Understanding Evangelical Media: The Changing Face of Christian Communication

Written by Quentin J. Schulze and Robert H. Woods Jr., eds. Reviewed By James Cary

As a Christian working in the media, I was excited to hear about Understanding Evangelical Media, a collection of essays edited by Quentin J Schulze and Robert H Woods Jr. Its breadth is impressive: radio and theme parks, advertisements and comics are put under the spotlight. In each chapter various writers provide numerous examples of how Christians have used different mass-media to communicate with each other and the non-Christian world—with shaded boxes containing yet further examples and reflections.

There is, then, no shortage of information in this book. And this information is well organised as contributors explain how their respective forms of Christian media seek to instruct, delight, and persuade—which are Cicero’s three basic purposes of public communication. Clearly Cicero’s categories are useful, but why his are favoured to biblical ones? No explanation is given, which leaves us wondering why should Christian media be anything other than instructional and persuasive? Is not entertainment frivolous and distracting? Some evangelicals would say so. And have said so. But not all. This book usefully talks about ‘tribes’ rather than ‘denominations’ and is quick to acknowledge that evangelicalism is extremely broad.

But evangelicals in the book seem to have one thing in common: they are emphatically American. The lack of engagement with any evangelicalism outside the fifty states of America is startling. I don’t recall one reference even to Canada. Robert S. Fortner is given the task of surveying the rest of the world ‘Internationalizing Evangelical Media’. In such a short space, there is no time for any kind of analysis. The 100 million Christians in China are given a paragraph. Europe, which formed the bulk of Christendom for nearly 2,000 years, is covered in three paragraphs. For those of us not born in the USA, this is all rather frustrating. Clearly, this book is written for the American market, but foreign perspectives may prove useful.

This lack of self-awareness is symptomatic of many of the chapters which fail to analyse the form of media in question. Perhaps the book’s desire to be thorough across media pushed out room for looking at specific media in depth. One of the most insightful chapters is Paul A. Creasman’s chapter on radio. He examines numerous problems that Christian radio faces (in America): commercial pressures; the difficulties of preaching to the unchurched, who simply do not want to listen to Christian radio; and the reality that listeners are getting older and more conservative and therefore finding themselves unable to attract newer younger listeners. But there seems little space to consider options and alternatives for these ailing radio networks. Towards the end of the chapter, Creasman says, ‘Allowing evangelical radio broadcasting to die slowly is not good stewardship’. Why? Would it be better that it die quickly? What is the case for spending time and resources on it when it is so obviously failing (according to the reasons highlighted in the chapter)? He continues, ‘Intergenerational conversations about the future of evangelical radio are sorely needed’. I was hoping to read some in the book.

The book, however, does draw some very useful and insightful conclusions. In the final chapter, Schultze and Woods roll up their sleeves and write short, pithy statements about evangelical media that are both accurate and painful to hear, such as ‘Evangelicals are predictable’ and ‘Evangelicals avoid self-criticism about tribal media’. This is true, and well observed, but where is the evidence and what is the cause? ‘Evangelical media generally lack originality’. Again, sadly true. But what are the specific examples of this general malaise? For an evangelical working in media, reading this last chapter was very cathartic. But I was hungry for case studies, which was odd given that for over 280 pages, I had read a great deal of factual information. Ultimately, I cannot help but feel that I would rather have read a book written by Schultze and Woods, rather than their invited contributors. But I am glad I have read it nonetheless because now I do at least understand American evangelical media.


James Cary

BBC Comedy Writer

London, England, UK

Other Articles in this Issue

For Ezra had set his heart to study the Law of the LORD, and to do it and to teach his statutes and rules in Israel (Ezra 7:10)...

A fundamental requirement in an inclusivist understanding of the relationship between Christianity and other religions is evidence of God's salvific activity outside of any knowledge of Christ...

Acts 1:1 opens with a reference to what Jesus "began to do and teach"1 recounted in the Gospel of Luke, indicating that this second volume will carry the narrative of Jesus' actions and teachings forward...

It was not too long ago that Kevin Vanhoozer answered the question Is There a Meaning in This Text? by relocating meaning in authorial intention,1 doing so even more robustly (not to mention, evangelically) than E...

The original question I was asked to address was "How does our commitment to the primacy of the gospel tie into our obligation to do good to all, especially those of the household of faith, to serve as salt and light in the world, to do good to the city?" I will divide this question into two parts: (1) If we are committed to the primacy of the gospel, does the gospel itself serve as the basis and motivation for ministry to the poor? (2) If so, how then does that ministry relate to the proclamation of the gospel?