The Beginning of Religious Broadcasting
Read the following
links:
View the following
video clips:
Thought and
Reflection
Radio and television have had an interesting relationship
with religion and religious broadcasting. In the early 1920s, conservative
Protestants (including the New York-based Calvary Baptist Church) were the
first to begin using the airwaves to preach and promote their old-fashioned
religion. Interestingly, these early days gave root to a form of Protestantism
that seems to have taken control of mainstream Christianity today. In 1923,
religious organizations owned 12 stations. A year later, nearly 1 in 14 radio
station licenses were owned by religious organizations.
These early days of broadcasting gave birth to a group of
preachers who became known as “broadcast evangelists,” and who created a form
of para-churches that would evolve in the modern Evangelical tradition and
today’s mega-churches. We have seen in the recent Republican primary how
Evangelicals have influenced voting patterns and litmus tests for the
suitability of candidates. Their roots began here.
Read the link:
The article associated with the link will give you some
interesting background on this evolution via the airwaves.
By the late 1920s, the Catholic Church also was represented
on the airwaves. Now, I want you to note a couple of things here. We can call
these the effects or consequences of religious broadcasts.
First, these broadcast created strong personalities, who, in many ways
became popular culture icons with cult-like followings. Ironically, in the
early days, two of these were Catholic priests. Two worth noting here are
Bishop Sheen and Charles E. Coughlin.
Go to the link:
and read about Bishop Sheen. You can watch one of his early
TV broadcasts at the following link:
Watch this broadcast. What do you think was the appeal? Why
did this type of program (note the topic and broadcast production techniques)
have such an appeal?
Second, the broadcasts frequently mixed religion with politics.
Has anything really changed? Father Coughlin was notorious for mixing religion
and politics in his broadcasts. Check out the link below, for example:
Check this one out, too:
This was Father Coughlin’s Easter message radio broadcast in
1939. Note that he uses it to address the winds of upcoming war (he was opposed
to US involvement in the European conflict, although fearful of communism, and
used his pulpit to promote his ideas).
Religion and politics still mix on the airwaves today.
Check out this unbelievable conversation between
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on the “700 Club” only two days after 9-11.
Third, these broadcasts (as time passed) became more theater than
traditional church service. Among those mastering this was Oral
Roberts. Check out this clip from the 1950s:
Interestingly, we see this today as well. The more things
change, the more they stay the same. Check out this report in Pastor Benny
Hinn:
Fourth, the networks recognized that religious programming could meet
public service broadcasting requirements, as mandated by the FCC. A bit
of background is in order here. In 1927, the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) was
created (this was the forerunner to the FCC). It viewed religiously-owned
stations as “propaganda stations” and discriminated against them under the
power given to the FRC by Congress. One of these powers was to control radio
licenses, effectively allowing the FRC to push many non-commercial religious
stations off the air. In 1929, the FRC explained how it would address licensing
issues in the context of religious programming for commercial stations. The FRC
said it would favor stations that offered a
well-rounded program [in order] to best
serve the public. In such a scheme
there is no room for the operation of
broadcasting stations exclusively by or
In the private interests of individuals
or groups... As a general rule particular
doctrines, creeds and beliefs must find
their way into the market of ideas by
the existing public-service stations,
(p. 34)(Schultze, “Evangelical radio and
the rise of the electronic church, 1921-1948,”
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 32(3): 289-306)
the rise of the electronic church, 1921-1948,”
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 32(3): 289-306)
Although some religious stations survived, most did not.
Many radio networks began syndicating religious programs that were picked up
around the country and aired as public services by local affiliates. As pointed
out in your readings, the television networks would continue this, creating a
number of long-running programs that included “Lamp Unto My Feet” (CBS),
“Directions” (ABC), “Frontiers of Faith” (NBC), and “Look Up And Live” (CBS).
Fifth, while most early programs were directed to adult audiences,
religious broadcasters eventually created programs that would appeal to
children. In the early days of their ministry, for example, Jim and
Tammy Faye Bakker hosted a children’s religious program that featured puppets.
My all-time favorite is “Davey and Goliath,” which was produced by the Lutheran
Church in America from 1960-65. It was actually produced by the same guy that
did the “Gumby” series.
Here’s a link. Note the good Bible message about sharing
included in the short episode:
Finally, I should point out that while religious broadcasting produced
large audiences, it also created a substantial amount of public cynicism.
Nothing captured this better than the 1960s film, “Elmer Gantry.”
Read the following synopsis of the film “Elmer Gantry” which
I pulled off the internet:
Elmer Gantry (1960) is an entertaining
melodrama with memorable performances, from writer/director Richard Brooks. It
is the controversial telling of Sinclair Lewis' 1927 muckraker novel regarding
the charismatically engaging, but scandalous Midwestern salesman turned
preacher in the 1920s. The film accurately foretells the actual real-life
scandals of many tele-evangelists in the last part of the century, including
Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Bakker, and Oral Roberts (which we will talk
about next time).
The film was nominated for five Academy Awards (including Best Picture and Best Score (Andre Previn) and won three: Best Actor for Burt Lancaster (his sole Oscar win of four Best Actor nominations), Best Adapted Screenplay (Brooks), and Best Supporting Actress (Shirley Jones, known for her squeaky-clean role in TV's The Partridge Family).
Elmer Gantry (Burt Lancaster) is
a huckster who sells shoeshines and vacuum cleaners. Gantry is lustful, coarse,
loud, ambitious, motivated by an easy dollar, golden-tongued, and often drunk.
His first memorable appearance
on screen in a speakeasy demonstrates his high-energy eloquence with words in
this impromptu Christmas sermon:
...You think, uh, religion is for suckers and easy marks and molly-coddlers, eh? You think Jesus was some kind of a sissy, hey? Well, let me tell you, Jesus wouldn't be afraid to walk into this joint or any other speakeasy to preach the gospel. Jesus had guts. He wasn't afraid of the whole Roman army. (Pointing to a picture) Think that quarterback's hot stuff? Well, let me tell you, Jesus would have made the best little All-American quarterback in the history of football. Jesus was a real fighter - the best little scrapper, pound for pound, you ever saw. And why, gentlemen? Love, gentlemen. Jesus had love in both fists! And what is love? Love is the mornin' and the evenin' star. It shines on the cradle of the Babe. Hear ye, sinners. Love is the inspiration of poets and philosophers. Love is the voice of music. I'm talkin' about divine love - not carnal love.
The opportunistic Gantry becomes infatuated by touring tent ministry evangelist-healer, the beautiful, pure, and dedicated Sister Sharon Falconer (Jean Simmons), and she is charmed by him as well: "You're amusing and you smell like a real man." He joins her tent ministry, and becomes her lover. [Sister Falconer's character was based upon real-life evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson.]
Gantry turns into an
evangelizing, Bible Belt revivalist preacher, recognized by cynical reporter
Jim Lefferts (Arthur Kennedy), an H.L. Mencken disciple, as having exceptional
qualities:
I've heard many a powerful Bible-walloper, but you not only put the fear of God into them, you scared the hell out of 'em. And the way you strung certain words together - "America, home, mother. Heaven, hell... Love, hate, sin."
Exhibiting tremendous showmanship, Brother Gantry, with rolled up shirt-sleeves, preaches hellfire and brimstone, thumps his Bible, performs miracles, and leads repentant sinners to conversion in the Bible Belt tent meetings:
Sin. Sin, Sin. You're all sinners. You're all doomed to perdition. You're all goin' to the painful, stinkin', scaldin', everlastin' tortures of a fiery hell, created by God for sinners, unless, unless, unless you repent.
He also preaches against the evils of booze:
As long as I got a foot, I'll kick booze. And, as long as I got a fist, I'll punch it. And, as long as I got a tooth, I'll bite it. And, when I'm old and gray and toothless and bootless, I'll gum it till I go to heaven and booze goes to hell.
His popularity helps to increase her fame and fortune, and she is able to realize her dream of building her own tabernacle of worship.
In an act of revenge, one of his old jilted girlfriends, minister's daughter-turned-prostitute Lulu Bains (Shirley Jones) sets him up and frames him with photographs taken in a compromising situation, ruining his reputation. At one point earlier in the film, she remembers how Gantry had violated her when she was 'saved' as a teenager, when asked if Gantry could save anybody:
Can he? Ha, ha, ha, ha! Can he!? Anywhere, anytime. In a tent, standin' up, layin' down, or any other way. And he's got plenty of ways....Sister, I was saved by him way back in Schoenheim, Kansas. "Love... love is the mornin' and the evenin' star." "And what is love? Not the carnal, but the divine love!" Oh, he gave me special instructions back of the pulpit Christmas Eve. He got to howlin' "Repent! Repent!" and I got to moanin' "Save me! Save me!" And the first thing I knew, he rammed the fear of God into me so fast I never heard my old man's footsteps! The next thing I knew, I was out in the cold, hard snow in my bare little soul.
Although Gantry is later vindicated and cleared of morals charges, he jeopardizes their ambitions.
The new tabernacle opens, but Sister Falconer tragically dies in a blazing tent fire. When asked if he will carry on Sister Sharon's work in the lucrative revivalist business, Gantry quotes scripture to explain how experiences have matured him, and why he will not continue and run the new proposed tent-tabernacle:
When I was a child, I spake as a child. I understood as a child. When I became a man, I put away childish things. St. Paul. First Corinthians. Thirteen eleven.
Unflappable, he exits with "So long, Bill" (to manager William Morgan (Dean Jagger) and walks off down the pier with a half-smile on his face, as the film ends.
Something Good to Note
Not surprisingly, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints also joined these other religions in using the airwaves. In 1929, “Music
and the Spoken Word” began its radio broadcasts. Today, it is the longest
running radio program in radio history.
Here’s the KSL report on that fact:
Your Blog Assignment
I want
you to think about the things that you have read for today and write (at least
500 words) about your perceptions of how radio and television have influenced,
and continue to influence, modern religion and modern religious practices. In
particular, how have radio and television influenced your own perceptions of
how religion is practiced around the world today? Are these influences negative
or positive? Why or why not? I’ve mentioned a few factors or effects. Can you
think of any others? Have there been any particular religious broadcasts that
have influenced you in your life?
Television and radio have made religious ideology more accessible to many people because it reaches people wherever they are, without requiring them to go anywhere, or really do anything besides listen. This was a huge advance in the spreading of "religion" at first, especially with people like Sheen, who really took advantage of the air time to teach principles and practical application. Unfortunately, it also opened the door for a lot of corruption, as the radio and television shows had to fight for attention, broadcasting "miracle healings" and dramatized sermons. This is still very current, as highlighted by the more contemporary Pastor Benny Hinn, and frankly, it makes me really annoyed. I am all for uplifting broadcasts, that have a purpose to edify and inspire, that are not invasive or aggressive (think Music and the Spoken Word-which is probably why it's been so successful for so long), but when the purpose of a religious broadcast turns into a scheme for fame and money, it makes me roll my eyes.
ReplyDeleteThis wide-spread TV sermon stunt earned a lot of people a lot of money. People were so "inspired" by this con that they started opening their own churches, and casting out demons in front of congregations to encourage church attendance and monetary donations. I am usually not one to attack any religions, but one irritating example of this is the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (popularized in Brazil). Edir Macedo started this church to get money, and he has been incredibly successful. Of course, he also hires preachers and pastors to share some uplifting words and they encourage people to read the Bible, which are great things, but at the end of the day, Edir Macedo is a multi-millionaire because of the donations of sheep-like church members that either go to their local congregation, or oftentimes can watch online or by television.
It seems like the surge of possibility when radio and television opened up as pathways to spread religious ideas burned the circuits too quickly, and in the race to get attention, basic morals and principles were twisted and stepped over. Of course every rule has an exception, and I have found myself uplifted by Music and the Spoken Word, and Veggie Tales, more often than not, the current state of religion via the airways is dismal and corrupt: focused on monetary gain and fame rather than spreading the good word.
As one side-note and one positive leave-behind of the original surge of broadcast sermons and evangelizing, the possibility of reaching so many people with a religious message is certainly hopeful for the future, and I do think that religious programming got a lot of people who were uninterested in any religious affiliation to at least tune in, perk up, and think about gospel topics, likely leading them to have a more open mind about religion.
Ben Wallace
ReplyDeleteI for one have noticed the power radio and television has to spread religion and beliefs around the world. Being raised LDS and in Utah I always knew about the Music and the Spoken Word. It was just a given. But it wasn't until I went to Australia that I realized how far and wide this message had been spread. Australia is a very atheist country and the people didn't like preaching very much. But to my surprise quite often people would remark on the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and how much they enjoyed listening to it. People would invite us in to listen to the radio broadcasts or old MoTab records their family had. It always had me scratching my head that all these people who didn't believe in God would listen to a religious broadcast.
However I also realize that many religious broadcasts and shows are just scams to make money. I have to admit I am usually skeptical whenever I see a preacher stand up on television. But I try to be an optimist and give people the benefit of the doubt, because I expect people to offer me the same respect. Even then, I know my beliefs annoy others sometimes.
When it comes to spreading religious ideas through technology everyone goes about it differently. This is due to people and organizations having different goals and desires for those ideas. When I was in Australia we had the first "I'm a Mormon" campaign to be run outside of the US. Let me tell you, people really didn't care to have their footy game interrupted by a religious commercial. From a "hey we want converts so we can have money" standpoint it totally failed. I believe we had a total of one conversion from millions of dollars spent. But that wasn't what the LDS Church was trying to accomplish. It opened the door so that over the next two years people would still remember those commercials and (now that the anger had worn off over us interrupting the sports) they were curious.
Technology and religious are here to stay. And they are only going to grow more connected. Honestly in the future I see the amount of online or televised religious services will only grow as people get used to the idea of worshiping where ever they want.
One of the first forms of religious media I was introduced to was the LDS animated church videos. I can remember watching them every Sunday after church. My favorite was the story of Noah and the Ark and as a child I was able to grasp the concepts and the meaning behind the story better through the cartoon action rather than reading about it. Radio and television are two major platforms that have helped communicate religion and the spread of the gospel more than any normal means. They both have the capability of reaching almost every person around the world.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching Bishop Sheen, I could tell he was very charismatic and charming on the screen and had a natural act for teaching. In one of the episodes the first 3 minutes he introduced humor with the audience and laughed with them. He seemed very genuine and I could tell why people listened and would consider him like a celebrity. He was able to reach a wide range of people and influence their lives for the best. Although Sheen was able to uplift, media can distort the truth and sometimes this can be used to take advantage of people. When watching Pastor Benny Hinn, to me it was almost like watching WWE. People were falling to the ground after Pastor Hinn would yell something at them and wave his hand. It was sad to watch the little girl and her mom be escorted away in failed hopes that Hinn would be able to heal her.
One of the most influential religious broadcasts in my life has been General Conference. Its amazing to hear the words of the prophet and apostles directly in my own home and have that capability granted to so many people around the world. The internet being a major source to receiving these broadcasts and even access to them afterwards through written, audio, or video forms has been a huge impact in my own life. It has enhanced the teaching methods and accessibility of what the LDS church stands for to those who want to know more. Even the ability to listen to church music on my phone through a Pandora station has helped me in my own spirituality. Like Ben mentioned above, broadcast religion will rise along with the rise of technology.
Radio and Television have made a HUGE influence on religion in bringing in membership and spreading messages. The outreach is amazing. I think it’s the most effective way to reach everyone and I love that the LDS church has participated in the use of broadcast. It lets people who are unable to get to church or devotionals listen and hear the message that’s being portrayed. The spirit we feel watching General Conference in our own homes is a very positive experience. Although the experience is different when we physically go to church. There, we dress in our nicest clothes and act reverent throughout meetings. We mentally and spiritually think of Christ and participate in the Sacrament, renewing our covenants we previously made. Our actions are symbolic-something you don’t get from a TV broadcast. The special spirit in the room can’t just be watched from your bed on a computer screen. It’s a real physical feeling. I would agree that religion broadcast on airways could be a very beneficial thing. However, when it’s put in the wrong hands it is just another way to earn money and lead people to believe in something that isn’t even real.
ReplyDeleteTowards the beginning of broadcast religion I think people would have had a good experience. The original purpose of these programs was to teach and inspire. And as time went on we see the decline in the actual messages portrayed and an increase in gaining viewership. I find it interesting to watch these videos as to what many people consider their religion and compare it to the things we-as LDS church members-learn and experience at our church.
I had very different feelings watching the clips of the different religious meetings. Bishop Sheen was very informative and had a sort of reverence about him. It just seemed like I was getting a lesson from a familiar face.
The broadcasts with large congregations were very noisy. The host often yells and audience made lots of loud noises. It didn’t feel very religious. It almost seemed like they were mocking religion because of the overdramatized “miracles” and people falling over because the spirit “overcame them.” It all seemed very fake and served as a way to get fame and money. I couldn’t take them seriously. I totally agree with the statement made by Cassidy. She said “the current state of religion via the airways is dismal and corrupt: focused on monetary gain and fame rather than spreading the good word.”
I grew up with Music and the Spoken Word on most Sundays. One reason I love that show is for the message. If you notice, the show isn’t written for LDS members. All of the messages are simply hopeful and inspiring, which attracts people of many faiths. It’s not preachy. Nobody is screaming or yelling. There’s no attempting to convert people. Plus, Lloyd Newell has a pretty soothing voice.
While I do agree that the advances in technology has made spreading the message of religion much easier, I also agree with what Cassidy said when she mentioned corruption. As member of the LDS church, we understand the principle that there must be "opposition in all things" which means that with really great things there are also bad.
ReplyDeleteEven from a very young age I knew that I loved the news. I grew up watching Katie Couric on the Today show and always dreamed of being like her. I studied it all through high school and my first two years of college. Then, after returning to school after my mission, something changed. The longer I studied news, the more I learned about the corruption and the bias with which news is reported due to advances in technology. Now that information is available everywhere, news organizations depend on extremism to keep their viewers watching. Ever heard the saying, "If it bleeds, it leads"? That's how news organizations decide what they should or should not report. It's about staying relevant and keeping viewers, rather than just reporting the facts. It is unfortunate to me, which is why I no longer strive to be a hard news reporter, but that's another story. I believe this is also what religious broadcasting has done to religion. It evolved to a place where it was no longer be about doctrine, because that is not what people wanted to see or hear when they turned on the radio or the TV: No, they wanted to be entertained. They wanted the "if it bleeds, it leads" type of show.
Last class we talked about why actively practicing a religion is not as common now as it used to be. As I read through the history of religious broadcasting I began to wonder if the corrupt aspect of broadcasting has bled into modern perceptions of religion. If anyone is reporting anything, either on the radio or on the TV, they have to be able to make money doing it, which means they need people to tune into their programs. This can easily lead into people twisting information, or in this case doctrine, to make it sound more interesting than it might be originally. While I think that the way Bishop Fulton presented his message was most accurate, it would also be considered bland or even "boring" by broadcasting standards. Because of the shift in technology and the shift in viewer's expectations, religious broadcasting had to become entertainment rather than religion. I think this has turned a lot of people off to the idea of organized religion because it morphed into an on-screen show created to entertain and gain followers, rather than a righteous path towards personal, spiritual connection.
Although we have all mentioned Music and the Spoken Word as an exception. This is true seeing that it has been so successful for so long. I think the reason behind this is because those who own this program belong to the Church, and the main audience of this program expect it to be what it is. It is not expected to be extreme or entertaining, which is why it has lasted. I think that might be why I personally enjoy it so much, because it's a break from the normal expectations of media. I think that if, nowadays, more religious programs took this same approach more people would be drawn to the idea of religion because they would feel the sense of spirituality, rather than power and fame.
My initial thought when asked about religion and radio was that I felt like there is quite an absence of religion on radio and television. One of the main purposes of these media outlets these days is for entertainment. The general population seems to appreciate when religion is not brought into their favorite radio or television shows. When there happens to be mention of religion, people typically become easily offended so it is better for producers to steer clear of any religious agenda.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the good thing about media these days is that there are plenty of outlets where people can find what they want. If people want to use radio and television for entertainment, they will find it. Similarly, if people want to use these outlets for religion purposes, they will find what they want. This is known as the uses and gratification theory. It is the idea that people use media for their own purposes, to satisfy their own needs.
For example, if someone happens to come across a religious talk show and are deeply offended, all they have to do is change the channel. They are not being forced to sit and listen. Another example could be that someone is seeking to find answers to questions about God, so they might explore different media outlets to understand what others believe so they can answer their questions.
Most of the time people will be content if they know what kind of messages the show is trying to give. However, if there is ever an element of surprise, such as the show they are watching is trying to push a hidden agenda, they are more likely to be turned off. If they are watching or listening to a show that makes it clear that they want to send a positive message about God, then people are more likely to stay loyal watchers/listeners.
Glen Beck is a good example of an LDS radio voice that speaks openly about his religion and beliefs. Though it is not an official religious broadcast, he still incorporates beliefs into whatever he discusses with his listeners. He makes it clear to his listeners that he will mention his religion so that they don't get offended when it happens.
The point is, radio and television are very helpful in allowing people to receive whatever information they want. Even though it allows religion to be more accessible, does not mean that is what everyone will choose.
Just reading how religious broadcast has grown was interesting, but watching it made me realize just how popular it became and is today. In short, as I watched the videos posted, I felt entertained and a bit enlightened while being in the comforts of my home. People everyone could do this. Who wouldn’t? After all, General Conference probably has to be every Mormon’s favorite Sunday meeting. I can understand why this form of religious broadcasting has caught on like wildfire.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are a few issues I found with the way radio and television have affected religion and its purity. After reading the history behind this movement, I realized that radio has diluted religion. The article mentioned that in order to meet the code there had to be less heavy doctrine and more universal messages. One comment that was made in the article was that broadcasters were “moderate in their doctrine, and they often employed a dramatic format.” In order to stay on air, people often needed donations. This meant that they had to dilute doctrine and entertain. This is where I find issue with religion on air. Two of the negative outcomes is that doctrine has been diluted and religion has become a money scheme.
In defense of this, this sort of thing was happening before the broadcast of religion. It was just less. A point was brought up that “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” Religious ceremonies, in relation to the money game and diluted doctrine, has always been the same—it was just put on hyper speed with the movement of religion on air.
From a non-Mormon perspective, I think some televised religious programs are less intimidating. If you’re listening from home, you don’t have to feel any social pressure to sing or participate in prayer. Also, there’s humor. In Bishop Fulton Sheen’s program, I felt informed, yet entertained. I laughed quite a bit at his humor. Would I donate? If I hadn’t found a religion, I think I would! Back to my original point, though, that’s where I see a problem. It becomes more of a show and less of a spiritual experience.
Thinking from a Mormon perspective, I think we’ve realized that if you can’t beat them, join them! Like we’ve embraced the Mormon musical, we’ve adapted to the airwaves pretty well. Even though religion has become competitive and diluted, it’s still the spread of the “good word.” This is something to embrace and improve. Like so many others, I am very grateful for things like Music and the Spoken Word and General Conference. It has reached many people that would not have had the opportunity without broadcasted religion. Since we are a universal church, we have to reach people by means of the air. Same goes for other religions. I understand that not all have been corrupted through broadcast, it’s only the natural tendencies of a few. Besides the few issues discussed, I’m still happy to embrace this universal trend and continue spreading the good word.
People belonging to every religion on the globe think every so often, “How great would it be if everyone in the world belonged to my religion?” While I must admit that the same thought has crossed my mind, I also think that the rich variety of faith diversifies the human family for the better. Steven Covey said, “Strength lies in differences, not in similarities.”
ReplyDeleteAlthough radio and television has made religious messages more available and prevalent than anything else before, according to the articles for this section, it has also led to more of a mainstream message that filters out the differences making members of different faiths stronger. Perhaps this mainstreaming of religion has contributed to the rise of the “nones.” For, if almost all religions are the same and basically preach identical messages, what is the point of joining any one in particular? I think that this is a negative effect because it hampers faith in a variety of religions worldwide.
As a member of the LDS Church, I have always appreciated the biannual broadcasts of LDS General Conference. While the church leaders who speak try to appeal to a broad audience, they also focus on the tenets of the LDS faith that make it different from others. During a General Conference speech in 2011 about the Church’s missionary program, I was inspired to ask God in prayer if He wanted me to serve a mission. I received the answer that I should and consequently served an honorable two-year mission. So, in a very real sense, religious broadcasting has changed my life.
Having been a missionary for the Church, I would hope that someday everyone could be LDS. However, I know that not everyone will convert to the LDS faith in this life, and some may not ever. Thus, I believe that it’s better for people to belong to the religion that they truly believe in; one that helps them become better people, than to not belong to any religion at all. The variety of belief helps the human family by causing us to gain fresh perspectives and appreciate what is different about each other. Like Covey, I believe these differences make us stronger.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBILLY MUSSELMAN
ReplyDeleteThe first two things that came to my mind after going over the notes, links, and videos for this blog were Joel Osteen and John Oliver.
Joel Osteen is Preacher who televises his sermons every Sunday Live from a large capacity stadium – the old Houston Rockets arena in Houston, Texas. This “megachurch” seats about 20,000 people, but the televised broadcast reaches millions over viewers in over a hundred countries. For me, Joel Osteen reflects a “popular culture figure with a cult-like following.” As I watch his sermons - and I still watch them every now and then – they are infatuating. He tells stories and speaks in a way that is mesmerizing. I can see why he has millions of viewers every week. On the positive side, his sermons create a positive outlet for families. I have watched his sermons on TV with my family, and by the end we are all uplifted and inspired. In a nutshell, it’s so EASY. The sermons are only a half hour and by the end we feel good, and ready to go for the week. One issue is that this very convenience is also its biggest problem. It doesn’t require much of you to be a member of Lakewood, in that all that is required is to watch an optional half hour sermon weekly. The beliefs of Lakewood, I believe, are also watered down to accommodate the largest number of people. I would say that Lakewood Church reflects a huge part of where religion is now – seeking convenience over anything else. It also has created the effect of making religion more theater than traditional church service as mentioned in the blog.
John Oliver has a segment that sheds light on televangelism and the cons associated with it. One of his main points is that televangelism preys on (no pun intended) lower income citizens who fall victim to the “prosperity gospel, which argues that wealth is a sign of God’s favor.” Many of these citizens end up giving large sums of money they don’t have in the hopes that God will bless them with more wealth. If there is one more factor/effect that TV and radio has had it is that it tends to exploit lower income individuals and families who are constantly looking for hope of financial freedom.
Thinking back to any religious broadcasts that have influenced my life, besides college and NFL football (they can be spiritual at times!) would be my first general conference I attended in Colombia as a missionary, because I was able to feel like I was back in the United States through a TV screen. It is amazing that feeling of connectedness that can come through such a small instrument. The ability of TV and radio to connect people around the world is fascinating, and one of the reasons people of all religions are so infatuated with it as a means of communication.
It’s difficult not to feel cynical when watching some of the religious broadcast programming that has come out. There are of course, very positive forms of religious broadcasting that focus on helping people to understand concepts better and relate with them more effectively. LDS religious programming seems to capture the importance of that mission, as it focuses purely on what is important to know and understand from a religious perspective. That sentiment is echoed in Bishop Sheen’s work, where he focuses on teaching spiritual and philosophical concepts to his viewers. The negative side, however, is seen with these preachers who exploit the power of the pulpit to push politics rather than religion, and who make claims based on tangentially related ideas of the Bible, that are then warped into outright political and divisive ones.
ReplyDeleteI’m starting to believe that our relationship with religion and our sense of communication with our heavenly father is oddly similar to how we communicate in general. Our relationship with the news mirrors that of our religious communication. The basic goal of both the news and religious practice is to find truth; however, this information tends to have a political value attached to it. Just as there are editorial problems, and moments where the pure fact-based authenticity of news is displaced, so too are there times where our interpretation of religious beliefs is colored less by what is actually going on, and more by how other people are able shape that perception into something convenient to their political aims. Where the outgrowth of the “none of the above” style of religious thinking has allowed for a more open discussion, the flip side of having this form of religious practice, is seen in the televangelist who uses their platform to shape political thinking rather than speaking on faith. Watching the segment with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell was a frustrating realization of this. For both a news and religious audience, the point of their interpretation of 9-11 was to say that this represents God’s efforts to punish us, and to claim that the problems are caused by "liberal" and secular lines of political thinking. This is the drawback of having that broadcast capability. You either have an open and generally objective conversation, or you have a biased one that pushes an agenda. Maybe some people will appreciate that slanted interpretation of events, but the moment you go in that direction, it is very difficult to keep a broader audience on your side.
On the one side, the break away from the three main religious broadcast groups, gives people a freedom to more information than they could ever need. It’s a marvel and a convenience of our modern age, and with the ability of an audience to tune in or tune out, there is a great payoff for freedom of speech. I am first and foremost in favor or creating a free market of ideas, and the shift from just religious broadcasting on television and radio to something even more accessible is a good thing. The growth of the “none of the above” crowd represents a new kind of religious focus that could actually be very positive if it’s encouraging people to look at a variety of ideas and to understand one another. The flip side, as much as I have spoken against it in the paragraphs above, is less a thing to be fought against and banned, and rather a thing to be understood and cautioned about. We can continue to have an increasingly open dialogue, but as people trying to spread messages of truth, either as news media professionals or people trying to hold a religious conversation, for our own sake, we need to be responsible. I still believe that having this access to the conversation and the information age benefit of open religious information is a good thing. The potential is still very positive, both in news and in religious discussion, but for now we have to accept that we know the drawbacks and we know the responsibility that we have to take to keep people listening to the message.
While watching Bishop Sheen, I noticed he gained his audience’s appeal by reliability and authority. He looked like a church leader and sounded like a church leader but he still related to both the studio audience and the massive television audiences as if he were a friend. He told a story from his childhood and knew how to make people laugh. Bishop Sheen managed to tie idiosyncratic experiences to general religious ideas like honesty and respect. He used his chalkboard to connote a teachers setting, writing notes to help the audience follow along, keeping his information and his teachings simple. In Bishop Sheen’s video, he mentioned that, at the time, people were watching three hours of television per week. He later stated something very poignant to me, saying that, “Knowledge begins to spoil when you lose touch with the common man.” and I believe this rings true in the realm of religious broadcasting.
ReplyDeleteReligious broadcasting reached out and continues to do so to the average person, providing knowledge and doctrines to regular people. Religious broadcasting began as a way to gain and maintain relevancy and connection to everyone with a radio or television. Keeping in “touch with the common man” prevents religious knowledge from “spoiling” and media is the easiest and best way to reach that common man. With religious broadcasting, our understanding of religion has changed. Religious broadcasting has played a major role in the decline of religion and an increase in spirituality. In many cases, broadcasting has conditioned people to believe that religion should be something they don’t need to work for, that it is something that can be brought to them. This can be seen both as a positive and negative impact of radio and television. Beginning with radio broadcasting, people are more independent, not seeking outside sources of entertainment or information and finding it right in their living rooms. and I believe there is a correlation between this and the increase of personal spirituality rather than religion.
Although I don’t believe this is the case for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, religious broadcasting is still remarkably important to the progression of our church in not only my life but also in the lives of millions of others. I believe media has created possibilities for the LDS church to be apart lives otherwise would not be without radio or television. I grew up hearing the words of our prophets during general conference and it every six months, my testimony is increased. Personally, broadcast religion has bettered me and strengthened me in both my spirituality and my religion. If people chose to solely rely on religious broadcasting as their basis of spiritual and religious fulfillment, I don’t believe they will be influenced but if they use religious broadcasting as a way to supplement their beliefs, I think it can have a positive effect. It is the duty of the viewer to use media to positively or negatively influence them and to carefully select the media in which they consume. Because our society is continually growing technologically, I believe we will see a greater outpouring of religious broadcasting, religions hopping on board the broadcasting bandwagon, and people seeking truth via a computer screen.
Victoria Anne Vincent
ReplyDeleteIt amazes me how the airwaves have played such a crucial role in the conversion of individuals for religious purposes throughout time. I have always enjoyed watching the LDS program of "Music and the Spoken Word". This program has become the longest-running uninterrupted network broadcast in the world. The show also allowed for the Mormon Tabernacle Choir to take its claim to fame. My grandparents are currently living in Frankfurt, Germany and work for the LDS Public Affairs office there. They were in charge of coordinating the Mormon Tabernacle Choir tour in Europe for this past summer. Through them, I have heard some of the most beautiful stories. Non-members in Europe have loved the choir's broadcasts for years. They were drawn to the opportunity to be able to hear the choir in person. Through these experiences there were conversions to the church and a new understanding of the church's beauty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bddB9vhP81Q
The LDS church broadcasts are clear, simple, and pure. Other churches choose to use an aggressive and condemning voice in trying to grasp individuals' attention. This nature is how a lot of churches function with intense calls to repentance. It was interesting to me to see the different voices that various religions portrayed based on subject matter.
Before World War II, German television and cinema had very strong emotions towards the Jewish culture. Even then, we saw films such as Jud SüB move entire communities' opinions about religious groups such as Jews. With that power, have we used our media methods properly in discerning truth and justice about not only are own religions, but others as well? How often do we assume what we see and hear is true? It is a battle that every one of us goes through daily with media.
Based on today's media, we see television poking quite a bit of fun at Mormons through shows like South Park and 3D Rock. It is important that we don't depend our religious education on these pieces of media. Religion is portrayed as a joke in a lot of media today. I think that religion struggles because of the lack of trust that we have towards it. This struggle with trust comes from media that teaches differences in approach and ideas or lack of compete understanding.
I hope to improve my discernment on media and look to understand not only my own religion, but other religions as well.
Growing up, I knew very little about Judaism, and the little information I did have about Judaism was from television shows or books about Jews. Most of what I “knew” about Jews was pretty much based on “Fiddler on the Roof.” Obviously, not everything in that musical is accurately indicative of Judaism as a whole. When I visited Israel during winter semester, I found that many of the things I had “learned” about Judaism through tv were not holistic in representing the faith.
ReplyDeleteThese Jewish representations, also found in old films, also highlight political and social aspects of the religion, which was mentioned in the reading and especially apparent in the youtube video of Father Coughlin. He uses religious morals to shape political ideologies. Because of how religion is portrayed in media, we see how politicians who claim a religion can become candidates for distaste by many who dislike their religious morals, afraid they will claim their political ideologies as well. This can be a good way for religious people to relate to a party or person, but can also get a candidate stuck in the mud for those who don’t agree.
While serving as a missionary on a Native reservation in a small town in Canada, I had my first full exposure to religious broadcasting. A woman I visited frequently was what I considered to be “glued” to one specific Christian (possible Catholic, but I can’t remember for sure) broadcaster. The poor woman had very little money, and spent the small amount she had to make donations to this minister, through the purchase of small trinkets or “holy” items. The woman seemed convinced that her salvation was dependent upon her possession of these items and her donations to the broadcasting service. I was so upset and disgusted by what he was doing to the lady and saw it as merely a money-making tactic. After this one experience, to say that all religious broadcasters are in it for the money would be an ignorant accusation, but this was my first—and my only in depth—experience religious broadcasting on television. So from what I saw, I can hardly blame people for having distaste for religion, and especially for ministers who require monetary “sacrifices” from their congregations.
A more positive exposure I have had to religious broadcasting is through radio. Most of my family thinks I’m weird for it, but I am a really big fan of Christian rock, and pretty much anything similar to it. Though I don’t personally believe everything said in between the songs, I do appreciate broadcasters who seek to share there version of Christianity on the radio. Many of them express how easy it is to just “say you believe in Jesus and be saved” (a phrase most people universally want to hear). But recently, I heard one Christian radio broadcaster denounce that phrase and talk about the importance of acting on your Christian beliefs through changing your life to follow Jesus. Then he spoke about specific ways to do that like living a moral life, not judging your friends or coveting for what you don’t have. Although I would not say this one 10 minute segment fulfilled my personal religious needs, I can see how many could listen to this broadcast and feel completely fulfilled and spiritually enlightened.
In light of the upcoming presidential election, it’s interesting to have this assignment and the focus of television and radio. I look at how influential television broadcast is in my own life and how it often sways me different directions on a daily basis in regards to political candidates. Now extending to social media, these outlets have fundamentally changed politics. I parallel this with religion and how it has changed and continues to change our perception and beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that when this early religious programming was being used to fulfill requirements of the FCC, the communication was to be strictly “broad religious truths.” The criticism was that modern essence of Christianity was that people could have different beliefs and affirmations. The mandate to only teach broad doctrine on the air was removing the core standard of diversity that Christianity prompted. However, this has greatly influenced the growth of the “mega church” concept and has become a major business.
I watch the clips of someone like Benny Hinn and it makes me cringe to think of the many people he may have deceived or misled. Ultimately it seems that many of the pastors are much more concerned about the growth of their business than the actual evangelizing of gospel principles. Once it becomes a way to make money, the actual feelings of the people you preach to become less and less important. I researched several other well-known mega-church pastors and I found many articles talking about their releases from their respective church for addiction, abuse, sexual sin and promiscuity. When religion becomes a cause for gain and wealth, it seems to allow the exact worldly influences they warn about to enter into their lives.
On the flip side, just as the awareness of politics has increased with the expanded medium, it seems that religious interest has as well. Individuals who wouldn’t normally attend a religious service, may now tune into a Sunday afternoon broadcast by Joel Osteen or others and be able to receive some religious instruction. I would imagine this could lead to the desire to eventually be involved with a religious organization or even just receiving small bits of spiritual knowledge each week. I was also impressed with Bishop Fulton Sheen in how he combined simple teachings with personable humor and interaction. It reminded me of many of our current sustained church leaders.
When I think of positive religious broadcasts that have influenced my life, my mind instantly goes to LDS General Conference. The entire purpose is to provide well thought out topics that will inspire and uplift. One of the unique pieces of this broadcast has to do with the very positive results that come to each individual. I’ve talked with so many people that have gone into General Conference with a question or concern and had it answered perfectly through the words of the church leaders. It’s not as much just going to “feel good,” but to learn and progress and come out leaving with greater knowledge and power.
Thinking about society as it is now, it's very difficult for me to imagine a time where religious programs were broadcast by large television networks. Nowadays anything even remotely religious is scoffed at in the media. And honestly it's not hard to understand why. The first things that come to my mind when I think about religious tv are images of strange older men on a cheesy tv set preaching a creepy, over-rehearsed message that doesn't really resonate with me at all, as if they were annoying used-car salesmen. I automatically assume when I see them that they are hypocritical and are just doing it to try and scam people out of money, much like the character in the film "Elmer Gantry".
ReplyDeleteBut then again, those same thoughts could very well be similar to the ones non-LDS people have when watching General Conference for a few minutes on the BYU channel or LDS.org. Of course I know that Conference is far from a scam and that the speakers are far from hypocritical, but it's understandable for others to be skeptical about any religious broadcasts because they assume, as I do of most non-LDS broadcasts, that they're disingenuous. When we aren't familiar with other religions and the way that they speak and present their beliefs, it's easy to write them off as weird, fake, or whatever else we think when we see/hear them and it's difficult to shake those feelings of distrust.
General Conference is just about the only religious broadcast I ever watch/listen to for the very reason that I just mentioned. I just can't get over the negative associations I have with on-screen or on-air preachers enough to try and be uplifted by their messages and music. It was hard to get myself to watch any of the clips of preachers that were linked on the blog because my gut reaction was to turn them off immediately. I understand that those who don't have that reaction might be able to glean great insights from any one of the clips, but I guess I'm just not one of those people.
It was interesting for me to study the history of the radio and television side of religious teachings. I'd never actually taken the time to listen to religious speakers on the radio unless it was general conference. So to hear people like Bishop Sheen, who had this huge effect on people, has been kind of enlightening. Bishop Sheen was so influential for a lot of people, and I noticed about his broadcasts that not only was he inspiring to a lot of people, but he combined inspiration with entertainment and humor. He was very light hearted and warm, unlike other teachers who were fierce and loud; almost with the intention of creating a fearful audience rather than inspired. I feel like having such a wide range of religious broadcasters almost helped the spread of the trend. There was such a wide variety of preachers; there was a type of teaching style for a lot of different audiences.
ReplyDeleteHowever, along with that same idea, it felt that the religious broadcasting(for some stations) turned more into entertaining the audience than actually teaching. There were channels bringing in hundreds of thousands of dollars because they were doing such a good job of giving the audience what they wanted to hear/see, whether it was 100% accurate or not.
The way that modern TV/radio has influenced religion, in my opinion, has been both good and bad. I have the ability to see the good that others of my own faith and of other faiths are doing around the world, and it is inspiring to me to see that. I get to see the actions that religious people do for others all the time, and that is something I would never be exposed to if it weren't for religious broadcasting. The name Steven Kapp Perry comes to my mind when I think of religious radio broadcasting, because every Sunday my dad would turn on his station and we would listen to "Soft Sunday Sounds" before and after church. It was our way of keeping the entire day sacred, rather than just our typical 3 hours of church.
Religious broadcasting does that for people. We can be constantly reminded of our beliefs and teachings. Every so often, something will be said on TV/radio that someone in the world might really be inspired by, and that can happen ANY day of the week to millions of people. It is kind of amazing that radio/TV has the ability to reach and touch that many people.
However, too often I see/hear religious people using their faith to judge and persecute others for having those different beliefs. The media gives everyone a front row seat to the damage that radicals cause in our world today. Not only that, but ONE little mistake made by ONE person from ONE specific religion can be broadcasted to the entire world and cause a HUGE problem among members of that religion and those who don't belong to it as well. That one person or situation has the ability to change opinions of a whole group of people because it was publicly broadcasted.
I love the fact that people have access to something that they love and believe in at any time of the day. I think it creates an environment for a lot of people that they wouldn't otherwise have without the radio/tv. I learn a lot of great things about religions that I don't belong to because of religious broadcasting that I never would know on my own. My knowledge of my own religion is hugely affected because of the amount of broadcasting that the LDS church does. I have a better knowledge of other religions because of television. I think TV/Radio is a powerful tool in our world today and has the ability to do a lot of good if used with the intention to do so.
Television and radio has opened up countless doors of opportunity, namely for the purpose of religious growth. Religions of all types are now able to distribute their teachings out of the geographical bubble and into a world of people. Religious programming has risen in popularity because it makes it easier for people to find truths, and the answers to their questions, that they have been searching for.
ReplyDeleteBishop Fulton Sheen was so successful with all of his religious programs because he addressed what most people would consider a common problem. He stated things how they were in regards to the problem which instituted trust from his viewers because they were able to relate to him. He was a real person, with real problems, just like everybody else. But, unlike everyone else, he had all the answers and he placed them in front of his viewers in ways that were easy to understand and that resonated with everyone. He spoke simply, but powerfully, and helped to teach his theories using a rudimentary blackboard. He reasoned through issues in a jovial manner which helped people develop a hopeful perspective and believe that they could handle the stuggles of the world. Sometimes when people listen to sermons they feel pressured and overwhelmed with everything they were commanded to do which can put them in a place of anxiety and depression. Sheen's purpose on his program was to lift people's spirits and give them a hope in better days to come.
Religious programming can have a very strong influence people's spirits and conviction towards doing what is right. However, not all of that influence is strictly devout. As seen in Father Coughlin's sermon, political opinions can be expressed and often adopted because of the social influence of religious programs. This is an example of how religious programming can influence an entire society. I think that there are a lot of benefits to religious programming and can offer an essential sense of direction for those who are lost and seeking. Since TV is so accessible to so many people nowadays, religious programming is able to reach those who seem almost unreachable by way of religion. However, I do think that people should not take advantage of the public's trust in their show to then try and change public opinion to reflect their own; especially on topics of politics. There is a time and a place for all religious, political, and social talk and I think that those times should not be intertwined. TV has made this more of an issue because it is now to easy to express personal opinion. Personally I think it is obnoxious when people try to press their own opinions on other people just because they can. It abuses their rights and puts the public in a position where they feel they cannot make their own decisions or have their own opinions. Religious programming is a wonderful resource, but should be used responsibly.
As I reflect on my own life, I find that I have been heavily influenced by religious media -- and probably for the better. As a child, I was grudgingly restricted to "Church movies" or media that reflected some kind of spiritual theme on Sundays. This led me to watch Charlton Heston's The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, and Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat an unhealthy amount of times. I received my earliest spiritual confirmations of the restoration by watching the Church's The Restoration. Finding Faith in Christ has had a meaningful impact as well. It wasn't until later in my life did I receive similar spiritual feelings while reading scripture. Audio visual media was simply easier to digest for me -- especially for a young kid with a healthy dose of ADD.
ReplyDeleteI know that the latest Meet the Mormons movies have been influential in my understanding of my faith and the ways it is worshiped. Other videos such as the Bible videos have been huge in shaping my views on what the life of Christ may have been like. About a year ago, my Dad shared a Christian rock song with me because he knew I was going through a hard time. The song not only gave me comfort but put other practicing Christians in a good light in my minds eye.
In all, I think the distribution of religious material view radio, television and other media has had a positive effect on me and others.
*I added the class late
ReplyDeleteRadio and television have influenced, and continue to influence my perceptions of how I think about religion. For the majority, I think that most of what I hear on the radio about religion, is from a specific church’s station—so therefore the church is promoting their faith. For example, on XM satellite radio, there is a station called The Message that plays Christian rock songs that are peaceful and uplifting. If my husband and I are making a long drive on a Sunday, we typically turn on this channel because it is uplifting and brings a good spirit. I did not grow up in Utah, so I hardly ever listen to the “Music and Spoken Word” radio broadcasts, but I do think that stations like this influence people. Music, I think more than television, has a positive impact on a person towards another religion. I have heard countless stories of instances where someone not of out LDS faith, attends general conference or another church meeting just to hear the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
On the other hand, I think that television broadcasts influence negative perceptions about one’s religion. In the reading we read excerpts from Elmer Gantry’s radio broadcasted sermons. In his sermons he was often drunk. The thing about the media is that anything one says or does is recorded forever. You literally can’t take back what you say because someone, somewhere has already heard it. Gantry said, “You think, uh, religion is for suckers and easy marks and molly-coddlers, eh? You think Jesus was some kind of a sissy, hey? Well, let me tell you, Jesus wouldn't be afraid to walk into this joint or any other speakeasy to preach the gospel.” While it’s true, Jesus wouldn’t be afraid to preach the gospel wherever, he is wrong when he says that religion isn’t for everybody. Religion is for everyone, or that’s what we have been taught in our LDS faith. When religion is promoted on places like the radio or television, it starts earning people money. When money gets involved, things can get sticky.
I think TV and radio have had and continue to have a huge impact on religion and how it is evolving in the modern world. It has made religion more accessible to a wider audience than ever before, allowing those who cannot leave their homes for medical or other reasons, to still feel connected to and attend church in a way. I think for this reason, media has been a good thing for the development of religion in the modern world. It allows people to tune in to religious broadcasts wherever they are, so if they travel a lot, constantly busy, in an area where their church isn’t readily accessible or whatever other reasons, they can still worship.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think there have definitely been some negative side-effects of this as well. One in particular, that is especially prominent in televangelism, is it feels much less like an actual church service and more like a production, a show meant to entertain its viewers rather than to give religious sermons to followers. The pastors often have become somewhat of celebrities, idolized by the public, and even followed by news outlets for the latest information on their lives. I think that because of this, the broadcasts become more about them, than what they are actually preaching.
I think about how different this is from the LDS church which has made ample use of media to further broadcast its religion. The biggest being general conference, but there also exists LDS radio shows and other meetings that are broadcasted on TV or online. But I think the real difference is that the LDS church uses it as a tool to preach, but not the primary method. The church really only does religious broadcasts for general conference, some stake conferences, and some firesides or devotionals. TV and radio are used in way that is meant to give those who don’t have the opportunity to be there, can still receive the message, viewership and media consumption in not their priority. In other words, I think that a lot of religious broadcasting is done with the intent to entertain it viewers and format it in a way that is best for TV or radio. Whereas the LDS church does the opposite, the meetings are conducted in a way that treats everyone as if they were there, nothing is really changed to make it more appealing for TV or radio.
Other than the LDS church, I have actually never had any experiences watching religious broadcasts. Within the church, I have had some good experiences. Music and the spoken word has always been good. But honestly, one that impacted me the most was this last thanksgiving when BYUtv teamed up with Gimli from LotR. They made an hour long film about a man who makes ammends with his son during Christmas. It was very powerful and changed me. I can definitly see how this could be the case with other broadcasts and events.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I still remember the first time I even heard about religious broadcasts outside of the church. It was when one of the most popular televangelists was caught with a big fraud, and I remember hearing the news about it. Since then, I have had a bad taste about it, and have a hard time changing that perception. I feel that most televangelist programs actually do a whole lot of good, and help people live better. However, most media representations of such programs is usually about, well, news -- something like a fraud..