Perhaps the strongest attributes of Church, Market and Media is the manner in which it is structured. Many books pertaining to social media, even ones academically produced, are structured around the use of social media in modernity. They focus on the various means by which a church can create a flashy website or the impact of an effective social media outreach. In many ways, this approach makes sense as social media has only really existed in its current form for a little over a decade. However, by framing the conversation in this manner, authors ignore the wider context in which social media exists. They ignore the very context that created social media in the first place.

Moberg provides this contextualization in four ways. In the introduction (section one), Moberg notes that his study will focus on seven denominations: Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA), United Methodist Church (UMC), The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the Church of England, the Church of Denmark, the Church of Sweden, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. Moberg points out that these denominations share two common traits. First, they are generally considered mainline and this means Pentecostals and more mainstream Evangelical or independent churches are excluded from his study. Secondly, all the denominations he examines are in numeric decline. Moberg sees these two facts as a feature because the uniformity between the seven denominations will allow him to better examine their media use while holding other variables constant.

In the second section, he demonstrates how a linguistic analysis of social media and/or institutionally produced documents can provide valuable information concerning the originating institution. Here Moberg provides a brief analysis as an example. He notes that the mainline denominations examined are all entering into a “technologization of discourse.” He believes this is because they are under demographical stress and are attempting to replicate the “managerial culture” contained within society at large as a means to alleviate that stress.

In the third section, Moberg directly links the rise of social media to neoliberalism. Neoliberalism, for Moberg, is predominantly concerned with the free exchange of commodities and ideas. Social media is premised on this ideology as it provides a platform for the free exchange of ideas. Thus, neoliberalism and capitalism provide the context which gave rise to social media. Moberg links this observation back to the fact that mainline denominations are actively participating in a “technologization of discourse” and concludes that these churches are also necessarily adopting a neoliberal approach to ideas and their expression.

The fourth theme that Moberg uses to provide context is the study of institutions. He specifically addresses this in section two, but this idea is a predominant theme in all of the sections. Moberg’s main concern is not with how different websites generate varying levels of engagement via clicks, but rather how the institutions examined are reacting to the increasingly competitive marketplace of ideas. This section also provides a review of the idea of hegemony and the manner in which hegemonies are formed and subverted.

Sections four and five examine the seven denominations as case studies. Each denomination is given a detailed analysis. Because of the previous background provided, Moberg is able to analyze these denominations in a detailed manner. The proximity of these case studies in the text makes it easy for the reader to note similarities between the denominations, but also differences. Moberg is especially interested in the ways some churches have adopted a technological discourse and social media use in a more aggressive manner than other denominations. For instance, he notes that the ELCA has retained a, “Markedly more formal” discourse, “Compared to that of both the PCUSA and the UMC.” He also notes the various methods the denominations are utilizing to engage in social media. For instance, some denominations are merely encouraging their local churches to engage in social media. Whereas in other denominations the ecclesial leadership is more actively engaging and leading the transformation.

Although Moberg does focus on seven denominations, this text could be of use to individuals from denominations not listed. By providing the context of social media, Moberg equips his reader to better recognize the larger social and cultural forces at work within social media. The case studies he provides also allow readers to reflect on their own local church or denominational efforts to utilize social media.

Reviewed by Kyle Smith

Publisher’s page: https://bloomsbury.com/us/church-market-and-media-9781474280570

Preview: https://books.google.com/books/about/Church_Market_and_Media.html?id=HLzhDgAAQBAJ

In this March 2016 paper, Kyle Smith notes important issues about how Christians, particularly Pentecostals, are influenced by social media and how churches are using it to increase their reach. Where has the center moved?

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of social media on the Pentecostal church. The history and creation of social media will be examined with special attention given to the rapid adoption by both the Pentecostal church and culture at large. Next, the use of social media by several larger Pentecostal institutions will be examined. The use of social media by these institutions will then be compared and contrasted. The paper will conclude by examining the larger effect social media has had on Pentecostal culture.

In 2003, Mike Zuckerberg created a game called FaceMash that would eventually morph into Facebook as we know it today.[1] Unlike Facebook, which has many proponents who argue for its beneficial effect on society, few would argue that FaceMash should be viewed positively. FaceSmash was essentially a simple computer program that would present users with two pictures of fellow Harvard students. The user would then vote as to which student was better looking. Harvard University, the university Zuckerberg attended, reacted quickly by shutting the website down and threatening to expel Zuckerberg.

The second[9] most used social media website is YouTube with over one billion users in 2015.[10] YouTube allows users to both upload and share videos via the internet. The idea was first conceived by three previous employees of PayPal who were unable to find videos of the Super Bowls Janet Jackson[11] scandal, or the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. The three founders gathered around the concept of creating a video sharing platform. YouTube was initially launched at the end of 2005. Roughly ten months later Google purchased YouTube for 1.65[12][13] billion dollars. At the time YouTube accounted for 46%[14] of all video views. However, Google received a significant amount of criticism from the business community[15]^,[16],[17] for purchasing the young company for such a significant amount of money.

We live in a world saturated by media of all kinds, from social media and television to video games and movies. Most of us could not have imagined a few years ago that anyone with a phone can today produce content that might be seen by millions. How can I help my children navigate through this ocean filled with toxic pollutants and the occasional pearl?

That’s a lot to look at. How do you manage the flood of information and media coming at you?

In a few months there will be three teenagers in my home. One of them is about to be given their first cell phone, and this caused my wife and I to decide we wanted to lay out our expectations about screen time for all of our kids. There are a number of things we want to address so that they will have no doubt about our emphasis on them. This includes the importance of face-to-face communication, carving out quiet time for personal devotions, and the warning that there is dangerous material they need to have an action plan for when they encounter it.

I would like your input about this agreement I am writing that lays out how I want my teenagers to navigate our multimedia world. Am I missing something? I would especially like to hear from youth leaders as well as high school and college students. Please leave your advice, stories, and suggestions below this article.

Here is the agreement, followed by some of my notes at the end.

Mock Family Phone & Multimedia Privilege Agreement

This agreement summarizes the privileges and responsibilities of using phones, computers, and other media as a member of the Mock household.

1. Privilege not a Right. I understand that using phones, computers, and other technology is a privilege and not a right. If I am irresponsible, I expect to lose access to any or all of these media.

2. Striving for Balance. I understand that having a well-balanced life means I need to be careful with how much screen time I have. I will listen to others when they are advising I take a break or pursue constructive activities.

• I understand that the content of what I watch, read, and listen to impacts how I think and what I value. This is why my parents want me to make time for personal quiet times and to spend time with family and other people that have chosen to follow Jesus and his ways.

3. Courteous. Because how I communicate has consequence, whether I am answering the phone, sending an email, leaving a post, or speaking with others, I will conduct myself in a courteous manner. This means I will treat others with respect, give others the benefit of the doubt, not react in unjustifiable anger, and never bully anyone.

• I will remember that anything that is sent in an email or posted on the internet may never be taken back.
• I will not tell a joke or make fun of an individual or group about something they did not choose or have no control over (this includes ethnicity, disabilities, and what others have done to them). I know it is better not to share what I think is humorous than to damage a friendship or ruin an opportunity to be kind.
• When I make a mistake (accidental or on purpose) while communicating and hurt someone, I will ask for their forgiveness and seek to learn from it what I could have done better.
• Because learning to let go of hurts and trusting Jesus to make things right is part of growing into the person God wants me to be, I will keep myself from being overly sensitive or defensive.

4. Avoid Inappropriate Media. I understand that watching, listening, or interacting with some media is beneficial, much of it is not helpful, and some of it is destructive. I pledge to flee from all media that is destructive to me.

• I have discussed with my parents why they hate pornography and how it destroys lives.
• I will never take a lewd picture and I will never post or send something immodest from my phone or any other device.
• For my own protection, I will report receiving or encountering something lewd or inappropriate to my parents immediately. If I fail to do this, I will expect to permanently lose phone and media privileges when it is discovered.

5. Driving. The privilege of driving a vehicle has special responsibilities in regards to media that I will take seriously.

• I will not answer a phone or make a call while driving until I have been driving on my own for at least 12 months.
• I will not text while driving, not even while waiting at a traffic light.

6. Privacy. I know that there are people who would do me harm and take advantage of me while pretending to be a friend. To protect me and my family, I will not share addresses, phone numbers, identification numbers, or other contact information with anyone without permission from my parents.

• I will not share passwords or login information with anyone but my parents.

Normally I send out my own prayer requests once a year (and some of them DO still need prayer) but this one is kind of urgent.

Most of you know I spent five months over three summers ministering in the Middle Belt of Nigeria. For years, Christians have been periodically slaughtered there in planned terrorist attacks; I have talked with survivors.

If you saw in international media that Christians attacked Muslims in a “Muslim town” called Yelwa a month or so ago, you should know the context of that so you can pray for our brothers and sisters there.

First of all, Yelwa was never a “Muslim town”—the media simply bought Muslim propaganda—an outright lie. I TAUGHT 60 PASTORS IN YELWA IN JUNE 2000, IN A DENOMINATIONAL HEADQUARTERS THERE; there were thousands of Christians in that area. If it is a “Muslim town” now, it is because militant Muslims systematically killed and drove off Christians and burned their churches; thousands of people lost their homes and centuries–old farmlands and became refugees.

Militant Muslim immigrants burned churches and declared it a Muslim town. (In one recent incident, Christians meeting for early morning prayer were surrounded and burned alive.) When some Christians retaliated (most are simply peaceful refugees), suddenly Muslims garnered international media attention.

In response to the media attention, the governor of a predominantly Muslim, “sharia” state in northern Nigeria invited Muslim youth to “defend their faith”; they rioted and over the next few days all the morgues, refrigeration units, etc., were filled. When Muslims seized a baby and hurled it into flames, the mother began screaming—so they told her that since she liked the child so much, she could join it—and killed her. Local Christians claim as many as 3000 died; a mission compound there had over 1000 refugees.

Meanwhile, the media reported that 40–50 people (not specifying Christians) died in a riot; I think even most of the people in the rest of Nigeria don’t know what’s going on unless they have contacts there.

(Several years ago I witnessed violence that was also suppressed in the Nigerian media. There are moderates on both sides but blood could drown out their voices…)

I love my brothers and sisters there, and as a believer would have wanted to die in their place.

Please pray for the gentle and loving Christians of northern Nigeria.

They are our brothers and sisters, and when they die part of our heart dies with them.

Your brother, Craig

Upheaval in Nigeria (April 20, 2006)

The Associated Press voted that the Kansas controversy was the top story of 1999. And what a controversy it was. A straight-A sophomore put up her hand in biology class and asks, “Mr. Roth, when are we going to learn about creationism?” Then the teacher explodes with, “When are you going to stop believing that crap your parents teach you?” The subsequent forced early-retirement of the teacher and vote of the Kansas Board of Education to “de-emphasize” the speculative aspects of evolution became the coal bed for a hot national debate.

This article takes a look at the origins debate by looking at what the secular scientists and media are saying and the response from the broad Intelligent Design movement (IDM). If you want to know the latest happenings in this debate, or need an introduction to the whole question of origins, this article will give you a succinct overview. Pearcey represents the IDM well, showing how many Christian scientists and “creationists” have moved away from infighting over the details (such as: is the earth young? Could God use an evolutionary process?) to confront the real issue: Does science demonstrate that Someone made this? The IDM has realized that the stakes are people’s lives and that wrangling over those details only ruins the Christian’s witness to the secular humanist scientific community. Those details are important, but not at the cost of presenting the inescapable necessity of a Designer.

Pearcey says that, “While ID does not require any theological presuppositions, it has theological implications: it is resolutely opposed to the atheistic, purposeless, chance view of evolution taught in the power centers of science” (p. 48). But is Darwinian naturalistic evolution opposed outright to religion? Pearcey argues that this is the very thing that this Kansas controversy and the IDM are bringing to the forefront, “for every scientist who soothingly intones that evolution can coexist peacefully with religion, there is another who openly proclaims its antitheistic implications” (p. 48).

“This suggests a final theme emerging from the Kansas controversy—the refusal by so many to acknowledge that religion is genuinely at stake in this issue. Pervasive throughout the editorials and columns was the argument that the folks in Kansas were mistaken to see mainstream evolutionism as posing any contradiction to religion. The underlying assumption is that science is a matter of facts and reason, while religion is a matter of faith—and never the twain shall meet” (p. 48). However, it is becoming apparent that the reality of this opposition is the case. “The Gallup Poll has consistently shown (most recently in August 1999) that only about 10 percent of Americans believe life evolved strictly by chance and natural forces. Roughly 90 percent of Americans believe that God created life either directly or by guiding a gradual process. This large majority is beginning to suspect that Darwinism is less about objective science than about maintaining cultural power” (p. 49).

In this same issue of CT you will find an interview with Pulitzer-Prize winning author Edward J. Larson. Larson says that Christians should be taught evolution and that if the IDM is going to be successful it must get scientists to begin to “do” intelligent design. Larson’s book Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion (1997) definitely made some waves in the already troubled waters of the origins debate. Larson’s survey, conducted with Larry Witham, found this interesting statistic about scientists and religious belief: Just as James Leuba found in 1914 and 1933, about 40 percent of the rank-and-file scientists believe in a theistic God (as understood by traditional Christians, Jews and Muslims) and there is a much lower belief percentage among the scientific elite.