CMRC - Faith on TV

TV. Nothing on, but I am watching it. Again. At least it is educational this time.

I'm not going to get into a Marshall McLuhan discussion, but TV is a mirror of our society. It shows us something about our society, even as it shapes us, and is shaped by us (that I like Cake Boss has the potential to shape me literally!)

There were a number of papers on religion and TV at the Media, Religion and Culture conference, but I'll just share a couple. Faiza Hirji examined whether the portrayal of Muslim women was changing on TV. She looked at shows like 24, Lost, The Border and Little Mosque on the Prairie. She found that there were more Muslim women portrayed in these programs, but moving from the stereotype of oppressed / exploited, to now frequently associated with terror. Not exactly progress. Little Mosque had better roles, but still presented a monolithic image of Islam (there is only one type of Islam, and by extension, one type of Muslim woman.) Faiza is correct: Islam is not the unified religion often portrayed in the media, anymore than Christianity is one group. Islam has both Sunni and Shi'a, and then each of these has divisions. Not all Muslims live out their faith in the same way, male or female. Do these programs reflect the diversity of Islam, or have they only exchanged one set of stereotypes for a new set?

Jorie Lagerwey's paper "By the Gods of Kobal" began with the premise that "narrowcasting" allows TV to explore religious questions that the broadcasting networks would never attempt. Cable specialty channels like Space and SciFi target specific viewers that might be more open to challenging the traditional ideas about religion. Jorie examined Lost (what is with this show and social scientists?) and Battlestar Galactica (yes, the new one, though the old one did explore religious themes as well). Battlestar certainly engaged religious questions, and generated lots of theological discussion online (e.g. 1, 2, 3). The religious imagery is hardly subtle. But it does suggest that the unlike the baby boomer generations, the younger generations are asking some powerful questions about faith, belief and religion. 1.6 million viewers ages 18-45 tuned in to watch the season finally. Not bad for "narrowcasting." Too bad about the ending.

Whether it is the portrayal of the "other's religion" or asking old questions in new ways, people are wrestling with belief and its implications. Is TV a mirror or manipulator? From a more personal stance, so many Christian churches I know are still working from the belief that "no on cares about religion anymore." Umm, no, just not as keen to go to church anymore; but the religion conversation is in full swing. Maybe its time to join it.

Next time religion and comic books...and no not Archie comics. Not even close.

Read More

The taxman has spoken...to be or not to be a church.

Group's Internet and Radio Worship does not meet IRS definition of a church.

A friend forwarded this story to me today (thanks Nick). Apparently all the theological debate about virtual church has been for naught; the IRS had a definition of a true church after all. The U.S Appeals Court (pdf) recently upheld a decision of the Federal Circuit Court that determined that The Foundation of Human Understanding's radio and internet ministry did not meet the definition of church. Here are the fourteen criteria of "church" that have been adopted by the IRS and applied in this case (Foundation I, 88 T.C. at 1357):

(1) a distinct legal existence;
(2) a recognized creed and form of worship;
(3) a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government;
(4) a formal code of doctrine and discipline;
(5) a distinct religious history;
(6) a membership not associated with any other church or denomination;
(7) an organization of ordained ministers;
(8) ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies;
(9) a literature of its own;
(10) established places of worship;
(11) regular congregations;
(12) regular religious services;
(13) Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young; and
(14) schools for the preparation of its ministers.

The court also applied the "associational test." This test defines a church as "an organization that includes a body of believers who assemble regularly for communal worship." (p. 5) This has been an important test in court cases that have determined that not every organization that is religious constitutes a church. As this decision argues, the religious organization must provide "the opportunity for members to develop a fellowship by worshipping together" and that a "church’s principal means of accomplishing its religious purposes must be to assemble regularly a group of individuals related by common worship and faith." (p. 8).

In this case, the court found that "the Foundation did not provide regular religious services to an established congregation and concluded that "[t]he extent to which [the] Foundation brings people together to worship is incidental to its main function" of spreading its message through publication and broadcasting." Foundation II, 88 Fed. Cl. at 234.

One issue that did arise in this decision is that these definitions implicitly preference certain groups and types of associations, though this appears not to be addressed. In the digital age it does raise questions: How does this impact virtual congregations? What if you meet both on and offline? Do all the meetings need to be face to face? What does it mean to gather? What is a fellowship? Most of us have common sense answers to those questions. But as I have noted before there are those who contest those answers. My grandmother is not able to regularly attend church in person, particularly in the winter, but she watches her church's services televised on local TV with a friend. Did she attend church last Sunday?

For now the tax man has spoken, and although this case is precedent setting, be sure it isn't the last to explore "what is a church?"

Read More

Media and Religion and Culture, Oh my!

Imagine getting paid to watch all the episodes of Battlestar Galactica? Or Lost? Or Little Mosque of the Prairie? Or maybe reading blogs all day long?

So, day four of the 7th International Conference of Media, Religion and Culture. I've so far attended 1 plenary session and 27 papers. My head is getting full!

Did you know that "narrowcasting" (cable/subscription TV) allows issues of religion and faith to be explored in ways that could never happen in broadcast TV. Battlestar Galactica is a good example where the dichotomy between faith/science was played out.

Guess what? If your church puts up a generic website that soft peddles what you believe, in order to not offend potential seekers, they'll only turn off your surfers. A good example is the United Church of Canada's WonderCafe project. People are at your site to find out what you believe, so tell them!

So how do you subscribe to an Orthodox Jewish community website? More than knowing Hebrew, you should also know the neighbourhood.

How about what digital storytelling can tell you about your Church/Synagogue Youth Group's identity? What is their group all about and how is that a part of who they are?

Is there such a distinction between offline and online? Are the boundaries breaking down? What about religion; is the online and offline beginning to share the same space?

These and more questions explored in upcoming blogposts. Now time to take in some of the Toronto sights.

Read More

Culture Shock and Community

Over the long weekend we were camping down near Mahone Bay. On Sunday we set out to find a church to attend, and ended up at New Cornwall United Baptist Church.

A small church, but certainly friendly and full this Sunday. In many respects it is a very traditional evangelical protestant congregation: a one room church, with an electric organ, and a traditional service with familiar doxology and hymns. After the children's story they head down stairs for Junior Church. Likely little has changed in the nature of worship there since its founding in 1898.

For me it was familiar territory; I know the hymns and Scriptures. I can easy navigate that culture. My children however have been raised most of their lives in churches with contemporary worship. Choruses not hymns. Simple orders of service. Video clips and PowerPoint. And doxologies? Not if it bit them on the nose, would they recognize them. Don't even ask about the Apostle's Creed or Lord's Prayer.

The reality is that the majority of evangelical, protestant Christian churches in North America are like New Cornwall. Small rural or semi-rural communities, anchored in centuries old traditions. The kinds of traditions that feel familiar and comfortable when you return to them. Traditions that tether you back to churches of by-gone days.

I do wonder about my children though. Perhaps the contemporary service styles are more appealing and meaningful to them. But as music styles (and gimmicks) change, what legacies will they have to hang onto? Proponents of new worship styles argue that traditional worship is not culturally relevant. But are we raising a generation of new worshipers who are now culturally at odds with the rest (read majority) of protestant Christendom. In twenty years on their own camping trip, will they enter a small rural church like New Cornwall, and feel for a few minutes that they have somehow come home. Or will it be a strange and foreign place.

Read More