Taking The Great
Commission Online
A Study Of American Evangelicals And Their
Appropriation of the Internet
Harrison van der Vliet
3044971
MA Thesis, American Studies Program, Utrecht University
22-06-2012
2
Table of Contents
Introduction
3
Chapter I: Methodology
6
Chapter II: “Evangelical” vs. “Fundamentalist”
10
Chapter III: Religious Broadcasting in the United States
22
Chapter IV: Main Case Study – Focus on the Family
28
Chapter V: Supporting Case Study – The Southern Baptist Convention
46
Conclusion
56
Bibliography
59
3
“Truth is the agreement of our ideas with the ideas of God.”
-- Jonathan Edwards
Introduction
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof...”. This sentence combines the Establishment Clause and Free
Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the American Constitution. They have helped
to shape a unique religious climate, one of its most characterizing traits a competitive
market-like nature. Religion in America is vibrant and very much alive but since the
government is not allowed to support religious institutions they are locked in what might, in
an overly romanticized manner, be named a “battle for souls”.
Comprising of around 30-35% of the American population, evangelical Protestant
Christians, or simply “evangelicals” are one of the country’s major religious movements. A
diverse group consisting of organizations, conventions, congregations, churches and
individual members they are characterized by their socially conservative, theologically
fundamentalist outlook, strong missionary zeal and high level of cultural participation.
In such an uncertain climate attracting, building and maintaining an audience is of crucial
importance. The Internet has changed the face of communication, removing geographical
borders and making instant global contact possible. As a new media platform it allows for
the swift and easy publication of virtually any type of information and is a crucial outreach
tool for modern organizations and companies alike. It is also unmonitored, uncensored
and hard to control.
These two opposing notions formed the basis for the main research question of this thesis.
For American evangelicals the Internet offers, on the one hand, the opportunity to
instantly spread the Gospel to virtually anyone on earth as well as a powerful means of
attracting new potential members. On the other however, its potential risks and dangers
are plenty, ranging from secular critique to pornography and gambling, naming only a few.
This thesis will research how American evangelicals find their balance herein by assessing
their approach to and treatment of the Internet. The resulting main research question for
this thesis is therefore as follows:
4
“How do American evangelicals make use of the Internet?”
Research into the use of past forms of new media by American evangelicals, in particular
their usage of radio and television, has been conducted by a number of prominent
scholars including Steve Bruce, Jeffrey K. Hadden and most notably Quentin J. Schultze.
Other authors, such as George M. Marsden and Barry Hankins, experts in the field of the
interaction between religion and American culture, have covered aspects of it in their work.
Chapter III will provide further insight on this matter.
The amount of previous research done into Internet use among evangelicals is limited
however, making it a new and exciting field of research. In order to facilitate an effective
analysis that is both representative for American evangelicals and takes into account the
scope of this thesis the Internet usage of two major evangelical institutions, Focus on the
Family and The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), will be examined. The former is one
of the most influential American evangelical parachurch organizations, the latter the largest
Protestant denomination in the United States and one of the most powerful proponents of
conservative evangelical Christianity. No previous case studies of a similar nature into
either one of these organizations exist.
Thesis Outline
This thesis will adhere to the Religious Social Shaping of Technology research
methodology developed by Heidi A. Campbell. Chapter I provides an explanation and
justification of this methodology. It also contains an overview of alternative methods used
in past research within this particular field.
Chapter II will explore the terms “evangelical” and “fundamentalism” and provide a
definition for further research by embedding them into a historical background and
reflecting upon recent developments. It also contains a general historical overview of the
emergence and advancement of evangelical Protestantism within the United States and
overview of the contemporary U.S. religious landscape.
Chapter III looks at past evangelical mass media appropriation, in particular that of radio
and television and establishes a general evangelical approach to new media. This chapter
also contains a look at previous research in this field.
5
Chapter IV comprises the main case study in which the Internet use of Focus on the
Family is analyzed.
The second, supporting case study on the Southern Baptist Convention is discussed in
Chapter V.
The conclusion, will combine the individual findings of Chapters II and
III and both case studies and answer the main research question.
6
CHAPTER I: Methodology
This thesis will, when analyzing the use of the Internet by religious communities, follow the
religious-social shaping of technology (RSST) approach as provided by Heidi A.
Campbell.1 This method is built upon the basic principles of the social shaping of
technology (SST) theory, a new media method first put forward by MacKenzie and
Wajcman in 1985.2 SST considers technology the result of an interactive process between
social factors and technological development, where users (agents) and social spheres
affect and shape the development of technology and vice versa. This view opposes the
notion that technological development is a secluded process that takes place inevitably
and regardless of its social surroundings.3
Technology enables users since it is invented with the user in mind. In other words,
technology provides certain means demanded by those using it. This implies that it also
shapes the user’s decision-making process in dealing with if they accept and how they
then use the newly available means. What follows is a process of negotiation both on an
individual level, as well as on a communal level in which new technology is eventually
domesticated; it is commoditized, appropriated and converted into an instrument suited to
specifically fit the individual’s and in turn community’s social and moral sphere and needs. 4
Choices made in this process are guided and motivated by a number of community
specific values.
Campbell argues that religious communities are unlike many other social communities, as
their moral sphere is built upon a special combination of shared beliefs, history and
culture. These are combined with a particular relationship with community, authority and
text. These elements collectively influence the treatment of new media in a manner that
differs from non-religious communities. While the latter might share equally important
history or cultural artifacts, their morals and therefore their approach lack a grounding in a
guiding faith and are not informed by any possible form of inalterable dogma. 5 Another
factor that sets religious communities apart from secular ones, is the fact that they will
often allow particular spiritual and theological (moral) practices to influence the negotiation
1
Heidi A. Campbell, When Religion Meets New Media (London: Routledge, 2010).
Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wacjman, The Social Shaping of Technology: How the Refrigerator Got Its
Hum (Milton Keynes: UK Open University, 1985).
3 Campbell, When Religion Meets New Media, 50.
4 Ibidem, 51.
5 Ibidem, 59.
2
7
process with new media.6 For instance, a religious community might opt to not provide an
e-mail address for the head of a congregation, as it is customary to seek advice from him
or her through his or her direct assistants. Alternatively, a religious community might start
a weekly online chat-session with him or her, as their tradition informs them that such a
meeting has been held offline ever since the community’s founding.
It might be argued that Campbell’s RSST approach is equally useful for research into new
media uses among communities that are not religious, but share similar values, for
instance a strongly ideological political party or a university sorority or fraternity with a firm
emphasis on tradition. Her method is nonetheless valuable for research into Internet use
by evangelicals.
In the past, research into the engagement of religious communities with new media has
been done using a few different methods. Campbell refers to the article “The Media of
Popular Piety”7 by John P. Ferre when assessing these.8 She first mentions an approach
where media serves as a mere conduit, a neutral form of communication, one that is in this
case used to deliver religious messages. While useful when attempting to analyze the
many divergent possible uses of media technology, it lacks the ability to reflect on how
religious communities think about particular forms of new media and how their respective
beliefs impact on their use of it. New media has also been considered to be a “mode of
knowing”. Here it is considered to “have its own set of biases and values, based on its
history and production processes”.9 When applied to the study of religious communities
and new media this meant that on many occasions researchers have considered media to
force a particular (often secular) worldview upon members of these communities.
Technology is considered a tool through which social change can be shaped and wrought,
in turn presenting many new media technologies as promoting values and behavior that
run counter to those of religious communities. The problem that arises when treating new
media in this manner is twofold; firstly it accepts media technology as a pre-configured
force with inherent bias, shaped by its most powerful controllers and secondly it postulates
that the only possibility for religious communities is to either fully reject or completely
accept new media technology, leaving no gray area of nuance. A final approach
6
Campbell, When Religion Meets New Media, 59.
John P. Ferre, “The Media of Popular Piety” in Mediating Religion: Conversations in Media, Religion and
Culture, ed. Jolyon Mitchell et al. (London: T&T Clark LTD, 2003).
8 Campbell, When Religion Meets New Media, 44.
9 Ibidem, 45.
7
8
implemented in the past put the human element, instead of the technological
advancement, at the center of the interaction with new media. Media was considered to be
a social institution and needed to be “understood in terms of their systems of production as
well as the user’s reception of the form and content.”10
The RSST approach emphasizes that religious communities do not simply accept or reject
new media technologies available to them. Instead they assess and evaluate them,
contrasting them to their morals, beliefs, history and tradition and determining if the
community might benefit from the implementation of particular elements, while carefully
avoiding those that might potentially have a damaging or counter-productive effect.
Technology might even be partially reinvented in order to make it function within the
communal boundaries.
The RSST method relies on the examination of four distinct areas of interest which, when
combined, result in an effective framework for the study of new media use by religious
communities. First, the unique history and tradition of a community demand study as they
inform the communal standards adhered to and explain why these were set in the past.
This research also includes previous processes of negotiation undergone by the
community when dealing with forms of new media. Secondly, an analysis of the
community’s core beliefs is necessary in order to ground a model of the contemporary
context; by examining the essential values of a religious community insight is provided into
how these beliefs shape communal decision-making when dealing with new media.
Thirdly, the negotiation process is examined by assessing the shape and role the about-tobe implemented form of new media takes; what choices are made and why, what value is
given to the new technology or where and with whom does the authority to make final
decisions lie? Finally, once the technology is implemented, an examination of its promotion
is required. How are members of the community confronted with the new technology and
what purpose is it said to have? How is its implementation justified and what guidelines for
its use are provided? What responses emerge and how are they dealt with? In other
words, if possible, the researcher has to establish what communal discourse results from
the adopting of the new media technology? 11
10
11
Campbell, When Religion Meets New Media, 48.
Ibidem, 61-62.
9
By employing the religious-social shaping of technology approach, this thesis aims to gain
insight into all aspects of Internet use among American evangelicals.
Multiple attempted inquiries into both Focus’s and the SBC’s Internet approach, apparent
decisions and overall online strategy, with the organizations themselves through e-mail
have unfortunately not yielded any official response. As such these cannot be integrated
into the research.
10
CHAPTER II:
Introduction to Chapter II
Before presenting the case studies two concepts need to be researched, considered and
defined in order to avoid confusion over their meaning in subsequent paragraphs. These
terms are “evangelical/evangelicalism” and “fundamentalist/fundamentalism”. They require
proper analysis, contextualization and explanation as they are often used side-by-side or
in a similar, overlapping manner.
It is crucial to realize that these terms are part of a complex and sometimes confusing
system that is used to distinguish between various religious communities and movements
within the United States. As we will see, definitions of both terms vary depending on
whether they are employed from an external perspective by academics and researchers or
from an internal one by evangelical Christians themselves. By embedding the terms into
their historical background and simultaneously reflecting upon recent (etymological)
developments this chapter will aim to provide clarification.
Additionally it will offer an important general historical overview of the emergence and
development of evangelical Protestantism in the United States. This will in turn provide a
common terminological framework for both case studies, and allow case-specific
background provided within the individual studies to be placed within a larger historical
context. An overview of the present-day U.S. religious landscape will be provided as well.
“Evangelical” vs. “Fundamentalist”
“Evangelical” and “evangelicalism”, like “fundamentalist” and “fundamentalism”, are terms
used to describe religious movements. Such a movement is a network of individuals and
groups that is informally organized and where all members share some common history
and a number of common characteristics.12 While within one movement a multitude of
smaller sub-movements may exist with sometimes strongly divergent beliefs, seeing them
as one collective allows for certain general observations and statements to be made, such
as:
12
George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1991), 2.
11
An American fundamentalist is an evangelical who is militant in opposition to
liberal theology in the churches or to changes in cultural values or mores, such
as those associated with secular humanism.13
The problem with this particular statement lies in the fact that it has little meaning as long
as we cannot provide a clear definition of what classifies either a group or an individual as
“evangelical”. This, unfortunately, is not very easy.
In history, “evangelical” is a term often used to describe a number of religious revivalist
movements present in both the United States and England during the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries.14 In the U.S., this takes us back to a period later named “The First
Great Awakening”; estimated to have begun around 1730. The period was marked by an
enormous rise in the amount of religious activity and interest in America, and is often seen
as an important step towards the development of modern American religion. 15 Revivalism
was a new style of simple biblical preaching which “would elicit dramatic conversion
experiences” and in doing so shaped much of American Protestantism in general, as well
as its most characteristic forms.16 The key revivalist principle and message centered
around “Christ’s saving work through his death on the cross” and focused on the urgent
message of “personally choosing” Jesus Christ as one’s savior.17 The strong emphasis on
consciously accepting Jesus Christ, often a sudden and immediate event, is known as
“being born again” and has been called “conversionism”. The specific emphasis on Christ’s
crucifixion, death, resurrection and Second Coming, as opposed to his life and moral or
spiritual teachings, is sometimes known as “crucicentrism”.18
After the American Revolution American society underwent drastic changes; an increase
in population, rapid agricultural development, industrial growth and territorial expansion.19
A continuing development of American evangelicalism is assumed to have taken place
during this period; the “Second Great Awakening”. By now the term evangelical had come
13
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 1.
Ibidem, 2.
15 Martin E. Marty, Pilgrims in Their Own Land. 500 Years of Religion in America (New York: Penguin 1984),
110.
16 Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 2.
17 Marty, Pilgrims in Their Own Land, 110 and Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and
Evangelicalism, 2.
18 Barry Hankins, American Evangelicals: A Contemporary History of a Mainstream Religious Movement
(Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield 2008), 2-6.
19 David Chidester, Christianity, A Global History (London: Penguin 2000), 435.
14
12
to describe an extensive and broad coalition, including many different denominations,
united mainly in their collective emphasis on saving the world for Christ. 20
Diverging theories exist on the state of religious activity in America during this second half
of the nineteenth century. According to the so-called “declension motif”, religious interest
was waning, mainly as a result of the Civil War and Enlightenment deism.21 It estimates
that towards the end of the 19th century a meager 10% of the population were religiously
affiliated.22 The Second Great Awakening signaled a response to this new state of affairs
in American society. More recently however scholars have come to question this theory
and many now believe that the revivals never truly diminished but were simply
overshadowed by the Civil War and that they merely emerged more publicly again
afterwards.23
Following this concept, the belief developed that Protestantism was in fact doing well
during and after the Civil War, or at least so it seemed to the outside world. America was
considered by many to be a “Christian nation” and was based on and guided by Protestant
principles. Instead of declining due to secularization, religion in America had been kept
alive and was driven forward by evangelical leaders and evangelical unity among
members of varying denominations. Large Protestant denominations even saw their
membership triple between 1860 and 1900.24
There were problems however, caused by emerging “higher criticism” of the Bible,
urbanization and the subsequent modernization of American society in general. Faith in
the absolute integrity of the Bible, one of the fundamental concepts of the evangelical
outlook, was decreasing as a result of increasing intellectual criticism targeting its historic
accurateness.25 Urbanization led to a loosening of the tight Protestant community bonds,
which had influenced much of local town-life, and immigration forced Protestants to accept
religious pluralism in their direct surroundings when Catholics and Jews also settled in the
20
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 3.
Alec R. Vidler, The Church in an Age of Revolution [The Penguin History of the Church, Vol. 5] (London:
Penguin 1990) (orig. 1962), 237 and Hankins, American Evangelicals: A Contemporary History of a
Mainstream Religious Movement, 12.
22 Vidler, The Church in an Age of Revolution, 237.
23 Hankins, American Evangelicals: A Contemporary History of a Mainstream Religious Movement, 12.
24 Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 11-12.
25 Ibidem, 12-13.
21
13
newly founded cities.26 Combined with an ongoing wave of secularization affecting all of
American society, including academics, science and politics these developments began
pushing religion out of a considerable amount of everyday American life.
The new revivalist movement was lead by a number of influential men including Henry
Ward Beecher, Dwight L. Moody and Charles Finney, who traveled the country preaching
and emphasizing the need for personal, individual conversion and “being born again”.
Their activities were characterized by a strong “crusading spirit and a mood of apocalyptic
expectation” and resulted in a multitude of revivalist gatherings with loudly sermoning
preachers that saw people fainting, shaking, shouting, crying and laughing. 27 Not all
revivalist gatherings were this sensational; men like Moody worked by creating a warm,
relaxed atmosphere where people felt safe. Their goal was similar however; saving as
many souls as they possibly could, marking an important shift within American
evangelicalism. From a previously pessimistic view, guided by the growing influence of
“pre-millennialism” (the notion that the world neither could nor would be improved until
Jesus’ return on earth), to a more optimistic outlook emphasizing that while no true change
could be wrought until Jesus returned, attempts to save as many people as possible
should still be undertaken.28
The conflict over slavery in America had a profound influence not only on the development
of American (racialized) society; it affected the religious landscape in an equally drastic
manner.29 The schism between North and South resulted in churches and preachers
falling in line with the dominant congregational or denominational view on their respective
sides; Northern preachers condemned slaves whereas in the South biblical grounds on
which slavery could be justified were quickly established.30 The influence and role of
evangelical Christianity among African Americans on both sides was tremendous, along
with kinship it became the only source of positive empowerment. Evangelical Christianity
was in the eyes of many black Americans a gospel of liberation and it considered the Bible
completely race neutral. It provided them with a means of separation and organization and
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 13-15 and E. Brooks Holifield, God’s
Ambassadors: A History of the Christian Clergy in America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007).
27 Chidester, Christianity, A Global History, ‘American Zion’, 435 and Vidler, The Church in an Age of
Revolution, 237.
28 George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 22.
29 Marty, Pilgrims in Their Own Land. , 111.
30 Vidler, The Church in an Age of Revolution, 238 and E. Brooks Holifield, God’s Ambassadors: A History of
the Christian Clergy in America.
26
14
a spiritual well of meaning and hope.31 The church, one of the institutions that was allowed
to fully be self operated by African Americans, became the center of communal life, a
function it still holds today.32
From the First Great Awakening up until the late 19th century most Protestant
denominations in America had an evangelical touch, even though internally denominations
often held diverging opinions on the extent to which evangelical influences were deemed
appropriate.33 The overarching Protestant tone was still one of optimism and progress.
Underneath the surface however conflicting views on politics, revivalism, social reform and
most crucially the understanding of the Christian gospel had developed to a point where
they could no longer be ignored.34 Another related change, the result of a slow process
that had begun in the eighteenth and emerged more evidently during the nineteenth
century, was a gradual split between on the one hand those Protestants adhering to a
more traditional European, confessional Protestantism and on the other hand those
favoring revivalism. For the former creeds and rituals were important, faith was less
directly related to everyday problems, the congregation was seen as one body and
conversion was considered a long, ongoing process, while evangelicalism strictly focused
on the individual and personal, emphasized social activism and in which conversion
became a single crucially important happening. The more traditional Protestants came to
be known as the “Mainline Churches”, while evangelicalism developed into a movement of
its own that showed little to no regard for the institutionalized church. The local
congregation was considered convenient, but the individual lived at the heart of
everything, which in turn also caused a general lack of strong denominational loyalty. 35
The main source of the conflict about to emerge was the growing influence of liberal,
modernist thought on Protestant theology. Its aim was to effectively counter the influence
of secularized, intellectual criticism of the Bible, which had become the accepted academic
standard in America. Modernist theology would, by stressing the necessity of freeing
Protestant thought from tradition and adjusting it to the modern world, re-justify Christian
beliefs in an intellectual and socially acceptable manner.36 One of the core methods by
31
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 46-48.
Ibidem, 48-50 and Marty, Pilgrims in Their Own Land, 112.
33 Hankins, American Evangelicals: A Contemporary History of a Mainstream Religious Movement,14.
34 Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 31-32.
35 Ibidem, 27, 30 & 81.
36 Ibidem, 33 and Hankins, American. Evangelicals: A Contemporary History of a Mainstream Religious
Movement, 19.
32
15
which modernists hoped to achieve this was by “deifying” the historical process; by
claiming that God revealed himself through cultural development as civilization progressed
towards God’s Kingdom.37 The Bible was considered an account of the religious
experience of an ancient people; through the development of science and advancing
civilization its principles could be adhered to as they helped mankind to understand God’s
work. The Bible did not have to be fully accurate, either historically or scientifically, in order
for it be a trustworthy guide.38 Liberal theology also stressed the importance of the moral;
of life over doctrine and the importance of religious feelings of dependence as opposed to
dogmatic faith.39
A conservative evangelical response followed, at first centering on Darwinism, which had
questioned the accuracy of the Bible and had effectively countered what is known as “the
argument from design” (the concept of a creator), used by many scientists beforehand.
Liberals had managed to more or less justify Protestant beliefs despite the effects of
Darwin’s theory but conservatives argued that Darwinism advocated a worldview that
implied the absence of God. The most important debate was that of the truth of the Bible
however. If indeed, as liberal theology suggested, the Bible could contain historical or
scientific errors, then in the eyes of conservatives the foundation of Protestantism would
weaken to the point of crumbling. Several new conservative evangelical movements
emerged, each in an attempt to combat modernist thought. Dispensationalism, which
followed earlier pessimistic pre-millenialist thought, established the idea that humanity had
been put to the test by God and that so far it had failed every single time. Their views were
based on a selectively literal interpretation of the Bible and they stressed its inerrancy; the
belief that the Bible contained no factual errors. Modern culture was seen in an almost
entirely negative light and history was examined solely through a Biblical lens.40 Between
1909 and 1915 dispensationalists published a series of essays, “the Fundamentals”,
containing their attempt at providing an intellectual, conservative response to both
modernism and (higher) criticism alike. Contemporary scholars have argued that, whilst
being a “strong stand against the new trends of evolutionary thought and higher
37
Hankins, American Evangelicals: A Contemporary History of a Mainstream Religious Movement, 19 and
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 33.
38 Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 34.
39 Ibidem, 34-35.
40 Ibidem, 36 & 41.
16
criticism”41, the tracts “did not display any of the aggression against modernists in the
churches that marked the fundamentalism of the 1920s.”42
Alongside dispensationalist conservative thought, the Holiness and Pentecostal
movements emerged. The former stressing, like modernists, the importance of the ethical,
only instead of considering humans naturally capable of doing good and Christianity as the
key to unlocking this, they emphasized the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit and
powerful, dramatic conversion in order to achieve the same goal.43 Pentecostalism
similarly stressed the supernatural and even demanded visible signs of the Holy Spirit at
work, resulting in faith healing and speaking in tongues.
After the First World War, the 1920s saw conservatives officially organize, in order to
combat the further advancing theological liberalism and growing Darwinism. The term
“fundamentalist” came to represent all conservative Protestants willing to relentlessly
attack modernist theological thought and the cultural change it considered to be a positive
development. At the heart were dispensationalist pre-millenialists whose sole goal was to
halt the advance of modernism.44 The resulting conflict between modernists and
conservatives dominated the religious news of the 1920s and resulted in an anti-evolution
crusade and the famous Scopes Trial.
Within many Protestant denominations conflicts broke out between modernists and
conservatives (fundamentalists); especially the Northern Baptist Convention and
Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. were hotbeds of conflict.45 In some cases one of both
camps was much stronger and in these denominations, such as the Southern Baptist
Convention, real conflict was almost absent.46 J. Greshem Machen, a Presbyterian
theologian, became the face of conservative fundamentalism by claiming that modernists
were no longer Christians and had instead begun believing in humanism.47 Modernists
responded by stating that they attempted to save the essence of Christianity.48 After 1925
however, as it became clear that in most denominations finding a middle-ground seemed
to be the preferable option, harsh conflicts apparently faded. Fundamentalism was far from
41
Harriet A. Harris, Fundamentalism and Evangelicals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 28.
Ibidem, 28.
43 Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 39-40.
44 Ibidem, 57.
45 Ibidem, 58.
46 Mark A. Noll et al., Christianity in America: A Handbook (Herts: Lion Publishing, 1983), 378.
47 Ibidem, 379.
48 Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 58.
42
17
gone however; it was merely re-establishing itself while preparing for another major
internal conflict.49
As the decades progressed, fundamentalists became increasingly separatist, resulting in
1941 in the establishment of the American Council of Christian Churches, a fundamentalist
response to the mainline Federal Council of Churches, formed in 1908. The ACCC worked
out of a no-compromise conviction and believed that cooperation with non-Protestant,
modernist or non-fundamentalist churches ought to be avoided.50
At the same time a different movement within the fundamentalist one was beginning to
take shape. Rooted not in the pessimistic dispensationalism, but rather in the revivalist
evangelicalism out of which fundamentalism had emerged, this new movement resented
the hard separatist stance the fundamentalist movement had taken and instead
emphasized the importance of saving souls for Christ. Increasingly alienated from their
separatist brethren, this group decided to establish the National Association of
Evangelicals in 1942, a more inclusive organization.51 It would prove one of the most
important results of the modernist-fundamentalist conflict and the first real attempt at
uniting non-separatist, evangelical Protestants. One of the NAE’s founders, Carl Henry,
called upon American evangelicals to “transform their fundamentalist heritage [...] to
become more educated, cultured and politically engaged”.52 The term “new evangelical”
was coined in order to distinguish this group from the remaining separatist fundamentalists
and eventually came to represent a group of evangelical Christians who “while remaining
theologically committed to orthodoxy [...] were reaching for a new position ecclesiastically
and sociologically.”53
These “new evangelicals” believed that when the no-compromise separatist tone of
fundamentalism was tempered, America could once more be swept by evangelical
Christianity as had happened before.54 Billy Graham, figurehead of this new movement,
quickly rose to prominence and would become one of the most influential evangelical
leaders of the 20th and 21st centuries. Described as “a man with a ‘quick mind, facile
49
Noll et al., Christianity in America: A Handbook, 379.
Harris, Fundamentalism and Evangelicals, 39.
51 Ibidem, 39.
52 Peter Goodwin Heltzel, Jesus and Justice: Evangelicals, Race and American Politics (Yale: Yale
University Press, 2009), 127.
53 Harris, Fundamentalism and Evangelicals, 40 and Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and
Evangelicalism, 62.
54 Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 64.
50
18
tongue and a magnetic platform personality’ and a ‘spiritual punch which has merited him
unusually wide acceptance in different religious groups all over America’”55, Graham was
willing to work in harmony with other denominations, including Mainline Churches and at
some point even Catholics in order to effectively engage in moral and political reform
activities and spreading the Gospel. 56 From the 1950s onward Graham established a
broad basis from which to work out of, including in essence, any person accepting of
Christ and living to the best of his or her abilities for Christ.57 This triggered a response
from “separatist fundamentalists”, who criticized Graham and his followers for their
willingness to cooperate and berated them for losing their connection to pure orthodoxy.58
Eventually, in 1957, the remaining separatists decided to officially split from Graham’s
movement after he accepted a sponsorship from the local moderate Protestant Council of
Churches for a New York City Crusade.59 From this point onward “fundamentalism”
referred almost exclusively to the remaining separatists.60
Democratization of faith, marked by the rise to influential church positions of people like
Graham, who lacked any formal training, forms a characterizing trait of American
religion.61 It is a result of the populist, egalitarian message spread by early revivalist
preachers and modern day televangelists alike. Graham was capable of crossing
denominational, social and even racial boundaries by appealing to many Americans
because they could, in one way or another, identify with him and his clear and easy
evangelical message of faith.62 Evangelization was no longer reserved for those who had
undergone intensive religious training and instead became open to all those able to
convene the message in the most effective and telling way possible. This is still the case
today and partially explains the ongoing influential position of religion in (local) American
life.63
Graham’s new activism, advocated by evangelicals who had begun to receive higher
education than their (fundamentalist) predecessors, required intellectual underpinnings in
55
Christopher Catherwood, Five Evangelical Leaders (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1984), 208.
Hankins, American Evangelicals: A Contemporary History of a Mainstream Religious Movement, 2.
57 Noll, American Evangelical Christianity: An Introduction. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2011), 51
58 Harris, Fundamentalism and Evangelicals, 41.
59 Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 73 and Noll, American Evangelical
Christianity: An Introduction, 51.
60 Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 73.
61 Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (Yale: Yale University Press, 1991), 210219.
62 Catherwood, Five Evangelical Leaders, 208-210.
63 Hankins, American Evangelicals: A Contemporary History of a Mainstream Religious Movement, 16.
56
19
order to guide the movement and also to contrast it against the anti-intellectual separatism
of the remaining fundamentalists. Graham realized this and helped found Christianity
Today, an evangelical periodical featuring a wide range of (academic) articles aimed at
providing American evangelicals with the foundation for a unified intellectual evangelical
program.64
The belief in establishing unity did not last long however. During the 1960s diverging
opinions on political matters and more importantly, a refueled debate over the exact
meaning of the inerrancy of the Bible emerged.65 More progressive evangelicals, who saw
the Bible as a collection of true propositions clashed with conservatives who considered
this view inacceptable as it left the possibility for inaccuracies ever so slightly open and
was therefore unworthy of God.66 The Southern Baptist Convention for instance became
immersed in a crucial controversy on inerrancy between moderates and conservatives
during the 1970s, which eventually shaped the denomination’s future stance on the
matter.67
At the start of the 1980s evangelicals had become a group so internally divided that the
original term had lost most of its meaning. Evangelical leaders were no longer able to
agree on what made someone a Christian.68 With conflicting opinions on many important
matters, both religious and social, there was little unity left within evangelicalism. This was
augmented further by the apparent disregard for denominational loyalty among American
evangelicals. Evangelical coherence is not entirely lost however, as despite a denial of the
authority of tradition, certain common evangelical traditions do continue to play a
significant part in maintaining a connection as does a standardization of the principles of
the mass market of religion on a national level.69 It is unlikely that any of the current
denominations or movements will become dominant and much more likely that a number
of different strands of mutually sympathetic evangelicalism will develop alongside one
another.70
64
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 74.
Nancy T. Ammerman, Baptist Battles: Social Change and Religious Conflict in the Southern Baptist
Convention (Piscataway: Rutgers University Press, 1990).
66 Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 74-75.
67 Bill J. Leonard, Gods Last and only Hope: The Fragmentation of the Southern Baptist Convention,(Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 24 and Mark A. Noll et al., Christianity in America: A Handbook, 378.
68 Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 63.
69 Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 82 and and Leonard, Gods Last and only
Hope: The Fragmentation of the Southern Baptist Convention.
70 Ibidem, 82.
65
20
The term evangelical has since the 1950s progressed from “any follower of Billy Graham”
to one that is used to describe an estimated number of 50 million Americans who, to
varying extents, adhere to the tenets of the nineteenth century evangelical principles
described earlier.71 It is employed by a large number of American Christians to define
themselves as a means of showing sympathy with a broad, trans-denominational, national
evangelical movement (as opposed to those who might be classified as evangelical, but
affiliate mostly with their individual denominations). Alternatively the terms “born-again”
and “bible-believing” are often used for self-description.
Separatist fundamentalists still using the term “fundamentalist” continue to exist in America
alongside evangelicals, albeit in rather small quantities. The number of Christians
employing the term for self-definition is extremely small compared those preferring the
term “evangelical” (or “born-again”). While the two groups are often hard to distinguish
theologically, evangelicals have, as a result of a higher education, in general proven to
show a much more informed and academic outlook on society than have
fundamentalists.72 It has been stated that “fundamentalists are simply evangelicals who
believe that nothing, not even civility, should get in the way of proclaiming the truth about
the need for salvation”.73 Others have remarked that fundamentalists in essence are a
doctrinally militant part of the general evangelical community of America. 74
The necessary rejection of other forms of Christianity the early revivalists preached has
helped shape much of the contemporary religious landscape of America. It now consists of
many different Christian denominations, both Protestant and Catholic, and a multitude of
non-Christian faiths, ranging from more conventional ones such as Judaism and Islam to
modern faiths like Scientology. America has developed a competitive religious market,
characterized by a high level of mobility, especially among Protestant denominations.
Churches, receiving no government funding as a result of the strict constitutional
separation between church and state, are locked in a constant “battle for souls”; the more
members, the higher the chance of survival as a religious institution. Church membership
in general is growing in America and evangelicals are seeing the swiftest rise in numbers,
especially the Pentecostal movement is rapidly gaining followers. Mainline Protestant
71
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 4-5.
Ibidem, 41.
73 Nancy T. Ammerman, “Fundamentalists proselytizing Jews: incivility in preparation for the rapture” in
Pushing the Faith; Proselytism and Civility in a Pluralistic World, ed. Martin E. Marty and Frederick E.
Greenspahn (New York: Crossroad, 1988), 109.
74 Leonard, Gods Last and only Hope: The Fragmentation of the Southern Baptist Convention, 5.
72
21
Churches on the other hand, after having been pushed out of the centre of American
religion by evangelicals, are seeing a slow but steady decline. Evangelicals have come to
dominate much of Christian politics and media and have also strongly shaped the external
image of American Christianity, leaving their Mainline counterparts struggling. Catholicism,
currently the largest non-Protestant denomination with around 68 million members
reported slight growth in 2010.75
Conclusion
Defining ‘evangelical’ and ‘evangelicals’ is a difficult task; whilst a clearly distinct group
sharing a small number of common traditions and core beliefs they simultaneously form a
very dynamic, diverse and in no sense homogenous whole. While theologically closely
related to fundamentalists they share a higher level of education and active role in
American society and culture with the Mainline Protestant Churches (and Catholics). They
are socially conservative, where fundamentalists are theologically conservative, but might
rightfully be named fundamentalist in comparison to the more moderate Mainline. They are
the least traditional in their Protestantism differing in that aspect from both fundamentalists
and Mainline Churches, which often adhere to a more confessional, European model of
Protestantism.
Evangelicals can be as different from one another as they are from other Christian
denominations including conservatives and moderates, incorporating diverging social,
political and racial backgrounds and encompassing a number of smaller evangelical submovements such as the Holiness and Pentecostal ones.
When I speak of “evangelicals” in this thesis, I therefore mean those Protestant Christians
that do not belong to either the Mainline churches or fundamentalist ones and that use the
term (or its alternatives) to describe themselves. These include (but are not limited to)
Southern Baptists, the Church of the Nazarene, Assemblies of God, the North American
Baptist Conference, International Pentecostal Holiness Church, the Evangelical
Presbyterian Church, the Evangelical Methodist Church and the United Brethren in Christ.
Joshua A. Goldberg, “Decline in US mainline denominations continues”, Christian Today, last modified
February 15, 2010,
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/decline.in.us.mainline.denominations.continues/25305.htm.
75
22
As of 2011 they are estimated to make up a rough 30-35% of the entire population of
America, which equals around 100 million Americans.76 The use of the term evangelical
remains contested however, as at best it is a general and very broadly interpretable term
used to describe a large group of American Christians who share some common history
and characteristics. The term itself is still subject of debate, not only among scholars but
among those using the term for self-definition alike.
I will use “evangelical” as an adjective to describe a form of Christianity in which personal
and experiential religious belief are key, activism is held in high regard and which adheres
to the basic evangelical principles first spread throughout America in the nineteenth
century. When employing the term “fundamentalism” it may be seen as a synonym for
“militant”, as opposed to “moderate”.
“Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals”, http://isae.wheaton.edu/defining-evangelicalism/howmany-evangelicals-are-there/.
76
23
CHAPTER III: Religious Broadcasting in the United States
Before moving on to the case studies, a second important overview has to be provided;
that of the evangelical appropriation of religious broadcasting in the United States during
the 20th century. Furthermore, in order to make an effective analysis of the use of the
Internet by the SBC and Focus on the Family, an insight into the use of earlier new media
technology, most importantly radio and television and the negotiation process that took
place, is necessary. How did evangelicals approach radio and TV broadcasting when it
became available and why in the manner they did?
Radio
The advent of radio in America followed after the First World War and was first officially
regulated by Herbert Hoover in 1927 when he passed the Radio Act which lead to the
establishment of the Federal Radio Commission (later the Federal Communications
Commission). Apart from allocating frequency space, determining transmitter power levels
and removing some obviously offensive broadcasters from the air, the FRC did little.
Especially when it came to the actual content being broadcast there existed a lack of
proper oversight or regulation.77 Religion was on the air from the start, the first religious
broadcast was held in 1920 and in 1925 of the 600 stations broadcasting, 63 were churchowned.78 Secular stations offered free airtime for religious broadcasting, but soon found
that the demand exceeded the available time. As a result a number of secular stations
cooperated with both Catholics and the Federal Council of Churches, which represented
25 Mainline Protestant denominations, and let them distribute time equally among their
members.79
Evangelicals first approached radio with a mixture of caution and positive expectance,
estimating the extent of its influence on the American public as well as weighing its use as
a tool for mass evangelism against its use for mere entertainment. Radio was suspected to
be too impersonal a medium to convey the important message of the Gospel or to achieve
any type of meaningful conversion.80 Some also feared that successful radio sermons
77
Steve Bruce, Pray TV: Televangelism in America (London: Routledge, 1990), 25.
Ibidem, 25 and R. Laurence Moore, Selling God: American Religion in the Marketplace Culture (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1995), 232.
79 Bruce, Pray TV: Televangelism in America, 26.
80 Ibidem, 78.
78
24
would cause people to listen at home on Sundays instead of attending church; a fear
especially present in small, rural areas where the quality of preaching varied immensely.81
However, most dismissed these arguments in light of the massive amount of people radio
sermons would be able to reach at once. The problem that sermons delivered by radio
lacked a personal, visible connection between preacher and listener could be solved by
adopting a new and more informal style of evangelism, combined with a small touch of
entertainment so as to secure listeners didn’t simply switch channels.82 Radio moreover
stimulated an interest in religion and that in turn lead to more people flocking church, so
the balance quickly tipped in favor of religious broadcasting.83 Some even go so far as
saying that “[…] radio was Protestantism’s dream medium of advertising. The message
was direct, not dependent on the uncertain reader reception of print material that had
worried Protestants since the early nineteenth century”. 84
Evangelicals were nevertheless almost completely locked out of radio time in the early
days because of the dominance of the FCC85 and the existing emphasis on noncontroversial broadcasting, the evangelical message frequently being marked as such. It
wasn’t until the formation of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in the early
1940s that a successful attempt was made demanding equal radio time.86
Television
Where evangelicals were long left out of much of the radio broadcasting, television would
prove an entirely different scenario. During the early 1940s a small number of mainline
Protestant, Catholic and Jewish programs had begun airing, many of which were regulated
under contracts not unlike those of early radio. Consequently, during the 1940s and 50’s
most religious television was either from mainline Protestant preachers or Catholic priests,
such as Bishop Fulton Sheen, host of “The Catholic Hour”. 87
81
Moore, Selling God: American Religion in the Marketplace Culture, 232.
Margaret L. Bendroth, “Fundamentalism and the Media”, in Religion and Mass Media: Audiences and
Adaptations, ed. Daniel A. Stout et al. (New York: SAGE Publications, 1996), 78.
83 Moore, Selling God: American Religion in the Marketplace Culture, 232.
84 Ibidem, 233.
85 Jeffrey K. Hadden, Televangelism: Power and Politics on God’s Frontiers, (New York: Holt, 1988), 16.
86 Ibidem, 27.
87 Patrick Allitt, Religion in America since 1945 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003), 151.
82
25
Among evangelicals it was the Southern Baptist Convention that, in 1947, first saw the
possibilities television offered and began contemplating setting up an SBC-owned
network, while also seeking more broadcast time on national as well as local secular
stations. 88 Members of the newly formed NAE, lead by men such as Billy Graham, were
equally quick to assess its potential. “TV, while it may threaten to convert every home into
a theater, can also turn every parlor into a church”, spoke influential evangelical (Fuller
Seminary) leader Edward Carnell.89
A seemingly minor decision by the FCC in 1960 to allow television stations to sell the time
they allocated for religious broadcasting instead of having to provide it free of charge
drastically changed matters and sped up the process initiated by the SBC and NAE. 90
Since they had already been actively pursuing more time, evangelicals were eager to buy
up as much of the newly available time (created by networks now dropping unpaid
mainline or Catholic broadcasts) as possible. As a result religious programming on
commercial networks increased rapidly and religious broadcasting on TV became a
commercial enterprise almost all of which was soon dominated by evangelicals.
This trend continued during the 1970s through 1990s with nine out of ten of the wellknown television preachers, known as ‘televangelists’, hailing from an evangelical
background. 91 Mindful of their broadcasts turning into mere entertainment, yet aware of its
power when used appropriately by charismatic leaders, evangelicals deployed television
as a powerful, far-reaching and much more personal way of connecting with millions of
American viewers.92
88
Bruce, Pray TV: Televangelism in America, 29.
Bendroth, “Fundamentalism and the Media”, 81.
90 Bruce, Pray TV: Televangelism in America, 30 and Hadden, Televangelism: Power and Politics on God’s
Frontiers, 17.
91 Hadden, Televangelism: Power and Politics on God’s Frontiers, 17.
92 Bendroth, “Fundamentalism and the Media”, 82.
89
26
Establishing a General Evangelical Approach to New Media
New media or “that generation of media, which emerges on the contemporary landscape
and offers new opportunities for social interaction, information sharing and mediated
communication”93 brings new challenges for religious communities.94 According to
Campbell, a process of negotiation is initiated in which the positive is weighed against the
negative and that eventually leads to an important decision on if and how to appropriate it.
The new type of media is then either (partially) accepted, (partially) rejected or considered
valuable but in need of reconfiguration or innovation before acceptance can occur.95
As we have seen evangelicals have always had a dynamic relationship with mass media,
accepting and appropriating specific media possibilities, while openly rejecting others. This
intricate and crucial process is the result of an internal negotiation between those church
or congregation members who think positively of the opportunities mass media offers, and
those who mostly see and emphasize its more negative, secular sides.96
Quentin J. Schultze, who has written extensively on evangelical media use has
established the existence of only one basic tenet when it comes to media appropriation by
evangelicals: the principal function of the media should be a tool for fulfilling the Great
Commission i.e. for spreading the gospel to as many people as possible, as quickly as
possible. 97 Since this crucial urge to save souls is one of the few things all evangelicals
have in common, the power of this argument should not be underestimated.
Evangelicals also share a similar overarching concern that secular media threatens the
values and beliefs of evangelical faith.98 However here, too, divergent approaches exist,
one for instance emphasizing the pessimistic belief that secular media has pushed religion
into the destructive realm of popular culture, the other the optimistic view that the market
model of popular culture can transform the message of the Gospel in a way that leaves it
fully intact but makes it easy to comprehend for varying target audiences.
93
Campbell, When Religion Meets New Media, 9.
Ibidem, 9.
95 Ibidem, 113.
96 Quentin J. Schultze, “Evangelicals’ Uneasy Alliance with the Media” in Religion and Mass Media:
Audiences and Adaptations, ed. Daniel A. Stout et al., 61.
97 Ibidem, 63, 75-77.
98 Ibidem, 65.
94
27
When taking into account Campbell’s concept of how religious communities negotiate with
media, Schultze identifies four useful cultural motifs that shape general evangelical media
approach. Firstly, evangelicals tend to display a “remarkable disinterest in religious
tradition”99, meaning that they are much less interested in the past and more oriented on
the future, lacking a clear tradition to base their media approach on.
Second, “evangelicals hold remarkably uncritical faith in media technology”, 100 and while
less common among intellectual evangelicals, Schultze states it is a widely held belief that
evangelicals have equated technological progress with progress itself, resulting in the
paradox of harsh criticism of secular media combined with a strong media appropriation for
evangelical ends.101 He repeated this belief in 2008 by stating: “evangelicals are often
quick to criticize mainstream media but not their own tribal media”.102
Thirdly, “evangelicals strive to popularize their culture”,103 aiming to identify both
evangelical culture and its media activities with general popular culture, displaying a
democratic orientation on involvement and opposition towards central authority and “high”
culture.104 Put simply, evangelical communication is distinctively aimed at “ordinary
people”, belonging to the American middle and lower class. By speaking through
“traditional values of localism, direct democracy, ruralism and individualism”105 this makes
evangelical media ventures highly effective at mass-marketing faith through a multitude of
religious business ventures, including book publishers, radio and television stations,
religious supply chains and a growing evangelical music industry.106
A populist message of democratization and methods of persuasion are among the
characterizing traits of American evangelicalism and a fundamental element furthermore in
the creation of an encompassing evangelical (media) culture outside of secular American
(high) culture. In other words, it is possible to enjoy many things modern culture has to
offer, while staying safely within an evangelical framework, never once having to “cross
Schultze, “Evangelicals’ Uneasy Alliance with the Media” in Religion and Mass Media: Audiences and
Adaptations, ed. Daniel A. Stout et al., 68.
100 Ibidem, 69.
101 Schultze, “Evangelicals’ Uneasy Alliance with the Media”, 69.
102 Quentin J. Schultze and Robert M. Woods, Understanding Evangelical Media: The Changing Face of
Christian Communication (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008), 283.
103 Schultze, “Evangelicals’ Uneasy Alliance with the Media”, 69.
104 Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity, 210-219.
105 Ibidem.
106 Schultze, “Evangelicals’ Uneasy Alliance with the Media”, 70.
99
28
over”. Or, as Heather Hendershot107 has put it: “if evangelical media producers and
consumers constitute a ‘subculture’, it is one that aspires to lose it “sub” status.”108 It is
here too that an inherent opposition within modern American Protestant Christianity
becomes obvious; on the one hand a clear lean towards high culture, academics and a
more liberal view on religion and religious media displayed by most Mainline Protestant
churches and on the other the egalitarian, populist methods of evangelicals, emphasizing
the rejection of modernistic values and “expert” opinions and appointing leaders and public
figures on grounds of their popular appeal. In doing so evangelicals, possessing one of the
largest and most influential media empires in the United States today, have managed as it
were to reclaim and mold religion for the common people.109
Finally, according to Schultze “evangelical views of the media are greatly shaped by the
U.S. spirit of individualism”.110 Evangelicals tend to follow individual leaders more than
official guidelines provided by church leadership, which is an important fact to consider
when examining the highly divergent opinions on media use among evangelicals. In the
case of Focus on the Family for instance James Dobson was crucial in shaping the
organization’s use of radio, television and the Internet. This role is now in the hands of
CEO Jim Daly, who communicates his ideas on evangelical media usage in an
increasingly secular American society on his personal blog page.
Conclusion
To conclude; when it comes to dealing with (new) media, apart from a few basic tenets
and motifs there exists no general evangelical consensus on media usage. Rather
individual churches, congregations, organizations or people decide what is appropriated
and considered safe and useful and what is deemed too threatening or too high a risk and
should therefore be avoided or abandoned.
107
Associate Professor at Queens College New York.
Heather Hendershot, Shaking the World for Jesus: Media and Conservative Evangelical Culture
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 13.
109 Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity, 210-219.
110 Schultze, “Evangelicals’ Uneasy Alliance with the Media”, 70.
108
29
CHAPTER IV: Main Case Study: Focus on the Family
Historical Background
Focus on the Family is an American evangelical Christian non-profit organization based in
Colorado Springs, Colorado and was founded in 1977 by Dr. James Dobson, a former
clinical pediatrician. His intention was to provide broad-spectrum “moral guidance and
support” for Christian families in the United States and other parts of the world. Underlying
Focus on the Family’s establishment was Dobson’s personal conviction that children
should be shielded from the alleged damage resulting from various sources of familial
problems including divorce, abuse and similar problems with which he had had to deal
during his medical work.111Like many evangelicals at the time, Dobson, a member of the
socially active Church of the Nazarene, became concerned by ongoing societal changes,
especially views on life, marriage and sex developed during the 1960s and early 1970s.
Focus on the Family was established and set up to serve as a counterweight, providing
instructions, counseling and answers from a traditional, ‘Bible-based’ point of view.
Focus on the Family began by broadcasting a weekly 15-minute radio show and the
organization quickly rose to prominence as Dobson hosted an increasing amount of longer
radio shows and subsequently began travelling the country holding seminars and
delivering presentations to rapidly growing crowds. Interest in Focus on the Family’s
activities and services grew; by 1985 Dobson’s radio show was broadcast on 800 different
stations, the organization had expanded into Canada and the United Kingdom and Focus’s
total budget amassed an estimated 30 million. Around 1988 the organization received
150.000 letters per month from Americans all over the country requesting personal advice
on a wide variety of issues.112 Ten years later as many as 55.000 letters were answered
per week113 and Focus’s budget had tripled to over 100 million dollars, eventually resulting
in a 2009 estimate of close to 140 million dollars.114 In 2005 the organization employed
over 1000 people, received amounts of mail that have lead to a private zip code in
Colorado Springs and Dobson’s weekly column was syndicated by more than 500 different
111
D. Gilgoff, The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are
Winning the Culture War, New York (St. Martin’s Press: 2007).
112 Ibidem, 24-27.
113 “Focus on the Family Website of Feb. 1999”, Internet Wayback Machine,
http://web.archive.org/web/19990219232627/http://www.family.org/welcome/aboutfof/A0000111.html.
114 “2010 Annual Report”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/downloads/financialreports/2010-annual-report.pdf.
30
newspapers.115 By 2006 the organization had established independent, affiliated
organizations in 18 different countries116 and its network online currently encompasses
more than twenty different affiliated websites, each targeted at a specific audience or
topic. According to Compete Site Analytics the main Focus on the Family website receives
somewhere between 500.000 and 650.000 unique visitors every month, considerably
more than other large evangelical Christian websites, including Christianity Today.117
Mission
Focus on the Family considers itself a global ministry, aimed at supporting Christian
families, its mission “to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ
with as many people as possible by nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution
of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide.”118 Particular emphasis is placed
upon the sanctity of life, marriage, childcare, dealing with sexual activity from a Christian
point of view and the promotion of (social) policy adhering to the teachings of Jesus
Christ.119 Focus on the Family summarizes life’s ultimate purpose as follows:
Ultimately, we believe that the purpose of life is to know and glorify God through
an authentic relationship with His Son, Jesus Christ. This purpose is lived out
first within our own families then extended, in love, to an increasingly broken
world that desperately needs Him.120
Services
Services offered by Focus on the Family are mostly free of charge and include counseling
from one of the Family Care Specialists, use of a large online discussion and help forum
as well as a first referral to a (paid) local Christian counselor. The organization also
provides movie, game, TV, music and book reviews, pro-life resource material and
educational material for those wishing to learn more about the Christian faith. The
organization is partnered with Christianbook.com (the world’s largest Christian web store)
Jeremy Leaning, “James Dobson: The Religious Right’s 800-Pound Gorilla”, Church and State (February
2005), 12-14.
116 Gilgoff, The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are
Winning the Culture War, 63.
117 “Compete Site Analytics for www.focusonthefamily.com”, modified May 2012
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/focusonthefamily.com/.
118 “Foundational Values”, Focus on the Family, http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us/guidingprinciples.aspx.
119 “About Us”, Focus on the Family, http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us.aspx.
120 Ibidem.
115
31
and provides links on its website to books, DVD’s and other material on different types of
family issues directly related to topics discussed on the main website, all purchasable
online. Visitors can opt to donate or become a “Friend of the Family”, which grants access
to an extra newsletter in exchange for a monthly gift.
Political Activity
Focus on the Family is officially politically inactive and does not endorse any political party
or person directly. The organization is legally only allowed to do so to a very limited extent
in order to comply with the laws regarding its tax-exempt status. During the 1990s
however, James Dobson, successfully supported a local California amendment to bar the
passage of a particular gay rights law that had been considered a “lost cause” up until that
point. In 1994 Focus’s intermingling with a Democratic federal law on homeschooling
caused an unprecedented number of over 200.000 people to call Congress to complain,
resulting eventually in the proposal’s demise.121 A 1998 article in Church and State, a
magazine published by the “Americans United for Separation of Church and State”, a nonsectarian, non-partisan organization, founded in 1947, warned of possible implications of
Dobson’s fundamentalist worldview and rising political power. “Dobson [...] wants America
to become a fundamentalist Christian theocracy [...] his perfect president would be
someone with a law book in one hand and a Bible in the other [...]”.122
In 2004 Dobson launched an affiliate organization to Focus on the Family called “Focus on
the Family Action”, which was set up as a social welfare activist group, allowing for more
direct political involvement. He consequently joined the campaign for George W. Bush’s
re-election by openly endorsing him on multiple TV and radio programs and appearing at
numerous conservative rallies, in particular those aimed against gay rights and abortion. 123
After the 2004 election, Dobson’s influence among the leaders of the so-called “Religious
Right” increased exponentially. Richard Land, current president of the Ethics and Religious
Liberty Commission of the SBC, stated in 2005 that Dobson is a “leading spokesman for
evangelicals” with significant influence in Washington.124 In that same year Church and
State published an article entitled “James Dobson: The Religious Right’s 800 Pound
121
D. Gilgoff, The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are
Winning the Culture War, 35.
122 Rob Boston, “Family Feud: Focus on the Family’s James Dobson dares to discipline wayward member of
the GOP – and maybe America, too”, Church and State (May 1998), 14.
123 Leaning, “James Dobson: The Religious Right’s 800-Pound Gorilla”, 12-14.
124 Ibidem.
32
Gorilla” in which it claimed Dobson’s reputation to be “blatantly political”, after allegedly
having come close to single-handedly barring the appointment of Republican senator
Arlen Specter to the position of Senate Judiciary after remarks from Specter about the
improbability of election of those candidates bent on overturning Roe vs. Wade.125
Political issues are an important part of the discussion on Focus on the Family’s radio
broadcasts, podcasts and video’s and have been since its early days. 126 Views put forward
by the show’s hosts on these topics naturally reflect its conservative, Christian heritage.
The organization is a member of “Protect Marriage”, a large California-based coalition
consisting of “families, community leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organizations and
individuals from all walks of life”127 and solely aimed at the protection of traditional
marriage.
Current Situation
In 2003 Dobson resigned as official President of Focus on the Family and in 2009 he also
gave up his position on the Board of Directors and as host of the radio broadcasts. Full
disclosure was never given on his motive; Focus itself states on its website that the
decision “brought the ministry's leadership transition process to a definitive conclusion”. 128
After his departure from Focus on the Family Dobson launched a new website “Family
Talk” where he continues to deliver podcasts and articles on family-related issues, aimed
at “strengthening families, speaking into the culture and spreading the gospel of Jesus
Christ”.129 Examining the statements of faith from both Focus on the Family and Family
Talk might prove some speculative insight into Dobson’s reasons as the former seems to
deliberately omit a detailed, possibly polarizing view on the Bible and Jesus Christ in
favour of a broader, more inclusive Christian message whereas Dobson’s Family Talk
employs a narrow, fundamentalist statement of faith which includes an emphasis on the
Bible’s “absolute infallibility”.130 Family Talk’s statements also appear to be more in line
with Dobson’s recent tone and message, reflected well by his increased political activity
since the 2004 election.
Leaning, “James Dobson: The Religious Right’s 800-Pound Gorilla”, 12.
Boston, “Family Feud: Focus on the Family’s James Dobson dares to discipline wayward member of the
GOP – and maybe America, too”, 12.
127 “Protect Marriage”, http://www.protectmarriage.com/.
128 ”Our Founder – Dr. James Dobson” Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us/james-dobson.aspx.
129 “Dr. Dobson’s Ministry & History”, Family Talk, http://www.myfamilytalk.com/about/history.
130 “What we Believe”, Family Talk, , http://www.drjamesdobson.org/about/Statement-of-Faith.
125
126
33
Jim Daly, employee of Focus on the Family since 1989 took over the presidency of the
organization in 2004 and has lead the organization since. The website’s front page holds a
summary of Focus’s current activities: “From timely advice for your marriage to resources
for your children to entertainment reviews for the entire family, Focus on the Family is
committed to helping you and your loved ones thrive with the time-tested, biblical
principles we've been providing for more than 30 years. We'll be here when you need us,
but we can't do it without your support.”131
Media Usage
Focus on the Family has been actively employing media to achieve its intended goals from
its early founding on. Dobson began by hosting a radio-show and after rapidly gaining
success there, TV exposure followed soon after. Although the organization never owned
either a radio or television station of its own, Dobson’s programs were aired on a large
number of nation-wide radio-stations and he became a regular and sought-after guest on
many of America’s leading television shows, especially on the more traditionally,
conservative and right-wing networks such as Fox.
Focus on the Family first went online in 1998 on www.family.org. The website, well-made
for the time, provided information on Focus’s activities, events and radio broadcasts,
contained articles on a variety of family-related topics by Dobson and others, movie
reviews, links to affiliated sites and projects targeting specific interest groups such as
young children and college students. An early and basic form of online shop, providing a
small catalogue of available articles, purchasable by contacting the organization either via
mail, e-mail or telephone was among the services the site offered. The slogan used on the
website was “Dedicated to the Preservation of the Home” and its main stated goal “ to
spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through a practical outreach to homes”.132
Focus on the Family has remained especially active online. It now features daily podcasts,
available both online and through radio-stations nationwide, a weekend magazine and
news articles and blogs, published on a regular basis. The website’s user forums are
frequented by close to 50.000 unique users and contain over 7000 threads on a wide
131
Focus on the Family, http://www.focusonthefamily.com.
“Our Guiding Principles”, Focus on the Family, Internet Wayback Machine,
http://web.archive.org/web/19990421111126/http://www.family.org/welcome/aboutfof/a0000078.html.
132
34
variety of topics. In comparison, the world’s largest Christian forum, Christian Forums133,
has a total of around 220.000 users while popular Christian message board, Rapture
Ready134 has only 22.000.135 Considering the limited scope of topics Focus covers, it can
be safely stated that, relative to the organizations size, the forums are considerable in size.
Core Beliefs
This section will provide an insight into Focus on the Family’s core beliefs. The Statement
of Faith and Core Beliefs sections of the website will be combined with synopses of the
five main issues the organization focuses on; marriage, parenting, life challenges, faith
and social issues. In doing so a thorough analysis of Focus on the Family’s beliefs and
convictions and resulting justifications of the advice and resources they provide can be
established. First will be a structural analysis of the Focus on the Family website.
Structural Website Analysis
The Focus on the Family main website is divided into five head sections, each of which
correspond with one of the aforementioned overarching themes. A sixth link is provided,
Store, which leads to the partnered online store of Christianbook.com. The front page
contains links to a daily broadcast, featured articles on each of the main themes and
related audio or video podcasts and books. For instance, an article entitled “Cracking the
Code to a Stronger Marriage I” is highlighted, accompanied by a link to the podcast
“Cracking the Code to a Stronger Marriage II”, the related article “Shaving Planks” and a
shop-link to the purchasable book “Love Talk Starters”. A similar presentation is provided
for articles on each of the other main themes, with the exception of Social Issues.
Information on the organization itself is easily accessible from the main page, as is a
broadcast schedule of Focus’s podcasts on local radio stations, a quick means of getting
in personal touch with the organization. Links to affiliated sites are presented through the
use of a changing picture slide show, leading to affiliated sites such as
www.pluggedin.com, (Focus’s entertainment review website), or specific Focus projects
such as “Option Ultrasound”, a program set up to provide couples considering abortion
with a free ultrasound of their unborn child. Room is also provided to donate to Focus on
“Christian Forums”, http://www.christianforums.com/.
“Rapture Ready”, http://www.rr-bb.com/.
135 Based on statistics gathered by Bigboards.com, http://www.big-boards.com/kw/religion/.
133
134
35
the Family or to become a so-called “Friend of the Family”. Finally, a direct link to
President Jim Daly’s regularly updated personal blog is present as are direct links to
various social networking sites, including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
Each of the five main themes has its own main page. On the left side of the pages a menu
is present containing a varying number of subthemes, each of which are again divided by
a slide-out menu into sub-questions. The first subtheme for Marriage is “God’s Design for
Marriage”, which is divided into “Marriage: God’s Idea”, “Marriage: A Sacred Dance” and
“Does Your Spouse See Jesus in You?”. Each of these, written by different authors, are
again divided into short, concise chapters. Ministers, public speakers, Christian counselors
and psychologists usually write articles published in these sections, often on a strong
personal note. All main theme pages contain a featured article, featured media and links to
related threads on the Focus on the Family online discussion forums as well as
recommended shop items. On the right hand side of each page a header “Things to
Consider” is present, with relevant information on either the specific theme, Focus on the
Family activities or the organization in general.
The marriage section offers advice on a wide array of marriage-related topics. These
range from explaining God’s concept of marriage, the preparation phase, sexuality and its
purposes, divorce, infidelity, daily life, managing finances, possible challenges and how to
cope with them, methods of strengthening one’s marriage and even resources for people
whose spouse is in the military.
The parenting section on the Focus on the Family website covers topics, broadly dividable
into two categories; practical advice and theoretical issues. The former includes discipline
methods from a Biblical point of view, dealing with family entertainment, measuring and
fighting “negative cultural influence”, Internet and technology use, games, holidays and
dealing with adopted children. More theoretical issues include raising a child through
different life stages, i.e. from baby through pre-school and teen into puberty and beyond,
understanding and handling children’s emotions, defining parenting roles between both
parents, single parenting problems, how to build a lasting relationship with children and
taking care of certain challenges, including teen rebellion, drug use, ADHD, pornography
and auto mutilation.
36
The section on Life Challenges deals with a number of problems readers might face in
their everyday lives. These range from abuse, addiction and stress to keeping a healthy
financial balance, “workaholism” and even infertility.
The Faith section of the Focus on the Family website deals with a wide range of general
Christian faith issues. These include how to become a Christian, developing a Christian
worldview, sharing one’s faith with others, prayer, spiritual development and studying the
Bible. This section also provides insight into Focus’s justifications for a large amount of the
advice they provide to readers.
Finally, the Social Issues section offers information on a selection of societal struggles and
other related problems readers might encounter. These range from engaging in politics as
a Christian, the separation of Church and State to gambling, lotteries and handling teen
pregnancy.
Statement of Faith and Vision
Focus on the Family is a socially conservative organization, a reflection of its theologically
conservative principles. Six guiding philosophies are presented by Focus as its core
beliefs. The first and foremost forms the “preeminence of Evangelism”: “ We believe that
the ultimate purpose of life is to know and glorify God and to attain eternal life through
Jesus Christ our Lord, beginning within our own families and then reaching out to a
suffering humanity that needs to embrace His love and sacrifice.”136 The protection of
traditional marriage, as designed and intended by God and a related emphasis on the
“value of children”137, pointing out the crucial role both parents play in “raising, shaping
and preparing them for a life of service to His Kingdom and Humanity”138 form the second
and third core principles. Divorce and remarriage are explicitly mentioned and
discouraged, Focus stating that both are only allowed under very specific circumstances,
such as adultery or unbelief in God.139 Fourth is an emphasis on the sanctity of human life,
which specifically mentions the inclusion of the pre-born, elderly, mentally or physically
challenged, those deemed unattractive and any other state between the first cell stage and
“Foundational Statement”, Focus on the Family http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us/guidingprinciples.aspx.
137 “About Us”, Focus on the Family, http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us.aspx.
138 Ibidem.
139 “What is Focus on the Family's position on divorce and remarriage?”, Focus on the Family,
http://family.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/25554.
136
37
eventual natural death. A strong opposition to both abortion and euthanasia logically
follows from this position. A fifth important principle is the emphasis on “Social
Responsibility”, emphasizing the responsibility all Christians according to Focus on the
Family share to protect and defend the church, the family and a government according to
divine will. The final guiding principle is the “Value of Male and Female”, stating: “God
created humans in His image, intentionally male and female, each bringing unique and
complementary qualities to sexuality and relationships.”140
Christianity and the Bible
The Bible forms the foremost basis of argumentation for most of the advice Focus on the
Family provides. It is therefore necessary to establish which definition of Scripture the
organization employs and what role and function it grants it. Biblical inerrancy is
considered a matter of truth, which is said to mean that which corresponds to reality; what
is real is true, what is not real is false. Since Christians accept the Bible to be real and God
to exist, its contents must therefore also be true. Evidence for its historical accurateness,
mainly in terms of quantity and overlapping and corresponding texts, is provided as
evidence for its truth claims, as are internal consistency and agreement between the
Bible’s multiple authors.
Focus emphasizes a “balanced approach” to Biblical interpretation. The Bible contains
passages that demand literal interpretation and may not be interpreted in any other way,
the most important being the Resurrection. Others are clearly meant to be taken as
figurative speech, such as when Jesus claims he is “the Gate”. This is crucial to recognize,
as is the importance of carefully studying the context of said passages. Focus finally puts
forward a “golden rule” of interpretation: “seek to interpret a text as others would seek to
interpret what you have written or said.”141 This approach of allowing for differing
interpretations and being at ease with possible ambiguities resulting from translation
communicates a distinctly evangelical background.142
“About Us”, Focus on the Family, http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us.aspx
Robert Velarde, “How do I interpret the Bible”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/the_study_of_god/how_do_we_know_the_bible_is_true/how_do_i_int
erpret_the_bible.aspx.
142 Nancy T. Ammerman, Bible Believers: Fundamentalists in the Modern World (Piscataway: Rutgers
University Press, 1987), 5.
140
141
38
On the topic of alternative beliefs and religions Focus on the Family provides a similar type
of reasoning. Four main arguments are provided which should show Christianity to be the
most rational choice. Polytheistic faiths are discarded as improbable since it is more likely
that only one entity is at the basis of everything; the beauty and order of the Universe
makes multiple creators unlikely. Islam is questionable as its origins are said to be
“naturalistic” (meaning worldly; Mohammed claimed he received most of the Koran in a
cave) whereas both Judaism and Christianity have clear supernatural origins. Jesus’
fulfilling of prophecies and performance of miracles adds weight to this claim. Finally
Judaism is not so much discarded, as it is said to probe less deep into the matter of the
human condition than does Christianity. In other words, Christianity provides the best
means to discover where humanity has gone wrong and how it may regain its lost virtues.
Finally Jesus is put forward as sealing the deal; after all he is mentioned by the Koran but
only as a prophet and is neglected by Judaism, while Christianity presents a system that
provides “all of him and not just a watered-down distorted part of him”.143
Marriage
Focus on the Family considers marriage to be the single-most important thing in life, next
to a healthy relationship with God.144 As such, it is one of the organization’s main areas of
attention. Focus on the Family’s general views on marriage can be summarized as follows:
The organization believes marriage to be a God-given institution, a sacred bond between
one man and one woman for life. Sexual activity is not to be pursued or had before
marriage and pornography (inside or outside of marriage) is to be abstained from
completely. Divorce is to be considered only as an ultimate solution when all counseling
and rebuilding attempts have failed and open and honest communication is of utmost
importance. Having children is encouraged in order to build a family and deepen
marriage145; they are a wealth and continuous source of hope and add meaning and
goodness to our lives and shape our souls.146
J.P. Moreland, “Choosin' My Religion”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/christian_worldview/why_is_a_christian_worldview_important/choosin
_my_religion.aspx.
144 “What is Focus on the Family's position on divorce and remarriage?”, Focus on the Family,
http://family.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/25554.
145 Steve Watters and Candice Z. Watters “Kids Can Be Good for Marriage, Really”, Focus on the Family,
http://www3.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/the_early_years/preparing-to-start-a-family/kids-can-be-goodfor-marriage-really.aspx.
146 Steve Watters and Candice Z. Watters, “Why Have Kids?”, Focus on the Family
http://www3.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/the_early_years/preparing-to-start-a-family/why-havekids.aspx.
143
39
Parenting
The Bible and constant reflection upon God’s worldview are considered to be the best goto sources when in doubt about most parenting issues. In dealing, for instance, with
“negative” cultural influence and finding ways to combat it, Focus advises parents to teach
their children to “step back and ask themselves, What does God think about this, and what
does that mean for me?”147, stating that “this approach establishes a strong foundation for
them to stand on as they make moral choices.”148 Another good example is the advice to
always allow children to question the legitimacy of a certain punishment by calling upon
the Bible to see if it is justified: “But explain, I will rescind the correction if you can show me
in the Bible where what I required of you was out of line." This usually cuts off anymore
argument, and even better, it yields a little Bible study.”149 Discussing parenting with
Christian relatives and friends, or online on the Focus on the Family forums is equally
encouraged.
It can be safely concluded that the parenting advice provided by Focus on the Family is
aimed at the creation of a traditional Christian family, in which Biblical virtues are taught
from an early age on. Men and women are deemed to both fill different roles in life and
should be prepared for them properly and accordingly.
Life Challenges
Optimism, acceptance and confidence in God are emphasized in most of the advice
provided in this section of the website. Losing a job for instance is not to be seen as a
setback, but as a test and new opportunity, provided by God: “In Genesis 50:24, Joseph
promised his brothers that God would take care of them. He was able to make this
promise because of the challenges that God had seen him through before.” 150 The section
on auto mutilation provides excerpts from the Bible, presented as “truths” in direct
Gina R. Dalfonzo, “Innocence Lost”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/protecting_your_family/combatting_cultural_influences/innocenc
e_lost.aspx.
148 Ibidem.
149 Lisa Whelchel, “Controlling the Tongue”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/effective_biblical_discipline/creative_discipline_ideas/controlling_
the_tongue.aspx.
150 Greg Pepe and Jim Vigorito, “Job Loss: Questions and Answers”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/lifechallenges/life_transitions/when_you_have_lost_your_job/job%20loss%
20questions%20and%20answers.aspx.
147
40
response to certain depressing feelings one might harbour. The statement “Things are
never going to get better” is responded to through excerpts of Jeremiah and Psalms:
“Truth: God promises me of a future and a hope. I can't see it right now, and I don't know
how He is working it out. Still, I choose to trust Him, and while He is working out my
problems, I will wait on Him (Jeremiah 29:11, Psalm 27:14).”151
As with most other topics, all advice provided on life challenges features either a passage
from or reference to the Bible at some point. General advice provided might be relatively
secular in nature, as is the case on the subject of infertility (support groups, fertility
treatments and strengthening personal bonds are considered the best options), yet the
mentioned message of faith, acceptance and trust is (in varying extents) always present.
Faith
The Faith section is where Focus on the Family clearly distinguishes itself as an outspoken
evangelical organization with a strong view on American moral culture and society by
attacking secularism and non-Christian worldviews openly and rather aggressively.
A Christian outlook is considered vital to both a healthy individual life, and a proper
society: “Probably you’ve seen the devastating results of a secular worldview: broken
families, wasted lives and ineffective Christians.152 If America and the rest of the world are
to move forward this has to be done by actively combating contemporary culture’s nonbiblical ideas, a process that can be undertaken through learning, trusting and applying
what are considered to be God’s truths, as put forward by the Bible. Doing so will allow
society to make the right moral choices on topics such as abortion, same-sex marriage,
cloning and stem-cell research and will also allow for a regaining of the media. 153.
The Faith section offers a detailed critique of modern American society. According to
Focus, the main problem facing Christians and American culture today is the fact that
many Christian have begun living lives that have become almost indistinguishable from
those of non-believing Americans. Similar rates of divorce and addiction and an equal lack
Shana Schutte, “ Answers for Cutters from the Bible”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/lifechallenges/abuse_and_addiction/conquering_cutting_and_other_forms_
of_selfinjury/answers_for_cutters_from_the_bible.aspx.
152 Del Tackett, “ Why is a Christian Worldview Important?”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/christian_worldview/why_is_a_christian_worldview_important.aspx.
153 Ibidem.
151
41
of meaning are among the worrying statistics.154 To counteract this “trend”, Focus on the
Family has launched what it calls its most ambitious project yet, ”The Truth Project”, a 13hour DVD-seminar from Dr. Del Tackett aimed at examining and teaching life from a
“biblical” point of view.
Negotiation Process
Now that we are more familiar with Focus on the Family’s history, core beliefs and a
structural website analysis has been provided, this section will examine which of the
possibilities the Internet offers are employed by Focus and which are deliberately removed
or altered.
Focus on the Family makes extensive use of the Internet and does so through a network
of modern, professionally designed, information-dense websites, which also serve as a
multimedia platform. It functions as the organization’s prime method of reaching its
audience and registers over half a million unique visitors every month. The main site is
updated daily with new articles, podcasts and videos as well as blog posts from CEO Jim
Daly. The expanse of the Focus on the Family network is extensive. Apart from the main
website it consists of over twenty different related websites and projects, each aimed at a
specific audience. It is easy to spend a large amount of time browsing different sections of
the main site or affiliated websites without ever leaving the confines of the overarching
Focus network.
Affiliated websites hosted by Focus cover a wide variety of topics. Entertainment reviews
can be found on Plugged In, CitizenLink provides resources and advice for people
engaging in political activities (especially targeted at those issues evangelicals hold in high
regard), JellyTelly is a “Bible-based alternative to video and gaming sites”155 website for
kids featuring online shows and flash games and Clubhouse and Clubhouse Jr. are sites
aimed at kids 7-13 and 3-7 containing simple games, recipes, Bible stories, coloring
pictures and reviews of movies and music made for kids. The Truth Project provides
information on the project of the same name. Parsonage offers resources and familial
advice to pastors and pastoral families. TrueU is an series of DVD’s covering apologetics
Marc A. Fey, “A Real Foundation”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/christian_worldview/why_is_a_christian_worldview_important/a_real_f
oundation.aspx.
155 “What Is Jelly Telly”, Jelly Telly, http://www.jellytelly.com/what-is-jelly-telly/.
154
42
and aimed at younger people looking for arguments to defend their faith with, particularly
at University. In a similar fashion, TrueTolerance provides parents with tools, tips and
resources on how to combat “pro-gay activism” in (public) schools.
A very important feature of Focus on the Family’s internet usage is its use of an online
store. Partnered with Christianbook.com, the largest online retailer of Christian items,
Focus sells DVD’s, CD’s, audio-recordings, books, games and more. The main website
and most affiliated sites link to the store, usually connecting specific products to certain
articles or shows. In 2010 Focus made over 7.5 million dollars through the sale of online
(and offline) products, making it one of the organizations lucrative income sources. 156
There is a clear vision behind Focus on the Family’s online activity, and it is here that the
negotiation process the organization underwent in its dealings with the Internet and its
continuous development clearly shows rejection instead of adoption or adaptation. I will
first point out where and how this occurred and then analyze the consequences for
Focus’s treatment of the Internet.
Focus on the Family states its view on the Internet quite clearly in a PDF downloadable
from the website entitled “Internet Safety: Building Character and Building Walls”:
The internet provides both tremendous opportunities and challenges for families
today. Children can now easily find anything imaginable. Extended families
separated by distance can close the gap by using the Internet to swap pictures,
videos and messages. However, the Internet is not without its problems, and
you’ll need discernment to use it wisely for your family.157
Focus on the Family aims, as a response to the problems it sees, to offer a controlled and
contained Internet experience for its users, a “safe” environment free of any kind of
offensive material. It states that effective protection online for the entire family takes three
separate steps in order to be effective; children need to be cultivated by teaching and
modelling the behaviour parents expect from them, effective rules need to be set
governing Internet use both at home and outside and finally proper understanding of
modern technology is required. In order to create its envisioned environment the
“2010 Annual Report”, Focus on the Family
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/downloads/financialreports/2010-annual-report.pdf.
157 “Internet Safety: Building Character and Building Walls”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/topicinfo/Internet_Safety-Building_Character_and_Building_Walls.pdf.
156
43
organization provides a number of resources and at the same time omits particular
features from its website and thereby from the online experience of its users.158
Firstly, Focus offers its own version of Bsecure (an independent Christian company)
Internet Filtering, the “Family Safety” edition which provides services such as “Social
Network Protection”, “Online Media Filtering”, “Whole Home Filtering” and even filtering
apps for mobile devices.159 These filters are designed to block access to a range of
websites and online content deemed inappropriate, potentially damaging or offensive. The
criteria used are based on Focus’s societal view and find clear grounding within the
Biblical principles the organization promotes. Similar co-operative censoring efforts are
undertaken with “ClearPlay” and “TVGuardian”, offering filtered versions of DVD’s and TV
shows. Focus also provides an “Internet Safety Contract” that parent and child can both
sign and that then “binds” them to a number of rules regarding Internet use. These include
never giving out any personal information and responding to mean messages, promising
not to go online at a friend’s place and acknowledging an understanding of the necessity
of the internet filter that has been installed by parents on the computer.160
Secondly, Focus takes a near complete “Web 1.0” approach to the Internet. In other
words, the communication done by Focus on the Family through Internet means is almost
exclusively one-way, treating the audience of their online content as mere consumers of
information. Seeing as to how the internet is designed to allow for easy interactive
communication the omission of this possibility is remarkable. There are a number of
notable examples that can be provided to support this argument. Firstly, the entire website
and all of its many sections, articles and media pages lack a comment section, one of the
most commonly present features on many contemporary websites. Users are only able to
respond to published material by getting in touch with Focus on the Family in person via email or phone, but no publicly readable comments can be made.
Second point of attention is Focus’s social network activity on Facebook, Twitter and
YouTube. Twitter is least interesting as it is in essence a one-way medium itself, only
becoming interactive when users choose to respond to tweets from others or when
“Internet Safety: Building Character and Building Walls”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/topicinfo/Internet_Safety-Building_Character_and_Building_Walls.pdf.
159 “Bsecure Family Safety”, http://www.bsecure.com/offers/focusonthefamily2.aspx.
160 “Internet Safety Contract”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/~/media/files/pdf/channels/parenting/internet-safety-contract.ashx.
158
44
deciding to retweet messages from others. In the case of Focus’s official account
(@focusfamily), the majority of the messages posted are links to articles posted on the
main Focus website and responses of gratitude to other Twitter users posting positive
feedback about Focus’s activities. The official Focus on the Family YouTube account,
which currently features more than 175 video’s, has comments disabled for all uploads.
The channel’s reach is limited with only 2200+ subscribers and an average view count of
around 200-300 views per video, but the choice does fall in line with Focus’s apparent
decision to disallow public commenting.
On its Facebook page, with over 500.000 likes an important outreach opportunity,
commenting is allowed. There are a few things that need to be taken into account when
examining this. Firstly, Facebook doesn’t offer the option to moderate comments on posts
made by the owner of the page; they are either allowed or disallowed and immediately
become visible upon placement. They can be removed later if needed. The only posts that
can be moderated are posts made directly to the Page wall by users other than the owner.
Multiple reasons are conceivable to explain Focus’s apparent decision to allow instead of
ban commenting on Facebook. First, exerting (social) control over Facebook is relatively
easy since most users are using a profile containing at least some degree of personal
information, thus making them less likely to openly post offensive material. Since
Facebook allows specific people to be blocked by page owners, it’s easy to ban those few
that still do post links or comments considered offensive. Studying the nature of the
majority of the currently visible comments seems to imply that Focus either actively
moderates or no unwanted comments are being made at all. Setting up another account to
continue harassment is considerably more work than it would be on either YouTube or
Twitter, or likely than it would be had Focus’s main website offered the option to register
and comment. It might furthermore be argued that the added value of having a Facebook
page is allowing sympathizers to connect with one another directly and on a distinctively
personal level which, as we have seen, is a crucially important evangelical trait.
Thirdly and perhaps most interestingly, Focus’ approach also has a clear effect on the way
the organization’s Community Forums are set up. There are a number of different forums,
each addressing a particular topic, the most important being Relationships and Marriage
and Parenting, two of Focus’s main areas of interest. Registration is required in order to
post and upon registering it is necessary to agree to the site’s Terms of Use, in which two
45
interesting rules can be spotted. Firstly, all comments made on the forums are moderated
by hand before becoming visible, the reason Focus provides for doing this is the following:
Focus on the Family moderates all posts before they are made public. This
policy is to help foster a safe environment for all forum users. Any user who
believes that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us
immediately by e-mail at marriageadmin@family.org.161
Secondly, Focus warns against following links to unaffiliated sites that may be posted on
the forums (apparently after having been approved), since they may in turn lead to sites
containing possibly offensive material:
Links to other sites that take you outside of Focus’s sites are beyond our
control. Therefore, we are not responsible for those sites or what they offer. We
strongly urge you to perform due diligence before moving forward with any
transaction with other parties. Also, we cannot be held responsible for the
accuracy, legality, or decency of any material contained on sites outside of our
own. In addition, you waive any claim against Focus on the Family with regard
to content you give to third party sites, including credit card and other personal
information.162
While this statement on its own might not be out of the ordinary, it does fit into Focus’s
general approach to online content and its general Internet strategy of exerting control.
Finally, the reach of the Focus on the Family network is extensive and it contains a large
number of affiliated sites targeted at different audiences. Many of these websites link to
one another, with Focus often stimulating visitation. For instance, the section on Parenting
on the main site contains numerous links to Plugged In’s entertainment reviews. Nowhere
however are links to non-Focus related or non-affiliated sites to be found. Some type of
connection, either a clear affiliation, related project or co-operative effort, is always present
in any link provided on each of the many websites of the Focus on the Family online
network. Using a search engine such as Google in order to find more information on the
Web is not encouraged either.
“Community Forums: Terms and Conditions of Use” , Focus on the Family,
https://www.focusonlinecommunities.com/create-account.jspa?.
162 Ibidem.
161
46
Conclusion
The diverse amount of services offered by Focus, in correlation with the Web 1.0 approach
to information and the aim to create a visibly contained and controlled online community
correspond with the view put forth in the paragraph on general evangelical media usage
where it is stated that evangelical media producers and consumers aim to lose their status
of sub-culture and simply become an independent cultural entity. In its endeavors online
Focus on the Family attempts to provide its users with as many distinctly Christian
alternatives to popular secular websites as possible and to shield them from any type of
online activity that it considers harmful or offensive.
The negotiation process that Focus on the Family went through when dealing with Internet
as a new technological medium has thus resulted in the following conclusion:
Focus on the Family has adopted the Internet as an almost exclusively one-way medium;
as a conduit of information in which it treats its users as pure consumers and, by offering
both a vast network of diverse affiliated sites as well as resources, software and
guidelines, it creates a controlled and closed-off online environment.
47
CHAPTER VI: Supporting Case Study: The Southern Baptist Convention
Now that we have analyzed Focus on the Family’s general Internet approach and online
strategy, this final section will examine the website of the Southern Baptist Convention in
order to see if a coherent pattern might be established. Are the decisions made by Focus
on the Family unique or does the SBC employ a similar strategy in its online activities?
Due to the scope of the research and the space allocated to the historical background,
definition clarification, the establishment of a general evangelical media strategy and the
in-depth case study of Focus on the Family, these final two case studies will be shorter,
less focused on depth and instead take the form of a systematic comparison and analysis.
To facilitate this approach concise answers in essay form will be provided per case to the
following questions based on the results of the Focus on the Family case study:
-
What is the extent of the organization’s online network?
-
What level of user interactivity through social media, comments and/or forums is
possible? In other words, is a Web 1.0 or 2.0 approach taken?
-
Are distinctively evangelical alternatives or solutions to secular websites or media
offered or encouraged?
These questions form the three main points of interest resulting from the case study on
Focus on the Family. The answers will be preceded by a condensed section of general
information on the respective organizations, including core beliefs and historical
background.
Historical Background
The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is the largest Protestant denomination in the
United States. It considers itself a “convention of churches” – 45000 individual and
autonomous congregations as of 2012--, which aims at presenting “the Gospel of Jesus
Christ to every person in the world and to make disciples of all the nations.”163 The SBC
was founded in 1845 by a number of local Baptist churches in Georgia primarily as a
response to a decision by the General Convention for Foreign Missions, a cooperative
163
“Mission & Vision”, Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/missionvision.asp.
48
nation-wide Baptist organization at the time, to bar slaveholders from obtaining a
missionary license. The organization has since grown from numbers in the hundred
thousand at its formation to around 3.8 million by 1929, 5.2 million by 1941, 10 million by
1960 and currently has over 16 million members.164
In order to effectively and concisely illustrate the size and position of the SBC within the
American religious landscape a few examples will be provided. When the NAE was formed
in 1942 the SBC decided not to join although it shared many of the newly founded
association’s convictions. The SBC decided to keep aloof, not only because it wanted to
preserve its distinctively Southern background and outlook, its “ southernness”, but also,
and more importantly because it already comprised of almost an equal number of
members and did not need another organizational structure. At that time the SBC was
already the largest US publisher of religious literature, it sent out the highest number of
missionaries and “owned” the world’s largest Theological Seminary plus over 45
universities and colleges.165 By now those numbers have increased to six theological
seminaries and well over 60 universities and colleges. The SBC’s refusal to join the NAE is
a fine example of its rather unique position within the general evangelical landscape in
America. Up until the late 1980s it was not considered a part of the broader coalition of
American evangelicals.166
Both during the Civil War and in its wake the SBC continued to be distinctively Southern
and rural in character, almost exclusively white and focused entirely on states south of the
Mason-Dixon line.167 It was hardly affected by the rise of fundamentalism in the early
twentieth century, the Protestant re-alignment of the 1930s and the modernistfundamentalist debates of the 1940s and 50’s for the simple reason that in the South
modernism hardly existed.168 During the 1960s and 1970s, when many denominations
struggled to continue growth, the SBC grew steadily. In 1979 however, as Southern
conservatism politicized, a controversy emerged within the SBC that would shape the
denomination’s future.169 At the heart of the conflict were the organizational structure and
164
Mark A. Noll et al., Christianity in America: A Handbook (Herts: Lion Publishing, 1983), 262.
Barry Hankins, Uneasy in Babylon: Southern Baptist Conservatives and American Culture (Tuscaloosa:
The University of Alabama Press, 2002), 19.
166 Leonard, Gods Last and only Hope: The Fragmentation of the Southern Baptist Convention, 24.
167 Hankins, Uneasy in Babylon: Southern Baptist Conservatives and American Culture, 26 and Leonard,
Gods Last and only Hope: The Fragmentation of the Southern Baptist Convention, 17.
168 Hankins, Uneasy in Babylon: Southern Baptist Conservatives and American Culture, 26.
169 Ammerman, Baptist Battles: Social Change and Religious Conflict in the Southern Baptist Convention
and Leonard, Gods Last and only Hope: The Fragmentation of the Southern Baptist Convention,138-139.
165
49
course of the SBC; a matter built upon a major disagreement about how to deal with the
Bible. One side, later labeled “fundamentalists” claimed biblical authority could only be
defined by accepting a policy of biblical inerrancy; the belief that “the Bible is without error
in all matters of faith, history, theology, biology or any other issue that can be discussed
within its light”.170 The “moderates” on the other hand were unwilling to reshape the SBC
along strictly fundamentalist lines, emphasizing instead general Baptist values like
freedom of religion and missionary activity.
The conflict would eventually be “won” by the fundamentalists and biblical inerrancy came
to be the official doctrine of the SBC, one it still adheres to today, as stated on its website:
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of
Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its
author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its
matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the
principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end
of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by
which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All
Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine
revelation.171
By the early 1990’s the SBC, while still not a member of the NAE, began to make
overtures to other American evangelicals. It did so by, among other things, dealing with a
number of difficult issues from its past -- such as the justifications of slavery and the role of
African-Americans and women within the convention, --and-- by becoming more culturally
engaged and by clearly shifting its focus from the South to the entire nation.172 Since then
the SBC has grown into a national rather than regional denomination which communicates
a socially conservative, theologically fundamentalist message. At present, it is one of the
more powerful proponents of conservative evangelical Christianity within the United
States. Yet, since 2007, the SBC has been facing a slow but continual decline in
members. While in 2011 the total number of member churches increased, the actual
number of individual members decreased for the fifth consecutive year, this time by 0,65%
percent.173 At the latest annual convention in February of 2012 members discussed the
proposal to change the name of the SBC to “Great Commission Convention”. One of the
170
Bill J. Leonard, Gods Last and only Hope: The Fragmentation of the Southern Baptist Convention,7-8.
“Basic Beliefs”, Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp.
172 Hankins, Uneasy in Babylon: Southern Baptist Conservatives and American Culture, 39-40.
173 “Southern Baptist Statistical Summary 2011”, Southern Baptist Convention
http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2012/06/12/9599113/news-acp-2011-chart1-hires.jpg and Bob Allen, “SBC
membership drops below 16 million”, ABP News, last modified June 12, 2012, http://goo.gl/Bp1ro.
171
50
reasons for this proposal was an online poll by SBC-owned LifeWay Research among
2000 Americans that showed that 44% of respondents stated that knowing that a church
was an SBC-member would negatively influence their decision to join or visit. 174 Finally,
while the overwhelming majority of the SBC remains based in the South and ethnically
white, the convention is set to elect their first ever African-American president, Rev. Fred
Luter Jr., in what has been speculated to be an attempt to reach out to a broader
audience.175
Core Beliefs
The SBC still adheres to the main purpose put forth in its 1845 Charter, “… eliciting,
combining, and directing the energies of the Baptist denomination of Christians, for the
propagation of the gospel, any law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding” 176.
In its own words the convention is based upon eight core values; Christ-likeness, Truth,
Unity, Relationships, Trust, Future, Local Church and Kingdom. These key words, in
particular the first, second and seventh a stand out as clear indications of a conservative
evangelical Baptist background. Of equal importance is the notion that prayer grants
believers the possibility to become more and more like Christ (closely related to the
preceding rebirth in Christ, known as being “born again”) and the focus on the autonomy of
the local church.
Network Analysis
In the remainder of this chapter, we will try to analyze the SBC’s online reach, level of
interactivity and offered resources in order to assess similarities or differences with the
Internet approach of Focus on the Family.
The main website of the Southern Baptist Convention can be visited through www.sbc.net
and currently attracts around 50.000 unique visitors every month.177 The website provides
a wealth of information on the SBC itself, its leadership, structure, core beliefs and vision,
“Southern Baptists meet during challenging times”, The Associated Press, last modified June 19 2012,
http://m.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/19/southern-baptists-meet-during-challenging-times/.
175 Billy Hallowell, “Meet the Southern Baptist Convention’s first black president”, The Blaze, last modified
June 20, 2012, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/meet-the-southern-baptist-conventions-first-black-president/
176 “Mission & Vision”, Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/missionvision.asp.
177 “Compete Site Analytics for www.sbc.net”, last modified May 2012,
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/sbc.net/.
174
51
mission and position statements, resolutions adopted by the annual convention meeting,
charters, constitution and even by-laws. Services include facilities for searching for a local
church, minister or job and a gamut of ready-to-use information for church leaders,
teachers, webmasters and employers. The main site also contains a large section on the
Baptist faith and message and what sets it apart from other varieties of (evangelical)
Christianity.
The main website is only one of many that make up the SBC network. Other sites belong
to SBC-owned organizations, provide a wide array of services, cover varying topics and
are, like those of Focus on the Family, each aimed at a particular audience. One of the
most important is LifeWay Christian Resources, the SBC’s web store178, -- “one of the
world's largest providers of Christian products and services, including Bibles, church
literature, books, music, audio and video recordings, church supplies and Internet
services”179--, which sees over 500.000 unique visitors per month.180 LifeWay provides
both a store and free online content such as MyStudyBible.com, an online Bible. It also
harbors a Digital Church section, where it provides webmasters, ministers and church
members with tools and resources to help further advance their respective online
activities.181 Links to numerous related or affiliated sites are offered, including Fellowship
One, LifeWay Worship, Crossbooks, Yaptap, YouVersion Live, LifeWay Sign Sales and
LifeWay LINK. These in turn offer services and tools ranging from analytics, web-building
and statistics software specifically aimed at churches182, the latest in “worship material” 183,
publishing attributes and help184 to mobile apps. Most of these are subdivisions of
LifeWay, some are outsourced to non-SBC owned Christian companies such as
Fellowship One.
A second major subsidiary of the SBC is the North American Mission Board (NAMB), a
missionary organization which targets North America and Canada. SBC churches as well
as individual members can join NAMB and contribute to NAMB activities nation-wide. The
organization has its own website, www.namb.net and provides information on missionary
activity by the SBC, resources and guidelines for NAMB membership ministries and
“LifeWay: Biblical Solutions for Life”, http://www.lifeway.com.
“About Us”, LifeWay, http://www.lifeway.com/Article/About-Us.
180 “Compete Site Analytics for www.lifeway.com”, modified May 2012,
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/lifeway.com/.
181 “Digital Church”, LifeWay, http://www.lifeway.com/n/Services/Digital-Church-Tools?type=services.
182 “LifeWayLINK”, LifeWay, http://lifewaylink.com/.
183 “LifeWay Worship”, LifeWay, http://www.lifewayworship.com/.
184 “Crossbooks”, LifeWay, http://www.crossbooks.com/Default.aspx.
178
179
52
missionaries. Of particular interest is the fact that the NAMB site, like the main SBC
website and LifeWay, links to over fifteen different affiliated websites, including those of
“4Truth”, “MapChurch”, “Actsone8”, “Baptism Celebration”, “Find it Here” and “Annie
Armstrong”. All of these are SBC-owned and each is again narrowly focused on a
particular topic; ranging from providing and setting up a map of current missionary activity,
resources and tips for turning any church into a worldwide mission center, providing tools
for pastors so they may organize a special “Baptism Celebration” event and a site
providing simple and easy to understand answers to basic questions on God’s existence
and the Bible’s trustworthiness.
The SBC main website has a special youth section, which links to a number of affiliated
websites. These affiliated links include www.studentz.com, a site containing information
and resources for teenage children and students including sections like Campus
Missionaries and World Changers. On www.thekristo.com, a Flash movie on the Gospel
can be viewed and www.thetask.org is a youth focused missionary website owned by the
International Mission Board (IMB), an alternative SBC-owned missionary organization. On
www.inallthingspray.com the SBC offers resources for prayer, including the ability to post
prayer requests (after signing up), numerous books on prayer and an online prayer
planner schedule. The annual meeting of the SBC also has a dedicated website, located
at http://www.sbcannualmeeting.net/, where specific information for this major event can
be found.
The SBC owns its own news wire service, Baptist Press, that according to their website,
www.bpnews.net, “…circulates to 40 state Baptist newspapers with a combined circulation
of 1.16 million, but also partners with a number of other Christian and secular media
outlets, both in print and on the Internet.”185 Articles featured all bring Southern Baptist or
general Baptist related news and currently heavily focus on the to-be elected president of
the SBC, the aforementioned Rev. Fred Luter Jr.. A subsidiary of Baptist News exclusively
covering sports, Baptist Sports, is also accessible. Next to a news service, the SBC
publishes a journal for pastors, staff, denominational workers and evangelists and
missionaries called, which also has a separate website, www.sbclife.org. It offers articles
on SBC-related activities, opinion and information and tips and encouragement for a
specific reader audience.
185
“About Us”, Baptist Press, http://www.bpnews.net/AboutUs.asp.
53
A final example of a subsidiary service offered by the SBC is GuideStone, “…a diversified
Christian financial services provider, offering retirement, insurance, investment
management, property and casualty coverage, and executive planning products and
services to the Southern Baptist and wider evangelical Christian community.”186 Its
website, www.guidestone.org, gives financial tips and offers resources and (paid)
counseling.
Interactivity
Getting in touch with the SBC is possible through telephone or e-mail, but no publicly
visible feedback can be provided and no comments can be posted. No such options exist
on the large majority of the SBC’s many affiliated sites. This omission is especially
interesting at Baptist2Baptist, an online user community for Southern Baptists, offering
information, publications, papers and reports on multiple SBC-related topics. Baptist News
is among the few sites that provides the option to share articles on Facebook, but it allows
no direct comments. The SBC does not offer any type of official user forum community
anywhere on the web. Unofficial and unaffiliated forums and blogs do exist, including for
instance www.sbctoday.com.
The SBC itself is not officially active on either Facebook, Twitter or YouTube, but
numerous local congregations and member churches are, such as for instance the
Southern Baptists of Texas and the Michigan Southern Baptists. Many of these are also
autonomously active on the internet. Several SBC-owned organizations are active on both
Facebook and Twitter, including NAMB and SBC Life, the former running an official NAMB
account as well as several for its subsidiaries, including the SBC Disaster Relief and
NAMB Prayer.
The NAMB website differs from other SBC-owned sites as it does feature the option to
comment on articles published in its “newsroom” section, FAQ’s and on its blog posts.
Registration is required or a login using either a Facebook or Yahoo account is necessary.
Comments made are moderated before becoming visible and required to be signed with
the user’s full name. NAMB states that: “We strive to maintain an atmosphere of free and
open discussion, but comments are moderated.[…] Comments containing profanity,
personal attacks or other inappropriate content will be edited or rejected at the sole
186
“About Us”, GuideStone Financial Resources, http://www.guidestone.org/AboutUs.aspx.
54
discretion of the North American Mission Board.”187 Inspection shows the majority of
articles to have been left uncommented upon, the FAQ section currently holds no more
than 19 comments, the youngest dating back 4 months, the oldest over one year. 188 The
NAMB website also contains the option to “Like” and “Tweet” articles, posting them on
respectively Facebook or Twitter.
The majority of services, resources and tools offered are in some sense faith related. A
few exceptions exist including GuideStone and Baptist Press. The former stands out as it
offers a service to its users that is also offered by numerous secular companies and
organizations, providing a distinctively evangelical alternative. Baptist News also serves as
a go-to spot for news and updates, but since it almost exclusively covers SBC or Baptist
related material, its use as a daily source of news is limited. The SBC does not encourage
the use of a different news media website for daily news at this time.
Conclusion
The online presence of the Southern Baptist Convention is extensive; its network includes
well over forty different websites. Many of these websites belong to subsidiary
organizations and link to either each other or different affiliated sites, covering the wide
array of subjects discussed above. The level of modernity among its various sites seems
to differ somewhat, a few in need of a visual update, while others easily match (secular)
counterparts in terms of looks and ease of use. The SBC main site, LifeWay and NAMB
fall into the latter category and show the SBC realizes and actively employs many of the
possibilities the Internet has to offer.
Negotiation Process
The SBC has made a number of decisions in its treatment of the Internet that resemble
those made by Focus on the Family and show a similarly cautious and controlling
approach however.
Firstly, it is equally closed off and controlled. Surfing the online network of the SBC for
extended periods of time, browsing numerous sites covering a multitude of topics and not
187
188
“FAQ”, North American Mission Board, http://www.namb.net/faq/.
Ibidem.
55
ending up on any unaffiliated or unrelated site or material at any stage is easy. In fact, it is
nearly impossible to find any site that links to one that is not SBC-owned, affiliated or
related. In other words; as long as one does not manually enter in a different URL and
merely keeps following links on sites within the network, its confines are never breached.
Secondly, almost everywhere the SBC engages in online communication it does so
implementing a one-way approach; using the Internet as a conduit of information and
ignoring or actively removing its interactive capabilities. The website of the North American
Missionary Board is the only major SBC-owned site that has a strictly moderated comment
section, such a feature is non-existent everywhere else. The SBC is virtually inactive on
social networking sites; no official Facebook, YouTube or Twitter accounts exist. Some of
its subsidiaries are active there, but their audience is limited and interaction is low.
No online SBC community forums exist, the only specifically SBC- or Baptist targeted
message boards in existence belong to unaffiliated owners. Considering the fact that
setting up a forum is relatively easy and also taking into account the amount of volunteers
active within the SBC189 the possibilities it could offer for SBC members for around the
U.S. or world to interact are many. In this light one might expect the SBC to offer its
members and member churches more freedom within its official network, but instead it
keeps it controlled and closed-off, forcing any initiative in this direction to come from local
members, churches or congregations.
Linking these individual conclusions to the conservative background of the SBC yields an
interesting result. On the one hand the organization implements many of the Internet’s
modern features and possibilities in reaching out to the world and spreading its message.
This corresponds with the purpose its considers most important; the spreading of the
Gospel to as many people as possible. Websites provide easy access to a wealth of
information for a national as well as international audience. Furthermore, by adopting
online outreach opportunities sites like NAMB are capable of greatly expanding their area
of influence, for instance by allowing maps of missionary activities to be created quickly
and easily. LifeWay provides the SBC with a modern webstore, an important source of
income and also helps to effectively expand its on and offline presence and influence. In a
189
Volunteering is widely encouraged within the SBC; at its annual Convention visitors can sign up to
become an official SBC volunteer and both NAMB and IMB offer easy online instructions for similar
purposes.
56
society with an extremely competitive religious market, characterized by a high mobility
level, it is activities like these that benefit an institution’s chance of survival tremendously.
On the other hand however the SBC, like Focus on the Family, deliberately removes many
“risks” in implementing a Web 1.0 strategy; that of critical opinions, voiced by outsiders or
members and otherwise unwanted, publicly visible feedback that could lead to internal
discussion or even conflict. Considering the controversy of 1979 it would seem the SBC is
actively attempting to prevent something similar from happening again by keeping a high
level of control and harmoniously heading into the next decade guided by conservative
principles clear to all.
Interestingly, multiple attempted inquiries into SBC Internet approach, apparent decisions
and overall online strategy with the organization itself through e-mail did not yield any
official response either. As such these cannot be integrated into the research.
57
Conclusion
This final conclusion will combine the findings put forth in each of the individual chapters in
order to provide an answer to the main research question: “How do American evangelicals
make use of the Internet?” It will also suggest possibilities for further research.
The heart of this thesis consists of two analytic case studies in which the Internet use of
two major evangelical organizations, Focus on the Family and the Southern Baptist
Convention, is analyzed. The “Religious Social Shaping of Technology”, or RSST,
methodology, explained in detail in Chapter I is adhered to for both these studies. RSST
relies on the examination of four distinct areas of interest; a religious community’s history
and tradition, its core beliefs, its process of negotiation with new media and finally the
promotion to its end users. Combined these result in an effective framework for the study
of new media usage by religious communities and this now allows for a number of
concluding observations to be made.
Firstly, providing a firm definition of the term “evangelical” is crucial, but has proven to be
no simple task. In Chapter II we have seen that evangelicals make up roughly 30-35% of
the American population and form a clearly distinct group within the American religious
landscape, sharing an important history and set of common traditions and core beliefs.
Simultaneously however they are a dynamic, diverse and in no sense homogenous whole;
while distinctively different from Mainline, fundamentalist and non-Protestant Christians,
they can be equally disparate from one another. This thesis considers evangelicals to be
those Protestant Christians that use the term to define themselves and that do not belong
to either the Mainline or fundamentalist churches.
Secondly, assessment of evangelicals’ past relationship with mass media in Chapter III
has shown it to be dynamic in character, in particular its dealings with radio and television.
Initially almost completely locked out of the former, evangelicals were quick to realize and
act on the potential of the latter and by 1990 dominated most of the religious airwaves.
An attempt to establish a general evangelical new media approach proved that only one
basic tenet may be confirmed; the emphasis on its use as a tool for the spreading of the
Gospel. A number of overarching fears and cultural motifs are present however. These
include the notion that secular media threatens evangelical faith, a disinterest in religious
tradition, uncritical faith in media technology and a strong urge to popularize evangelical
58
culture whereby the creation of a separate evangelical “culture” as opposed to a mere
“sub-culture” is envisioned.
Thirdly, and most interestingly, the results of the two case studies show a number of
remarkable similarities between the Internet approach of Focus on the Family and the
Southern Baptist Convention that correspond with the constructed image of evangelical
new media appropriation.
Both Focus on the Family and the SBC are actively engaged online and run an extensive
network of websites; over twenty in the case of the former and well over forty in the case of
the latter. These websites offer a wide array of resources, tools and tips, are informationdense, professionally designed and targeted at varying but specific audiences. The
content on the majority of websites is free of charge, but both organizations also use the
Internet as a source of monetary income; Focus on the Family has partnered with
Christianbook.com and the SBC runs its own online store, LifeWay. The case studies
show that maintaining a strong online presence is important to both organizations; a result
of America’s competitive religious climate. Mobility among Protestants is high and, as we
have seen, evangelicals in particular hold little regard for religious tradition. To Focus on
the Family and the SBC The Internet is in essence a new market unaffected by
geographical boundaries harboring an enormous audience that may be reached by the
message of the Gospel and encouraged to become contributing Focus on the Family or
SBC members at the same time.
While extensive, the networks are closed and the online experience of users is strictly
controlled both actively and passively. First, both organizations implement a Web 1.0
strategy throughout most of their websites, using them as one-way conduits of information.
The only website with a section where publicly visible comments can be made is that of
the North American Mission Board. This is only possible upon registration and still prone to
pre-emptive moderation. A similar system is used for posts on the Focus on the Family
official community forums, an online interactive service the SBC does not offer at all.
Hyperlinks provided on websites within either network almost exclusively lead to
unaffiliated sites and on the rare occasions that they do not, some form of connection with
the linked website is always present usually in the form of a business partnership.
59
Secondly, social networking capabilities, including popular new media platforms such as
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are used only scarcely. The SBC does not own an official
account on either one, but some of its subsidiary organizations do. Their reach is limited
however and most are updated infrequently, thus playing a role of little importance. Focus
on the Family is active on all three, but has turned off comments on YouTube and uses
Twitter merely to put out information or retweet favourable tweets from others. Its
Facebook page has a considerable reach and forms an exception as commenting is
allowed; arguments have been provided in Chapter IV that may explain why this decision
was made.
Finally, both organizations offer distinctively evangelical alternatives to secular websites
and services, ranging from online games and movie reviews to television series, financial
help and insurance policies. This notion fits well into the theory put forth in Chapter II that
evangelicals are actively attempting to establish an online culture outside that of secular
American culture.
The overall Internet approach taken by Focus on the Family is slightly less strict than that
of the SBC, likely because of the two organizations the SBC is the more conservative one.
It is very interesting to research the deliberate strategy of control and containment both
organizations demonstrate online. It seems they are continually attempting to find the right
balance between engaging in lucrative modern online activities and making use of the
Internet’s tremendous outreach potential on the one hand and limiting its many potential
risks on the other. In that sense it fits well into the typical combination of positive
expectance and caution evangelicals have displayed in the past.
Further research in this field could include analyzing the online activity of other evangelical
organizations in order to determine if they too implement this particular or similar
strategies. Keeping a close eye on future developments is also recommendable; in
particular the SBC seems to be in a process of gradually opening itself up to a new and
younger demographic as a response to a recent decline in numbers; more open and active
Internet participation might fit into that strategy.
60
Bibliography
Printed Literature
Allitt, Patrick. Religion in America since 1945. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003.
Ammerman, Nancy T., Baptist Battles: Social Change and Religious Conflict in the Southern
Baptist Convention. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press, 1990.
Ammerman, Nancy T., Bible Believers: Fundamentalists in the Modern World. Piscataway: Rutgers
University Press, 1987.
Ammerman, Nancy T., “Fundamentalists proselytizing Jews: incivility in preparation for the
rapture”. In Pushing the Faith; Proselytism and Civility in a Pluralistic World, edited by Martin E.
Marty and Frederick E. Greenspahn. New York: Crossroad, 1988.
Bendroth, Margaret L., “Fundamentalism and the Media”. In Religion and Mass Media: Audiences
and Adaptations, edited by Daniel A. Stout and Judith M. Buddenbaum. New York: SAGE
Publications, 1996.
Boston, Rob. “Family Feud: Focus on the Family's James Dobson dares to discipline wayward
member of the GOP – and maybe America, too”. Church and State May (1998): 9-14.
Brooks Holifield, E., God’s Ambassadors: A History of the Christian Clergy in America. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
Bruce, Steve. Pray TV: Televangelism in America. London: Routledge, 1990.
Campbell, Heidi A. When Religion Meets New Media. New York: Routledge, 2010.
Catherwood, Christopher. Five Evangelical Leaders. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1984.
Chidester, David. Christianity, A Global History. London: Penguin, 2000.
Ferre, John P., “The Media of Popular Piety”. In Mediating Religion: Conversations in Media,
Religion and Culture, edited by Jolyon Mitchell and Sophia Marriage. London: T&T Clark LTD,
2003.
Gilgoff, D., The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical
America are Winning the Culture War. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2007.
Hadden, Jeffrey K., Televangelism: Power and Politics on God’s Frontiers. New York: Holt, 1988.
Hankins, Barry. American Evangelicals: A Contemporary History of a Mainstream Religious
Movement. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.
Hankins, Barry. Uneasy in Babylon: Southern Baptist Conservatives and American Culture.
Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2002.
Goodwin Heltzel, Peter. Jesus and Justice: Evangelicals, Race and American Politics. Yale: Yale
University Press, 2009.
Harris, Harriet A., Fundamentalism and Evangelicals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Hatch, Nathan O., The Democratization of American Christianity. Yale: Yale University Press,
1991.
61
Hendershot, Heather. Shaking the World for Jesus: Media and Conservative Evangelical Culture.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.
Laurence Moore, R., Selling God: American Religion in the Marketplace Culture. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1995.
Leaning, Jeremy. “James Dobson: The Religious Right’s 800-Pound Gorilla”. Church and State
February (2005): 12-14.
Leonard, Bill J., Gods Last and only Hope: The Fragmentation of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
MacKenzie, Donald, and Judy Wacjman, The Social Shaping of Technology: How the Refrigerator
Got Its Hum. Milton Keynes: UK Open University, 1985.
Marsden, George M., Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991.
Marty, Martin E., Pilgrims in Their Own Land. 500 Years of Religion in America. New York:
Penguin, 1984.
Noll, Mark A., American Evangelical Christianity: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers,
2011.
Noll, Mark. A., Nathan O. Hatch, George M. Marsden, David F. Wells and John D. Woodbridge,
Christianity in America: A Handbook. Herts: Lion Publishing, 1983.
Schultze, Quentin J., “Evangelicals’ Uneasy Alliance with the Media” in Religion and Mass Media:
Audiences and Adaptations, edited by Daniel A. Stout and Judith M. Buddenbaum. New York:
SAGE Publications, 1996.
Schultze, Quentin J., and Robert M. Woods, Understanding Evangelical Media: The Changing
Face of Christian Communication. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008.
Vidler, Alec R., The Church in an Age of Revolution [The Penguin History of the Church, Vol. 5].
London: Penguin, 1990 (orig. 1962).
Online
Allen, Bob. “SBC membership drops below 16 million”. ABP News, last modified June 12, 2012,
http://abpnews.com/ministry/organizations/item/7520-sbc-membership-drops-below-16-million#.THH0bU9UeV
Associated Press, The. “Southern Baptists meet during challenging times”, last modified June 19
2012, http://m.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/19/southern-baptists-meet-during-challengingtimes/
Baptist Press. “About Us”, http://www.bpnews.net/AboutUs.asp
Big Boards. “Religion Forums and Message Boards”, http://www.big-boards.com/kw/religion/
Compete Site Analytics. “Compete Site Analytics for www.focusonthefamily.com”, modified May
2012, http://siteanalytics.compete.com/focusonthefamily.com/
Compete Site Analytics. “Compete Site Analytics for www.lifeway.com”, modified May 2012,
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/lifeway.com/
62
Compete Site Analytics. “ Compete Site Analytics for www.sbc.net”, last modified May 2012,
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/sbc.net/
“Christian Forums”, http://www.christianforums.com/
Dalfonzo, Gina R., “Innocence Lost”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/protecting_your_family/combatting_cultural_influences/
innocence_lost.aspx
Family Talk. “Dr. Dobson’s Ministry & History”, http://www.myfamilytalk.com/about/history
Family Talk. “What we Believe”, http://www.drjamesdobson.org/about/Statement-of-Faith
Fey, Marc A., “A Real Foundation”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/christian_worldview/why_is_a_christian_worldview_importa
nt/a_real_foundation.aspx
Focus on the Family. http://www.focusonthefamily.com
Focus on the Family. “2010 Annual Report”,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/downloads/financialreports/2010-annual-report.pdf
Focus on the Family, “About Us”, http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us.aspx
Focus on the Family. “Community Forums: Terms and Conditions of Use” ,
https://www.focusonlinecommunities.com/create-account.jspa?
Focus on the Family, “Foundational Values”, http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us/guidingprinciples.aspx
Focus on the Family. “ Internet Safety: Building Character and Building Walls”,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/topicinfo/Internet_SafetyBuilding_Character_and_Building_Walls.pdf
Focus on the Family. “Our Founder – Dr. James Dobson”,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us/james-dobson.aspx
Focus on the Family. “What is Focus on the Family's position on divorce and remarriage?”,
http://family.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/25554
Goldberg, Joshua A., “Decline in US mainline denominations continues”, Christian Today, last
modified February 15, 2010,
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/decline.in.us.mainline.denominations.continues/25305.htm
GuideStone Financial Resources, “About Us”, http://www.guidestone.org/AboutUs.aspx
Hallowell, Billy. “Meet the Southern Baptist Convention’s first black president”, The Blaze, last
modified June 20, 2012, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/meet-the-southern-baptist-conventionsfirst-black-president/
“Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals”, http://isae.wheaton.edu/definingevangelicalism/how-many-evangelicals-are-there/
Internet Wayback Machine. “Focus on the Family: Our Guiding Principles, April 1999”
http://web.archive.org/web/19990421111126/http://www.family.org/welcome/aboutfof/a0000078.ht
ml
63
Internet Wayback Machine. “Focus on the Family Website of Feb. 1999”,
http://web.archive.org/web/19990219232627/http://www.family.org/welcome/aboutfof/A0000111.ht
ml
Jelly Telly, What Is Jelly Telly”, http://www.jellytelly.com/what-is-jelly-telly/
LifeWay, “About Us”, http://www.lifeway.com/Article/About-Us
LifeWay , “Crossbooks”, http://www.crossbooks.com/Default.aspx
LifeWay. “LifeWay: Biblical Solutions for Life”, http://www.lifeway.com
LifeWay, “Digital Church”, http://www.lifeway.com/n/Services/Digital-Church-Tools?type=services
LifeWay, “LifeWayLINK”, http://lifewaylink.com/
LifeWay, “LifeWay Worship”, http://www.lifewayworship.com/
Moreland, J.P., “Choosin' My Religion”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/christian_worldview/why_is_a_christian_worldview_importa
nt/choosin_my_religion.aspx
North American Mission Board, “FAQ”, http://www.namb.net/faq/
Pepe, Greg and Jim Vigorito, “Job Loss: Questions and Answers”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/lifechallenges/life_transitions/when_you_have_lost_your_job/job
%20loss%20questions%20and%20answers.aspx
“Protect Marriage”, http://www.protectmarriage.com/
“Rapture Ready”, http://www.rr-bb.com/
Schutte, Shana. “ Answers for Cutters from the Bible”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/lifechallenges/abuse_and_addiction/conquering_cutting_and_oth
er_forms_of_selfinjury/answers_for_cutters_from_the_bible.aspx
Southern Baptist Convention. “Mission & Vision”, http://www.sbc.net/missionvision.asp
Southern Baptist Convention . “Southern Baptist Statistical Summary 2011”,
http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2012/06/12/9599113/news-acp-2011-chart1-hires.jpg
Tackett, Del., “ Why is a Christian Worldview Important?”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/christian_worldview/why_is_a_christian_worldview_importa
nt.aspx
Velarde, Robert. “How do I interpret the Bible”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/the_study_of_god/how_do_we_know_the_bible_is_true/ho
w_do_i_interpret_the_bible.aspx
Watters, Steve and Candice Z. Watters “Kids Can Be Good for Marriage, Really”, Focus on the
Family,
http://www3.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/the_early_years/preparing-to-start-a-family/kids-canbe-good-for-marriage-really.aspx
64
Watters, Steve and Candice Z. Watters, “Why Have Kids?”, Focus on the Family
http://www3.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/the_early_years/preparing-to-start-a-family/why-havekids.aspx
Whelchel, Lisa., “Controlling the Tongue”, Focus on the Family,
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/effective_biblical_discipline/creative_discipline_ideas/c
ontrolling_the_tongue.aspx
65