more at home with television and other forms of new media. On the other hand, those that see their content as requiring study and interpretation are more likely to find television unsuited to their fundamental nature and approach.
So how does all this relate to extremist religions? Many of these movements use the emotional power of satellite television effectively. All use Facebook and Twitter to build and sustain relationships, and to mobilize action across borders. These are really communities of interests, or subcultures, and they are effectively held together across the globe using social media. And for the most part their content is simple and uncomplicated.
TCU has a religion department and is also affiliated with a divinity school with scholars who study these issues. Recently the divinity school launched a strategic planning process with the underlying theme that the seminary of tomorrow will not look like the seminary today. It will be interesting to see how the use of new media will influence the plan and the future of seminary education.
Religion and media is also a topic for our Honors College Colloquium this fall. We all know that in one way or another our religious beliefs influence everything we think and do. Even though church and state in our country are constitutionally separated, religion finds its way into virtually all matters of our politics and society, and it certainly is at the heart of much international conflict. What role media plays in all this is clearly a central concern for society, and is worthy of our ongoing consideration.
Leave a Reply